A German Study Comparing Standard Wire Localization With Magnetic Seed Localization of Non-palpable Breast Lesions

Eco-logistical comparison of non-radioactive seeds and the wire-guided localization for intraoperative detection of breast lesions

BACKGROUND

The current standard for the preoperative marking of non-palpable breast lesions is wire guided localization (WGL) which is associated with logistical efforts and patient discomfort. Non-radioactive seeds (NRS) recently challenged the use of WGL; but do they provide a better alternative from a logistical and environmental perspective?

METHODS

WGL standard was compared with NRS available in Germany: Magseed®, Pintuition®, SAVI SCOUT ® and LOCalizer™ on a logistical and carbon-footprinting basis. In the logistical analysis the number of patient contacts with the healthcare system for lesion localization/removal and the number of breast punctures were evaluated in two different clinical scenarios (primary surgery and secondary surgery after neoadjuvant treatment). The carbon footprints of WGL and NRS (with exception of LOCalizer) were assessed based on their material compositions and operating energy in a streamlined approach.

RESULTS

Application of NRS reduces the number of contacts by 33.3 % (2 vs. 3) in primary, by 50 % (2 vs. 4) in secondary surgery, and the number of breast punctures by 33.3 % (2 vs.3). Annual Germany-wide material- and energy-based carbon footprints of NRS (1.6-3.2 tons CO2eq) are significantly lower in comparison to WGL (10.3 tons CO2eq). The implementation of NRS would lead to a CO2eq reduction by around 79 % compared to WGL.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of NRS for the localization of non palpable breast lesions is more favorable from the environmental and logistical perspective, when compared to WGL with possible benefits for patients, healthcare providers and the environment.

Non-palpable breast lesions localization techniques - A new priority: Results of a Senonetwork survey among breast centers in Italy

INTRODUCTION

Non palpable breast tumors are increasingly diagnosed because of screening programs, and their localization during surgery is essential to ensure an adequate resection. Little is known regarding which techniques are used in "real world".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A national web-based survey, with a 21-items questionnaire, was conducted among Breast Centers (BCs) in Italy in 2023.

RESULTS

Among 153 BCs, 110 (72 %) participated. Wire-guided localization was reported to be the most used technique, regardless of the volume of malignant tumors treated by each Center (N = 36, 33 %). However, newer techniques such as Radioactive occult lesion localization and magnetic seeds, were reported to be employed in 34 (31 %) BCs, and more often among high-volume BCs (>300 cases/year) (N = 32, 29 % vs. N = 13, 12 %; p = 0.02). Logistic problems of localization were reported to cause delays to the scheduled surgery at least once or in multiple occasions in 26 (24 %) and in 4 (3.5 %) BCs, respectively. Although the majority of BCs declared they were satisfied (N = 48, 44 %) or somewhat satisfied (N = 41, 37 %) with the procedure used in their center, responders stated that they would change their technique, or that they were strongly considering this possibility in 24 (22 %) and in 38 (35 %) cases, respectively. The main barrier to introducing a new technique was associated with procedure costs (90 BCs, 82 %).

CONCLUSIONS

There are several critical issues regarding localization techniques at a national level. This should be recognized as a priority because of its impact on both patients and clinical practices.

Comparison of Wire and Non-Wire Localisation Techniques in Breast Cancer Surgery: A Review of the Literature with Pooled Analysis

