The Evolving Role of Radiofrequency Guided Localisation in Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review

Resection Ratios and Tumor Eccentricity in Breast-Conserving Surgery Specimens for Surgical Accuracy Assessment

This study aims to evaluate several defined specimen parameters that would allow to determine the surgical accuracy of breast-conserving surgeries (BCS) in a representative population of patients. These specimen parameters could be used to compare surgical accuracy when using novel technologies for intra-operative BCS guidance in the future. Different specimen parameters were determined among 100 BCS patients, including the ratio of specimen volume to tumor volume (resection ratio) with different optimal margin widths (0 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm, and 10 mm). Furthermore, the tumor eccentricity [maximum tumor-margin distance - minimum tumor-margin distance] and the relative tumor eccentricity [tumor eccentricity ÷ pathological tumor diameter] were determined. Different patient subgroups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. When using a surgical margin width of 0 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm, and 10 mm, on average, 19.16 (IQR 44.36), 9.94 (IQR 18.09), 6.06 (IQR 9.69) and 1.35 (IQR 1.78) times the ideal resection volume was excised, respectively. The median tumor eccentricity among the entire patient population was 11.29 mm (SD = 3.99) and the median relative tumor eccentricity was 0.66 (SD = 2.22). Resection ratios based on different optimal margin widths (0 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm, and 10 mm) and the (relative) tumor eccentricity could be valuable outcome measures to evaluate the surgical accuracy of novel technologies for intra-operative BCS guidance.

Evolution of localization methods for non-palpable breast lesions: a literature review from a translational medicine perspective

Background and Objective

With an increasing number of non-palpable breast lesions detected due to improved screening, accurate localization of these lesions for surgery is crucial. This literature review explores the evolution of localization methods for non-palpable breast lesions, highlighting the translational journey from concept to clinical practice.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases until September 2023 was conducted.

Key Content and Findings

Multiple methods have been developed throughout the past few decades. (I) Wire-guided localization (WGL) introduced in 1966, has become a reliable method for localization. Its simplicity and cost-effectiveness are its key advantages, but challenges include logistical constraints, patient discomfort, and potential wire migration. (II) Intraoperative ultrasound localization (IOUS) has shown promise in ensuring complete lesion removal with higher negative margin rates. However, its utility is limited to lesions visible on ultrasound (US) imaging. (III) Breast biopsy marker localization: the use of markers has improved the precision of localization without the need for wire. However, marker visibility remains a challenge despite improvements in their design. (IV) Radioactive techniques: radio-guided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and radioactive seed localization (RSL) offer flexibility in scheduling and improved patient comfort. However, they require close multidisciplinary collaboration and specific equipment due to radioactive concerns. (V) Other wireless non-radioactive techniques: wireless non-radioactive techniques have been developed in recent three decades to provide flexible and patient-friendly alternatives. It includes magnetic seed localization, radar techniques, and radiofrequency techniques. Their usage has been gaining popularity due to their safety profile and allowance of more flexible scheduling. However, their high cost and need for additional training remain a barrier to a wider adoption.

Conclusions

The evolution of breast lesion localization methods has progressed to more patient-friendly techniques, each with its unique advantages and limitations. Future research on patient-reported outcomes, cosmetic outcomes, breast biopsy markers and integration of augmented reality with breast lesion localization are needed.

Evaluating Radar Reflector Localisation in Targeted Axillary Dissection in Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

SAVI SCOUT® or radar reflector localisation (RRL) has proven accurate in localising non-palpable breast and axillary lesions, with minimal interference with MRI. Targeted axillary dissection (TAD), combining marked lymph node biopsy (MLNB) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), is becoming a standard post-neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for node-positive early breast cancer. Compared to SLNB alone, TAD reduces the false negative rate (FNR) to below 6%, enabling safer axillary surgery de-escalation. This systematic review evaluates RRL's performance during TAD, assessing localisation and retrieval rates, the concordance between MLNB and SLNB, and the pathological complete response (pCR) in clinically node-positive patients post-NST. Four studies (252 TAD procedures) met the inclusion criteria, with a 99.6% (95% confidence [CI]: 98.9-100) successful localisation rate, 100% retrieval rate, and 81% (95% CI: 76-86) concordance rate between SLNB and MLNB. The average duration from RRL deployment to surgery was 52 days (range:1-202). pCR was observed in 42% (95% CI: 36-48) of cases, with no significant migration or complications reported. Omitting MLNB or SLNB would have under-staged the axilla in 9.7% or 3.4% (p = 0.03) of cases, respectively, underscoring the importance of incorporating MLNB in axillary staging post-NST in initially node-positive patients in line with the updated National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. These findings underscore the excellent efficacy of RRL in TAD for NST-treated patients with positive nodes, aiding in accurate axillary pCR identification and the safe omission of axillary dissection in strong responders.

