Wolfram Malter1, Christian Eichler1, Bettina Hanstein1, Peter Mallmann1, Johannes Holtschmidt2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany johannes.holtschmidt@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, whether radio frequency identification (RFID) labeling of axillary lymph nodes (LNs) for the use of targeted resection is feasible in primary breast cancer patients with suspicious LNs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 10 consecutive patients where RFID technique was used for intraoperative detection of suspicious LNs without preceding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). We compared the specifics of these procedures to 10 consecutive sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in the cN0 situation. RESULTS: Intraoperative detection rate (DR) for the RFID-labeled target lymph node (TLN) was 100%. Perioperative complications were infrequent and comparable to SLNB. Average time for location of the RFID labeled TLN was quicker than for the SLN. In 71.4% the chip bearing TLN equaled a SLN. CONCLUSION: The use of the RFID technique for intraoperative localization of axillary LNs for targeted excision seems feasible. RFID technique for targeted axillary dissection (TAD) following NACT should be investigated in a prospective manner. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, whether radio frequency identification (RFID) labeling of axillary lymph nodes (LNs) for the use of targeted resection is feasible in primary breast cancerpatients with suspicious LNs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 10 consecutive patients where RFID technique was used for intraoperative detection of suspicious LNs without preceding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). We compared the specifics of these procedures to 10 consecutive sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in the cN0 situation. RESULTS: Intraoperative detection rate (DR) for the RFID-labeled target lymph node (TLN) was 100%. Perioperative complications were infrequent and comparable to SLNB. Average time for location of the RFID labeled TLN was quicker than for the SLN. In 71.4% the chip bearing TLN equaled a SLN. CONCLUSION: The use of the RFID technique for intraoperative localization of axillary LNs for targeted excision seems feasible. RFID technique for targeted axillary dissection (TAD) following NACT should be investigated in a prospective manner. Copyright
Authors: Anita Mamtani; Andrea V Barrio; Tari A King; Kimberly J Van Zee; George Plitas; Melissa Pilewskie; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Mary L Gemignani; Alexandra S Heerdt; Lisa M Sclafani; Virgilio Sacchini; Hiram S Cody; Sujata Patil; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Robert E Mansel; Lesley Fallowfield; Mark Kissin; Amit Goyal; Robert G Newcombe; J Michael Dixon; Constantinos Yiangou; Kieran Horgan; Nigel Bundred; Ian Monypenny; David England; Mark Sibbering; Tholkifl I Abdullah; Lester Barr; Utheshtra Chetty; Dudley H Sinnett; Anne Fleissig; Dayalan Clarke; Peter J Ell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Maggie L DiNome; Amy M Kusske; Deanna J Attai; Cheryce P Fischer; Anne C Hoyt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Diego Flores-Funes; José Aguilar-Jiménez; María Martínez-Gálvez; María José Ibáñez-Ibáñez; Luis Carrasco-González; José Ignacio Gil-Izquierdo; María Asunción Chaves-Benito; Francisco Ayala-De La Peña; Andrés Nieto-Olivares; José Luis Aguayo-Albasini Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Sarah Temin; Stephen B Edge; Lisa A Newman; Roderick R Turner; Donald L Weaver; Al B Benson; Linda D Bosserman; Harold J Burstein; Hiram Cody; James Hayman; Cheryl L Perkins; Donald A Podoloff; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Umberto Veronesi; Giovanni Paganelli; Giuseppe Viale; Alberto Luini; Stefano Zurrida; Viviana Galimberti; Mattia Intra; Paolo Veronesi; Chris Robertson; Patrick Maisonneuve; Giuseppe Renne; Concetta De Cicco; Francesca De Lucia; Roberto Gennari Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: V Bossuyt; E Provenzano; W F Symmans; J C Boughey; C Coles; G Curigliano; J M Dixon; L J Esserman; G Fastner; T Kuehn; F Peintinger; G von Minckwitz; J White; W Yang; S Badve; C Denkert; G MacGrogan; F Penault-Llorca; G Viale; D Cameron Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: J M Simons; M L M A van Pelt; A W K S Marinelli; M E Straver; A M Zeillemaker; L M Pereira Arias-Bouda; T J A van Nijnatten; L B Koppert; K K Hunt; M L Smidt; E J T Luiten; C C van der Pol Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Maggie Banys-Paluchowski; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Jana de Boniface; Oreste Gentilini; Elmar Stickeler; Steffi Hartmann; Marc Thill; Isabel T Rubio; Rosa Di Micco; Eduard-Alexandru Bonci; Laura Niinikoski; Michalis Kontos; Guldeniz Karadeniz Cakmak; Michael Hauptmann; Florentia Peintinger; David Pinto; Zoltan Matrai; Dawid Murawa; Geeta Kadayaprath; Lukas Dostalek; Helidon Nina; Petr Krivorotko; Jean-Marc Classe; Ellen Schlichting; Matilda Appelgren; Peter Paluchowski; Christine Solbach; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Thorsten Kühn Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 6.639