Background and Objectives: Wide local excision is a common procedure in the treatment of breast cancer. Wire-guided localisation (WGL) has been the gold standard for many years; however, several issues have been identified with this technique, and therefore, wire-free techniques have been developed. This scoping review synthesises the available literature comparing wire-guided localisation with the wire-free techniques used in breast-conserving cancer surgery. Materials and Methods: Multiple databases including Pubmed and MEDLINE were used to search articles between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2022. Terms included "breast neoplasms", "margins of excision", and "reoperation". In total, 34/256 papers were selected for review. Comparisons were made between positive margins and re-excision rates of WGL with wire-free techniques including SAVI SCOUT, Magseed, ROLL, and RSL. Pooled p-values were calculated using chi-square testing to determine statistical significance. Results: Pooled analysis demonstrated statistically significant reductions in positive margins and re-excision rates when SAVI SCOUT, RSL, and ROLL were compared with WGL. When SAVI SCOUT was compared to WGL, there were fewer re-excisions {(8.6% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.0001) and positive margins (10.6% vs. 15.0%; p = 0.0105)}, respectively. This was also the case in the ROLL and RSL groups. When compared to WGL; lower re-excision rates and positive margins were noted {(12.6% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.0007), (17.0% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.0268)} for ROLL and for RSL, respectively {(6.8% vs. 14.9%),(12.36% vs. 21.4%) (p = 0.0001)}. Magseed localisation demonstrated lower rates of re-excision than WGL (13.44% vs. 15.42%; p = 0.0534), but the results were not statistically significant. Conclusions: SAVI SCOUT, Magseed, ROLL, and RSL techniques were reviewed. Pooled analysis indicates wire-free techniques, specifically SAVI SCOUT, ROLL, and RSL, provide statistically significant reductions in re-excision rates and positive margin rates compared to WGL. However, additional studies and systematic analysis are required to ascertain superiority between techniques.

An Audit on Oncological Safety with Magseed Localised Breast Conserving Surgery

Wire-localised wide local excision (W-WLE) has been standard of care for impalpable breast lesions. Logistics and risks of wire localisation can be challenging. Magseed-localised wide local excision (M-WLE) is an alternative to W-WLE. We compare safety parameters and length of hospital stay (LOS) in patients undergoing M-WLE to W-WLE. All M-WLEs performed at single institution over an 8-month period were included and compared to historic matched cohort of W-WLEs who would have been suitable for Magseed localisation. Data including patient demographics, successful placements, re-excision rates, tumour size, and length of stay (LOS) was analysed. Two hundred thirty-eight patients were included in the study. Cancers were safely excised in all cases. A significant difference in re-excisions rates favouring M-WLE group was seen (2.9% vs 10.4%). Median waiting time to surgery was significantly shorter in M-WLE group (4 h 15 min vs 7 h 3 min). No significant difference in median LOS between the two groups was seen. M-WLE has been shown to be oncologically safe and non-inferior to W-WLE with significantly lower re-excision rate. Reduced pre-operative waiting time in the M-WLE group will have a positive effect on patient journey. Further research should focus on potential impact on day-bed utilisation and theatre efficiency.

Exploiting the advantages of a wireless seed localization system that differentiates between the seeds: Breast cancer resection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Most wireless localization methods utilize only one means of detection for the surgeon, sufficient to localize a single small breast lesion for excision. Complex cases requiring bracketing of a larger lesion or localization of two or more close lesions can superimpose the signal from separate "seeds" with such methods. The lack of discernment between the localization "seeds" can disorient the surgeon, risking a missed lesion on excision and longer operative times. with the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to breast surgery, the necessity of localizing both a breast lesion and an axillary lymph node previously biopsied is becoming frequent.

CASE

A 44 year-old woman underwent neoadjuvant chmotherapy for a breast cancer the did not express estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, or HER2 receptor. In establishing the extent of disease, a suspicious ipsilateral lymph node was biopsied and found to contain metastatic disease. She had an excellent response to the chemotherapy, with decreased size of the primary tumor and the previously biopsied lymph node. The patient desired breast conservation. The primary tumor and associated calcifications were bracketed using two different Smartclips™, with a third localizing the lymph node biopsied.

CONCLUSION

This report illustrates how the use of three SmartClips™, within the EnVisioTM system, allowed for separate tracking of each "seed" throughout a complex surgery in a patient following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This resulted in successful resection of both the tumor and the tagged lymph node.

Comparison of Wireless Localization Alternatives with Wire Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency identification tag localization (TL) and magnetic seed localization (MSL) are alternatives to wire localization (WL) for excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. We sought to compare localization methods with respect to operative time, specimen volume, and re-excision rate.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on TL, MSL, and WL lumpectomies and excisional biopsies at a single institution. Association between localization method and operative time, specimen volume, and re-excision rate was assessed by multiple logistic regression using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 506 procedures were included: 147 TL (29.0%), 140 MSL (27.7%), and 219 WL (43.3%). On logistic regression analysis, MSL was associated with longer operative times than WL for excisional biopsies only (OR 4.24, 95% CI 1.92 to 9.34, p < 0.001). Mean excisional biopsy time was 39.1 minutes for MSL and 33.0 minutes for WL. Specimen volume did not vary significantly across surgery types between localization methods. In an analysis of all lumpectomies with an indication of carcinoma, marker choice was not associated with rate of re-excision (TL vs WL OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.60, p = 0.342; MSL vs WL OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.49, p = 0.587; TL vs MSL OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.64, p = 0.359).