The Impact of an Electromagnetic Seed Localization Device Versus Wire Localization on Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Matched-Pair Analysis

BACKGROUND

For breast-conserving surgery (BCS), several alternatives to wire localization (WL) have been developed. The newest, electromagnetic seed localization (ESL), provides three-dimensional navigation using the electrosurgical tool. This study assessed operative times, specimen volumes, margin positivity, and re-excision rates for ESL and WL.

METHODS

Patients who had ESL-guided breast-conserving surgery between August 2020 and August 2021 were reviewed and matched one-to-one with patients who had WL based on surgeon, procedure type, and pathology. Variables were compared between ESL and WL using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

The study matched 97 patients who underwent excisional biopsy (n = 20) or partial mastectomy with (n = 53) or without (n = 24) sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using ESL. The median operative time for ESL versus WL for lumpectomy was 66 versus 69 min with SLNB (p = 0.76) and 40 versus 34.5 min without SLNB (p = 0.17). The median specimen volume was 36 cm3 using ESL versus 55 cm3 using WL (p = 0.001). For the patients with measurable tumor volume, excess tissue was greater using WL versus ESL (median, 73.2 vs. 52.5 cm3; p = 0.017). The margins were positive for 10 (10 %) of the 97 ESL patients and 18 (19 %) of the 97 WL patients (p = 0.17). In the ESL group, 6 (6 %) of the 97 patients had a subsequent re-excision compared with 13 (13 %) of the 97 WL patients (p = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar operative times, ESL is superior to WL, as evidenced by decreased specimen volume and excess tissue excised. Although the difference was not statistically significant, ESL resulted in fewer positive margins and re-excisions than WL. Further studies are needed to confirm that ESL is the most advantageous of the two methods.

Localization Techniques for Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: Current Status, Knowledge Gaps, and Rationale for the MELODY Study (EUBREAST-4/iBRA-NET, NCT 05559411)

BACKGROUND

Surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion requires a localization step. Among available techniques, wire-guided localization (WGL) is most commonly used. Other techniques (radioactive, magnetic, radar or radiofrequency-based, and intraoperative ultrasound) have been developed in the last two decades with the aim of improving outcomes and logistics.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review on localization techniques for non-palpable breast cancer.

RESULTS

For most techniques, oncological outcomes such as lesion identification and clear margin rate seem either comparable with or better than for WGL, but evidence is limited to small cohort studies for some of the devices. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with significantly higher negative margin rates in meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Radioactive techniques were studied in several RCTs and are non-inferior to WGL. Smaller studies show higher patient preference towards wire-free localization, but little is known about surgeons' and radiologists' attitudes towards these techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Large studies with an additional focus on patient, surgeon, and radiologist preference are necessary. This review aims to present the rationale for the MELODY (NCT05559411) study and to enable standardization of outcome measures for future studies.

Radiofrequency Identification—RFID using LOCalizer-Tag in Non-palpable Breast Lump

For many years, wire-guided localization represented the gold standard method for the detection of non-palpable breast lesions, despite the acknowledged limitations. LOCalizer™ is the most recent and promising radiofrequency identification system, characterized by the capability of measuring the distance from the tagged lesion in millimeters and the association of each marker with a unique code. A 45-year-old woman with two lesions suspected of cancer in the same breast was referred to our department. She underwent double localization with LOCalizer™ (Hologic, Santa Carla, CA, USA) of the lumps into opposite quadrants. We performed a mini-invasive and oncologically safe surgical excision through a tunneling approach after a peri-areolar incision. The surgical technique realized with Localizer™ could be an effective method for locating multiple non-palpable breast lesions and is able to offer excellent oncological and cosmetic results, as also confirmed by several reports in the literature.

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.