Umar Wazir1,2, Salim Tayeh1, Nicholas Perry1, Michael Michell1, Anmol Malhotra1, Kefah Mokbel3. 1. The London Breast Institute, Princess Grace Hospital, London, U.K. 2. Department of General Surgery, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan. 3. The London Breast Institute, Princess Grace Hospital, London, U.K. kefahmokbel@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Wire-guided localisation (WGL) has been the mainstay for localisation of clinically occult breast lesions before excision. However, it has restrictive scheduling requirements, and causes patient discomfort. This has prompted the development of various wireless alternatives. In this prospective study we shall evaluate the role of radiation-free wireless localisation using a radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag and a hand-held reader (LOCalizer™) in the management of occult breast lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This technique was evaluated in a prospective cohort of 10 patients. The evaluation focused on: i) successful deployment, ii) identification and retrieval, iii) the status of surgical margins and need for re-operation, iv) resected specimen weight, v) marker migration rates (>5mm), and vi) acceptance by patients, radiologists and surgeons. RESULTS: RFID tags (n=11) were deployed under ultrasound guidance pre-operatively to localise occult breast lesions in 10 patients. The mean time for deployment of the RFID tag was 5.4 min (range=2-20). The mean distance from the lesion was 0.45 mm (range=0-3). The mean duration for retrieval was 10.2 min (range=6-20). Mean specimen weight was 19.6 g for malignant lesions (range=4.5-42). All tags were identified, and none had migrated. There were no positive margins, re-operations, nor complications. Patient feedback was highly positive. Both radiologists and surgeons rated the LOCalizer™ technique as better than WGL. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that wireless localisation using RFID is an effective and time-efficient alternative to WGL, with low margin positivity and re-operation rates, and high patient, radiologist and surgeon acceptance. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: Wire-guided localisation (WGL) has been the mainstay for localisation of clinically occult breast lesions before excision. However, it has restrictive scheduling requirements, and causes patient discomfort. This has prompted the development of various wireless alternatives. In this prospective study we shall evaluate the role of radiation-free wireless localisation using a radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag and a hand-held reader (LOCalizer™) in the management of occult breast lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This technique was evaluated in a prospective cohort of 10 patients. The evaluation focused on: i) successful deployment, ii) identification and retrieval, iii) the status of surgical margins and need for re-operation, iv) resected specimen weight, v) marker migration rates (>5mm), and vi) acceptance by patients, radiologists and surgeons. RESULTS: RFID tags (n=11) were deployed under ultrasound guidance pre-operatively to localise occult breast lesions in 10 patients. The mean time for deployment of the RFID tag was 5.4 min (range=2-20). The mean distance from the lesion was 0.45 mm (range=0-3). The mean duration for retrieval was 10.2 min (range=6-20). Mean specimen weight was 19.6 g for malignant lesions (range=4.5-42). All tags were identified, and none had migrated. There were no positive margins, re-operations, nor complications. Patient feedback was highly positive. Both radiologists and surgeons rated the LOCalizer™ technique as better than WGL. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that wireless localisation using RFID is an effective and time-efficient alternative to WGL, with low margin positivity and re-operation rates, and high patient, radiologist and surgeon acceptance. Copyright
Authors: Caroline McGugin; Tara Spivey; Suzanne Coopey; Barbara Smith; Bridget Kelly; Michele Gadd; Kevin Hughes; Brian Dontchos; Michelle Specht Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-07-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Charles E Cox; Scott Russell; Vanessa Prowler; Ebonie Carter; Abby Beard; Ankur Mehindru; Peter Blumencranz; Kathleen Allen; Michael Portillo; Pat Whitworth; Kristi Funk; Julie Barone; Denise Norton; Jerome Schroeder; Alice Police; Erin Lin; Freddie Combs; Freya Schnabel; Hildegard Toth; Jiyon Lee; Beth Anglin; Minh Nguyen; Lynn Canavan; Alison Laidley; Mary Jane Warden; Ronald Prati; Jeff King; Steven C Shivers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: B Schermers; J A van der Hage; C E Loo; M T F D Vrancken Peeters; H A O Winter-Warnars; F van Duijnhoven; B Ten Haken; S H Muller; T J M Ruers Journal: Breast Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Benjamin K Y Chan; Jill A Wiseberg-Firtell; Ramesh H S Jois; Katrin Jensen; Riccardo A Audisio Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-12-31
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: 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