Maggie L DiNome1, Amy M Kusske2, Deanna J Attai2, Cheryce P Fischer3, Anne C Hoyt3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. mdinome@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. 3. Department of Radiologic Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, 1260 15th Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90404, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Use of a wire to localize a non-palpable breast lesion for surgery is standard but archaic. We sought to evaluate a new radiofrequency localization system (RFLS) as an effective, non-radioactive alternative to the wire. METHODS: Patients who required surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion were consented for the study. Patients underwent localization with a radiofrequency Tag and surgical removal guided by the handheld LOCalizer probe. The primary study endpoint was successful placement and retrieval of the Tag, and secondary endpoints included marker migration; days prior to surgery of Tag insertion; patient, radiologist, and surgeon experience; distance of Tag from skin; and positive margin and re-excision rates for cancer. RESULTS: Fifty patients had successful placement and retrieval of the radiofrequency Tag. Likert questionnaire data revealed that most patients thought the procedure went smoothly and was easier than expected. Radiologists and surgeons thought that the Tag was as reliable as the wire. Of the 33 patients who had surgery for in situ or invasive cancer, one had a positive margin on final pathology (3%) and two underwent re-excision (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this pilot study suggest that the RFLS is an effective localization system for non-palpable breast lesions intended for surgical removal. Unlike most other technologies, the LOCalizer probe detects distance from the Tag, and this unique feature may have contributed to the low positive margin rate seen in this study. The RFLS appears to offer advantages over current localization procedures and should be explored as an alternative to wire. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03202472.
PURPOSE: Use of a wire to localize a non-palpable breast lesion for surgery is standard but archaic. We sought to evaluate a new radiofrequency localization system (RFLS) as an effective, non-radioactive alternative to the wire. METHODS:Patients who required surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion were consented for the study. Patients underwent localization with a radiofrequency Tag and surgical removal guided by the handheld LOCalizer probe. The primary study endpoint was successful placement and retrieval of the Tag, and secondary endpoints included marker migration; days prior to surgery of Tag insertion; patient, radiologist, and surgeon experience; distance of Tag from skin; and positive margin and re-excision rates for cancer. RESULTS: Fifty patients had successful placement and retrieval of the radiofrequency Tag. Likert questionnaire data revealed that most patients thought the procedure went smoothly and was easier than expected. Radiologists and surgeons thought that the Tag was as reliable as the wire. Of the 33 patients who had surgery for in situ or invasive cancer, one had a positive margin on final pathology (3%) and two underwent re-excision (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this pilot study suggest that the RFLS is an effective localization system for non-palpable breast lesions intended for surgical removal. Unlike most other technologies, the LOCalizer probe detects distance from the Tag, and this unique feature may have contributed to the low positive margin rate seen in this study. The RFLS appears to offer advantages over current localization procedures and should be explored as an alternative to wire. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03202472.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast surgery; Radiofrequency Tag; Wire-free localization
Authors: Wolfram Malter; Christian Eichler; Bettina Hanstein; Peter Mallmann; Johannes Holtschmidt Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Patrik Pöschke; Julius Emons; Felix Heindl; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Sebastian Jud; Ramona Erber; Carolin C Hack; Caroline Preuss; Annika Behrens Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Wolfram Malter; Johannes Holtschmidt; Fabinshy Thangarajah; Peter Mallmann; Barbara Krug; Mathias Warm; Christian Eichler Journal: In Vivo Date: 2019 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Umar Wazir; Salim Tayeh; Nicholas Perry; Michael Michell; Anmol Malhotra; Kefah Mokbel Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Bianca M den Dekker; Anke Christenhusz; Thijs van Dalen; Lisa M Jongen; Margreet C van der Schaaf; Anneriet E Dassen; Ruud M Pijnappel Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 4.430