Konstantinos Zacharioudakis1, Sue Down2, Zaheerah Bholah3, Sum Lee3, Taherah Khan3, Anthony J Maxwell4, Miles Howe3, James Harvey3. 1. The Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK. Electronic address: kzacharioudakis@yahoo.gr. 2. James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Lowestoft Road, Gorleston-on-Sea, Great Yarmouth, NR31 6LA, UK. 3. The Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK. 4. The Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK; Division of Informatics, Imaging & Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Magseed is an alternative method of localising non-palpable breast lesions that has addressed many of the limitations of wire guided localisation (WGL). It consists of a paramagnetic seed that can be visualised on mammography and ultrasound. Intraoperative localisation of the seed is achieved with the use of the Sentimag probe. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare localisation in patients undergoing wide local excision (WLE) for non-palpable lesions between Magseed and WGL. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on all patients undergoing image-guided WLE between October 2017 and September 2018 in two academic breast units with a planned accrual of 100 consecutive patients undergoing Magseed localisation. Data was also collected on a cohort of 100 consecutive patients undergoing WGL in the same time period. RESULTS: Demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. 4/104 patients were converted preoperatively from Magseed to WGL (2 misplaced Magseeds; 2 undetected Magseeds). Intraoperative identification and excision of the localised lesion was successful in all patients as confirmed with specimen radiography. Overall no significant differences were observed in the proportion of patients requiring re-excision between the two groups (Magseed 16% vs. WGL 14% p = 0.692). Specimens size by weight and volume was similar for both groups (Magseed 39.6 g vs. WGL 44.5 g p = 0.206 and 90.1 cm3 for Magseed vs. 95.6 cm3 for WGL p = 0.579). CONCLUSIONS: In our series Magseed localisation proved to be as reliable and effective as WGL in terms of lesion identification, excision with tumour free margins and specimen weight.
INTRODUCTION: Magseed is an alternative method of localising non-palpable breast lesions that has addressed many of the limitations of wire guided localisation (WGL). It consists of a paramagnetic seed that can be visualised on mammography and ultrasound. Intraoperative localisation of the seed is achieved with the use of the Sentimag probe. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare localisation in patients undergoing wide local excision (WLE) for non-palpable lesions between Magseed and WGL. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on all patients undergoing image-guided WLE between October 2017 and September 2018 in two academic breast units with a planned accrual of 100 consecutive patients undergoing Magseed localisation. Data was also collected on a cohort of 100 consecutive patients undergoing WGL in the same time period. RESULTS: Demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. 4/104 patients were converted preoperatively from Magseed to WGL (2 misplaced Magseeds; 2 undetected Magseeds). Intraoperative identification and excision of the localised lesion was successful in all patients as confirmed with specimen radiography. Overall no significant differences were observed in the proportion of patients requiring re-excision between the two groups (Magseed 16% vs. WGL 14% p = 0.692). Specimens size by weight and volume was similar for both groups (Magseed 39.6 g vs. WGL 44.5 g p = 0.206 and 90.1 cm3 for Magseed vs. 95.6 cm3 for WGL p = 0.579). CONCLUSIONS: In our series Magseed localisation proved to be as reliable and effective as WGL in terms of lesion identification, excision with tumour free margins and specimen weight.
Authors: Friedrich Kühn; Charlotte Emmi Elisabeth Simon; Ilhamiyya Aliyeva; Julia KUßMAUL; Jessica GROß; Oliver Schweizerhof; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Maria Margarete Karsten Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 May-Jun 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: Puneet Singh; Marion E Scoggins; Aysegul A Sahin; Rosa F Hwang; Henry M Kuerer; Abigail S Caudle; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Alastair M Thompson; Isabelle Bedrosian; Mediget Teshome; Sarah M DeSnyder; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Open Date: 2020-12
Authors: Melanie Lindenberg; Anne van Beek; Valesca Retèl; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Wim van Harten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gianluca Franceschini; Elena Jane Mason; Cristina Grippo; Sabatino D'Archi; Anna D'Angelo; Lorenzo Scardina; Alejandro Martin Sanchez; Marco Conti; Charlotte Trombadori; Daniela Andreina Terribile; Alba Di Leone; Beatrice Carnassale; Paolo Belli; Riccardo Manfredi; Riccardo Masetti Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-02-04
Authors: Aikaterini E Micha; Victoria Sinnett; Kate Downey; Steve Allen; Briony Bishop; Lauren R Hector; Elaine P Patrick; Ruth Edmonds; Peter A Barry; Katherine D C Krupa; Jennifer E Rusby Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 4.239