CONCLUSION

TL, MSL, and WL are comparable in performance for excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. Although increased operative time associated with MSL vs WL excisional biopsies is statistically significant, clinical significance warrants additional study. With similar outcomes, physicians may choose the marker most appropriate for the patient and setting.

Optimal localization strategies for non-palpable breast cancers –A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

Mammographic screening programmes have increased detection rates of non-palpable breast cancers. In these cases, wire-guided localization (WGL) is the most common approach used to guide breast conserving surgery (BCS). Several RCTs have compared WGL to a range of novel localization techniques. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing methods of non-palpable breast cancer localization.

Methods

A NMA was performed according to PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Analysis was performed using R packages and Shiny.

Results

24 RCTs assessing 9 tumour localization methods in 4236 breasts were included. Margin positivity and reoperation rates were 16.9% (714/4236) and 14.3% (409/2870) respectively. Cryo-assisted localization had the highest margin positivity (28.2%, 58/206) and reoperation (18.9%, 39/206) rates. Compared to WGL (n = 2045 from 24 RCTs) only ultrasound guided localization (USGL) (n = 316 from 3 RCTs) significantly lowered margin positivity (odds ratio (OR): 0.192, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.079–0.450) and reoperation rates (OR: 0.182, 95%CI: 0.069–0.434). Anchor-guided localization (n = 52, 1 RCT) significantly lowered margin positivity (OR: 0.229, 95%CI: 0.050–0.938) and magnetic-marker localization improved patient satisfaction (OR: 0.021, 95%CI: 0.001–0.548). There was no difference in operation duration, overall complications, haematoma, seroma, surgical site infection rates, or specimen size/vol/wt between methods.

Conclusion

USGL and AGL are non-inferior to WGL for the localization of non-palpable breast cancers. The reported data suggests that these techniques confer reduced margin positivity rates and requirement for re-operation. However, caution when interpreting results relating to RCTs with small sample sizes and further validation is required in larger prospective, randomized studies.

•

Ultrasound-guided (USGL) and anchor-guided (AGL) localization had optimal outcomes.

•

These methods significantly lowered margin positivity (odds ratio: 0.192 & 0.229).

•

However, small sample sizes in trials evaluating USGL and AGL limit these results.

•

Operation duration, complications, or specimen data were comparable for all methods.

Wire- and magnetic-seed-guided localization of impalpable breast lesions: iBRA-NET localisation study

BACKGROUND

Wire localization is historically the most common method for guiding excision of non-palpable breast lesions, but there are limitations to the technique. Newer technologies such as magnetic seeds may allow some of these challenges to be overcome. The aim was to compare safety and effectiveness of wire and magnetic seed localization techniques.

METHODS

Women undergoing standard wire or magnetic seed localization for non-palpable lesions between August 2018 and August 2020 were recruited prospectively to this IDEAL stage 2a/2b platform cohort study. The primary outcome was effectiveness defined as accurate localization and removal of the index lesion. Secondary endpoints included safety, specimen weight and reoperation rate for positive margins.

RESULTS

Data were accrued from 2300 patients in 35 units; 2116 having unifocal, unilateral breast lesion localization. Identification of the index lesion in magnetic-seed-guided (946 patients) and wire-guided excisions (1170 patients) was 99.8 versus 99.1 per cent (P = 0.048). There was no difference in overall complication rate. For a subset of patients having a single lumpectomy only for lesions less than 50 mm (1746 patients), there was no difference in median closest margin (2 mm versus 2 mm, P = 0.342), re-excision rate (12 versus 13 per cent, P = 0.574) and specimen weight in relation to lesion size (0.15 g/mm2versus 0.138 g/mm2, P = 0.453).

CONCLUSION

Magnetic seed localization demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to those of wire localization. This study has established a robust platform for the comparative evaluation of new localization devices.