Literature DB >> 33611664

Performance of a novel protease-activated fluorescent imaging system for intraoperative detection of residual breast cancer during breast conserving surgery.

Conor R Lanahan1, Bridget N Kelly1, Michele A Gadd1, Michelle C Specht1, Carson L Brown1, Kevin S Hughes1, Rong Tang1, Upahvan Rai1, Elena F Brachtel2, Travis Rice-Stitt2, Barbara L Smith3.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Image-guided surgery; Intraoperative tumor detection; Lumpectomy; Margin assessment

Year:  2021        PMID: 33611664     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06106-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  20 in total

1.  The safety of multiple re-excisions after lumpectomy for breast cancer.

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

2.  Lumpectomy cavity shaved margins do not impact re-excision rates in breast cancer patients.

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

3.  Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery.

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

4.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Cancer.

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

5.  Cavity Shaving Reduces Involved Margins and Reinterventions Without Increasing Costs in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Authors:  Fabio Corsi; Luca Sorrentino; Matteo Bonzini; Daniela Bossi; Marta Truffi; Rosella Amadori; Manuela Nebuloni; Barbara Brillat; Serena Mazzucchelli
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer.

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

Review 7.  Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Karla Esbona; Zhanhai Li; Lee G Wilke
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer.

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

9.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer.

Authors:  Umberto Veronesi; Natale Cascinelli; Luigi Mariani; Marco Greco; Roberto Saccozzi; Alberto Luini; Marisel Aguilar; Ettore Marubini
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-10-17       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery with Whole-Breast Irradiation in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

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

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Cysteine Cathepsins in Breast Cancer: Promising Targets for Fluorescence-Guided Surgery.

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

2.  Clinical Impact of Intraoperative Margin Assessment in Breast-Conserving Surgery With a Novel Pegulicianine Fluorescence-Guided System: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

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

3.  Preclinical Evaluation of an Activity-Based Probe for Intraoperative Imaging of Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Gregory T Kennedy; Feredun S Azari; Bilal Nadeem; Ashley Chang; Alix Segil; Elizabeth Bernstein; Charuhas Desphande; John C Kucharczuk; Edward J Delikatny; Sunil Singhal
Journal:  Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 3.250

Review 4.  Fluorescence Molecular Targeting of Colon Cancer to Visualize the Invisible.

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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.