PURPOSE: Safe breast cancer lumpectomies require microscopically clear margins. Real-time margin assessment options are limited, and 20-40% of lumpectomies have positive margins requiring re-excision. The LUM Imaging System previously showed excellent sensitivity and specificity for tumor detection during lumpectomy surgery. We explored its impact on surgical workflow and performance across patient and tumor types. METHODS: We performed IRB-approved, prospective, non-randomized studies in breast cancer lumpectomy procedures. The LUM Imaging System uses LUM015, a protease-activated fluorescent imaging agent that identifies residual tumor in the surgical cavity walls. Fluorescent cavity images were collected in real-time and analyzed using system software. RESULTS: Cavity and specimen images were obtained in 55 patients injected with LUM015 at 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg and in 5 patients who did not receive LUM015. All tumor types were distinguished from normal tissue, with mean tumor:normal (T:N) signal ratios of 3.81-5.69. T:N ratios were 4.45 in non-dense and 4.00 in dense breasts (p = 0.59) and 3.52 in premenopausal and 4.59 in postmenopausal women (p = 0.19). Histopathology and tumor receptor testing were not affected by LUM015. Falsely positive readings were more likely when tumor was present < 2 mm from the adjacent specimen margin. LUM015 signal was stable in vivo at least 6.5 h post injection, and ex vivo at least 4 h post excision. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative use of the LUM Imaging System detected all breast cancer subtypes with robust performance independent of menopausal status and breast density. There was no significant impact on histopathology or receptor evaluation.
PURPOSE: Safe breast cancer lumpectomies require microscopically clear margins. Real-time margin assessment options are limited, and 20-40% of lumpectomies have positive margins requiring re-excision. The LUM Imaging System previously showed excellent sensitivity and specificity for tumor detection during lumpectomy surgery. We explored its impact on surgical workflow and performance across patient and tumor types. METHODS: We performed IRB-approved, prospective, non-randomized studies in breast cancer lumpectomy procedures. The LUM Imaging System uses LUM015, a protease-activated fluorescent imaging agent that identifies residual tumor in the surgical cavity walls. Fluorescent cavity images were collected in real-time and analyzed using system software. RESULTS: Cavity and specimen images were obtained in 55 patients injected with LUM015 at 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg and in 5 patients who did not receive LUM015. All tumor types were distinguished from normal tissue, with mean tumor:normal (T:N) signal ratios of 3.81-5.69. T:N ratios were 4.45 in non-dense and 4.00 in dense breasts (p = 0.59) and 3.52 in premenopausal and 4.59 in postmenopausal women (p = 0.19). Histopathology and tumor receptor testing were not affected by LUM015. Falsely positive readings were more likely when tumor was present < 2 mm from the adjacent specimen margin. LUM015 signal was stable in vivo at least 6.5 h post injection, and ex vivo at least 4 h post excision. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative use of the LUM Imaging System detected all breast cancer subtypes with robust performance independent of menopausal status and breast density. There was no significant impact on histopathology or receptor evaluation.
Authors: Suzanne Coopey; Barbara L Smith; Stephanie Hanson; Julliette Buckley; Kevin S Hughes; Michele Gadd; Michelle C Specht Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Suzanne B Coopey; Julliette M Buckley; Barbara L Smith; Kevin S Hughes; Michele A Gadd; Michelle C Specht Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Laurence E McCahill; Richard M Single; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Heather S Feigelson; Ted A James; Tom Barney; Jessica M Engel; Adedayo A Onitilo Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anees B Chagpar; Brigid K Killelea; Theodore N Tsangaris; Meghan Butler; Karen Stavris; Fangyong Li; Xiaopan Yao; Veerle Bossuyt; Malini Harigopal; Donald R Lannin; Lajos Pusztai; Nina R Horowitz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Monica Morrow; Kimberly J Van Zee; Lawrence J Solin; Nehmat Houssami; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Jay R Harris; Janet Horton; Shelley Hwang; Peggy L Johnson; M Luke Marinovich; Stuart J Schnitt; Irene Wapnir; Meena S Moran Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Daan G J Linders; Okker D Bijlstra; Laura C Fallert; Denise E Hilling; Ethan Walker; Brian Straight; Taryn L March; A Rob P M Valentijn; Martin Pool; Jacobus Burggraaf; James P Basilion; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Peter J K Kuppen Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2022-08-24 Impact factor: 3.484
Authors: E Shelley Hwang; Peter Beitsch; Peter Blumencranz; David Carr; Anees Chagpar; Lynne Clark; Nayana Dekhne; Daleela Dodge; Donna L Dyess; Linsey Gold; Stephen Grobmyer; Kelly Hunt; Stephen Karp; Beth-Ann Lesnikoski; Irene Wapnir; Barbara L Smith Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Thinzar M Lwin; Michael A Turner; Siamak Amirfakhri; Hiroto Nishino; Robert M Hoffman; Michael Bouvet Journal: Cells Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 6.600