Arnie Purushotham1,2, Maria Turska-d'Amico3, Patriek A G T Jurrius4,5, Maarten R Grootendorst6, Marika Krotewicz7, Massimiliano Cariati8, Ashutosh Kothari2, Neill Patani8, Paulina Karcz9, Monika Nagadowska7, Kunal N Vyas6. 1. School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Breast Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 3. Oncological and Reconstructive Surgery Clinic, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland. 4. School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. patriek.jurrius@kcl.ac.uk. 5. Department of Breast Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. patriek.jurrius@kcl.ac.uk. 6. Lightpoint Medical Ltd., London, United Kingdom. 7. Breast Cancer and Reconstructive Surgery Clinic, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. 8. Department of Breast Surgery, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 9. Clinical Department of Endocrinology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Institute of Oncology, Kraków, Poland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In women undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS), 20-25% require a re-operation as a result of incomplete tumour resection. An intra-operative technique to assess tumour margins accurately would be a major advantage. A novel method for intraoperative margin assessment was developed by applying a thin flexible scintillating film to specimens-flexible autoradiography (FAR) imaging. A single-arm, multi-centre study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of intraoperative [18F]FDG FAR for the assessment of tumour margins in BCS. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing BCS received ≤ 300 MBq of [18F]FDG 60-180 min pre-operatively. Following surgical excision, intraoperative FAR imaging was performed using the LightPath® Imaging System. The first 16 patients were familiarisation patients; the remaining 72 patients were entered into the main study. FAR images were analysed post-operatively by three independent readers. Areas of increased signal intensity were marked, mean normalised radiances and tumour-to-tissue background (TBR) determined, agreement between histopathological margin status and FAR assessed and radiation dose to operating theatre staff measured. Subgroup analyses were performed for various covariates, with thresholds set based on ROC curves. RESULTS: Data analysis was performed on 66 patients. Intraoperative margin assessment using FAR was completed on 385 margins with 46.2% sensitivity, 81.7% specificity, 8.1% PPV, 97.7% NPV and an overall accuracy of 80.5%, detecting both invasive carcinoma and DCIS. A subgroup analysis based on [18F]FDG activity present at time of imaging revealed an increased sensitivity (71.4%), PPV (9.3%) and NPV (98.4%) in the high-activity cohort with mean tumour radiance and TBR of 126.7 ± 45.7 photons/s/cm2/sr/MBq and 2.1 ± 0.5, respectively. Staff radiation exposure was low (38.2 ± 38.1 µSv). CONCLUSION: [18F]FDG FAR is a feasible and safe technique for intraoperative tumour margin assessment. Further improvements in diagnostic performance require optimising the method for scintillator positioning and/or the use of targeted radiopharmaceuticals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identifier: NCT02666079. Date of registration: 28 January 2016. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02666079 . ISRCTN registry: Reference: ISRCTN17778965. Date of registration: 11 February 2016. URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17778965 .
INTRODUCTION: In women undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS), 20-25% require a re-operation as a result of incomplete tumour resection. An intra-operative technique to assess tumour margins accurately would be a major advantage. A novel method for intraoperative margin assessment was developed by applying a thin flexible scintillating film to specimens-flexible autoradiography (FAR) imaging. A single-arm, multi-centre study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of intraoperative [18F]FDG FAR for the assessment of tumour margins in BCS. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing BCS received ≤ 300 MBq of [18F]FDG 60-180 min pre-operatively. Following surgical excision, intraoperative FAR imaging was performed using the LightPath® Imaging System. The first 16 patients were familiarisation patients; the remaining 72 patients were entered into the main study. FAR images were analysed post-operatively by three independent readers. Areas of increased signal intensity were marked, mean normalised radiances and tumour-to-tissue background (TBR) determined, agreement between histopathological margin status and FAR assessed and radiation dose to operating theatre staff measured. Subgroup analyses were performed for various covariates, with thresholds set based on ROC curves. RESULTS: Data analysis was performed on 66 patients. Intraoperative margin assessment using FAR was completed on 385 margins with 46.2% sensitivity, 81.7% specificity, 8.1% PPV, 97.7% NPV and an overall accuracy of 80.5%, detecting both invasive carcinoma and DCIS. A subgroup analysis based on [18F]FDG activity present at time of imaging revealed an increased sensitivity (71.4%), PPV (9.3%) and NPV (98.4%) in the high-activity cohort with mean tumour radiance and TBR of 126.7 ± 45.7 photons/s/cm2/sr/MBq and 2.1 ± 0.5, respectively. Staff radiation exposure was low (38.2 ± 38.1 µSv). CONCLUSION: [18F]FDG FAR is a feasible and safe technique for intraoperative tumour margin assessment. Further improvements in diagnostic performance require optimising the method for scintillator positioning and/or the use of targeted radiopharmaceuticals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identifier: NCT02666079. Date of registration: 28 January 2016. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02666079 . ISRCTN registry: Reference: ISRCTN17778965. Date of registration: 11 February 2016. URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17778965 .
Authors: Stephen P Povoski; Ismet Sarikaya; William C White; Steven G Marsh; Nathan C Hall; George H Hinkle; Edward W Martin; Michael V Knopp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Edward Robert St John; Rashed Al-Khudairi; Hutan Ashrafian; Thanos Athanasiou; Zoltan Takats; Dimitri John Hadjiminas; Ara Darzi; Daniel Richard Leff Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Maarten R Grootendorst; Massimiliano Cariati; Sarah E Pinder; Ashutosh Kothari; Michael Douek; Tibor Kovacs; Hisham Hamed; Amit Pawa; Fiona Nimmo; Julie Owen; Vernie Ramalingam; Sweta Sethi; Sanjay Mistry; Kunal Vyas; David S Tuch; Alan Britten; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Gary J Cook; Chris Sibley-Allen; Sarah Allen; Arnie Purushotham Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andreas K Buck; Holger Schirrmeister; Torsten Mattfeldt; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Ángel Soriano Castrejón; Alberto León Martín; Ignacio Chacón López-Muñiz; Vicente Muñoz Madero; María del Mar Muñoz Sánchez; Azahara Palomar Muñoz; Ruth Espinosa Aunión; Ana González Ageitos Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christian Stoykow; Thalia Erbes; Helmut R Maecke; Stefan Bulla; Mark Bartholomä; Sebastian Mayer; Vanessa Drendel; Peter Bronsert; Martin Werner; Gerald Gitsch; Wolfgang A Weber; Elmar Stickeler; Philipp T Meyer Journal: Theranostics Date: 2016-06-19 Impact factor: 11.556