Radioactive Seed Localization With 125I For Nonpalpable Lesions Prior to Breast Lumpectomy and/or Excisional Biopsy
*Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering CancerCenter, New York, NYHealth physics (Impact Factor: 1.27). 10/2013; 105(4):356-65. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e31829c03e1
The use of radioactive seed localization (RSL) as an alternative to wire localizations (WL) for nonpalpable breast lesions is rapidly gaining acceptance because of its advantages for both the patient and the surgical staff. This paper examines the initial experience with over 1,200 patients seen at a comprehensive cancer center. Radiation safety procedures for radiology, surgery, and pathology were implemented, and radioactive material inventory control was maintained using an intranet-based program. Surgical probes allowed for discrimination between I seed photon energies from Tc administered for sentinel node testing. A total of 1,127 patients (median age of 57.2 y) underwent RSL procedures with 1,223 seeds implanted. Implanted seed depth ranged from 10.3-107.8 mm. The median length of time from RSL implant to surgical excision was 2 d. The median I activity at time of implant was 3.1 MBq (1.9 to 4.6). The median dose rate from patients with a single seed was 9.5 μSv h and 0.5 μSv h at contact and 1 m, respectively. The maximum contact dose rate was 187 μSv h from a superficially placed seed. RSL performed greater than 1 d before surgery is a viable alternative to WL, allowing flexibility in scheduling, minimizing day of surgery procedures, and improving workflow in breast imaging and surgery. RSL has been shown to be a safe and effective procedure for preoperative localization under mammographic and ultrasound guidance, which can be managed with the use of customized radiation protection controls.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Wire localization (WL) of nonpalpable breast cancers on the day of surgery is uncomfortable for patients and impacts operating room efficiency. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) before the day of surgery avoids these disadvantages. In this study we compare outcomes of our initial 6-month experience with RSL to those with WL in the preceding 6 months. Lumpectomies for invasive or intraductal cancers localized with a single (125)iodine seed (January-June 2012) were compared with those using 1 wire (July-December 2011). Surgeons and radiologists did not change. Positive and close margins were defined as tumor on ink and tumor ≤1 mm from ink, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between RSL and WL patients. There were 431 RSL and 256 WL lumpectomies performed. Clinicopathologic characteristics did not differ between groups. Most seeds (90 %) were placed before the day of surgery. Positive margins were present in 7.7 % of RSL versus 5.5 % of WL patients, and 16.9 % of RSL versus 19.9 % of WL had close margins (p = 0.38). The median operative time was longer for lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the RSL group (55 vs. 48 min, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the volume of tissue excised between groups. In the first 6 months of RSL, operative scheduling was simplified, while rates of positive and close margins were similar to those seen after many years of experience with WL. Operative time was slightly longer for RSL lumpectomy and SLNB; we anticipate this will decrease with experience.Annals of Surgical Oncology 08/2013; 20(13). DOI:10.1245/s10434-013-3166-4 · 3.93 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Nodal ultrasonography with needle biopsy of abnormal lymph nodes helps to define the extent of breast cancer before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A clip can be placed to designate lymph nodes with documented metastases. Targeted axillary dissection or selective removal of lymph nodes known to contain metastases (clip-containing nodes) as well as sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) may provide more accurate assessment of the pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To determine the feasibility of image-guided localization and resection of lymph nodes containing known metastases. This prospective feasibility trial performed at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, included 12 patients with axillary nodal metastases confirmed by results of fine-needle aspiration biopsy who had a clip placed in the lymph node targeted for biopsy from December 1, 2012, through November 30, 2013. Preoperative targeting of the clip-containing lymph node under ultrasonographic guidance consisting of wire localization in 2 patients and placement of radioactive iodine I 125 (125I)-labeled seeds in 10 patients. Surgeons removed the localized lymph node before completion axillary lymph node dissection and used radiography of the specimen to confirm removal of the clip-containing lymph node and seed. Confirmation of the removal of the clip-containing lymph node. Image-guided localization and selective removal were successful in all 12 patients. Five patients underwent SLN dissection in addition to removal of the clip-containing lymph node. Placement of 125I seeds did not interfere with lymphoscintigraphy or intraoperative identification of SLNs. In 4 of the 5 patients (80%), the clip-containing lymph node was one of the SLNs. Ten patients completed neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery. Of the 9 patients who underwent lymph node dissection, 4 (44%) had residual nodal disease after chemotherapy; all had disease identified in the clip-containing lymph node. Axillary lymph nodes marked with a clip can be localized and selectively removed to accomplish targeted axillary dissection, which is technically possible after chemotherapy and is easily performed with other axillary surgery, such as SLN dissection. The ability to add selective removal of the clip-containing lymph nodes to SLN dissection may identify patients for limited nodal surgery after chemotherapy with increased accuracy for determining residual disease compared with SLN identification alone.12/2014; 150(2). DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1086
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Radioactive Seed Localization with a radioactive iodine-125 seed (RSL) and Radioguided Occult Lesion Localization with 99mTechnetium colloid (ROLL) are both attractive alternatives to wire localization for guiding breast conserving surgery (BCS) of non-palpable breast cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of RSL and ROLL. We retrospectively analyzed 387 patients with unifocal non-palpable ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive carcinoma treated with BCS at the Netherlands Cancer Institute. In total 403 non-palpable lesions were localized either by RSL (N = 128) or by ROLL (N = 275). Primary outcome measures were positive margins and re-excision rates; the secondary outcome measure was weight of the specimen. Pre-operative mammography or ultrasound showed similar sizes of DCIS and invasive tumours in both RSL and ROLL groups. In the RSL group, more lesions were DCIS (58%) than in the ROLL group, where 32% of the lesions were pure DCIS. The proportions of focally positive margins (11% vs. 10%) and more than focally positive margins (9% vs. 9%) were comparable between the RSL and the ROLL group, resulting in the same re-excision rate in both RSL and ROLL groups (9% vs. 10%). For DCIS lesions, the specimen weight was significantly lower in the RSL group than in the ROLL group after adjusting for tumour size on mammography (12 g; 95% CI 2.6-21). Margin status and re-excision rates were comparable for RSL and ROLL in patients with non-palpable breast lesions. Because of the significant lower weight of the resected specimen in DCIS, the feasibility of position verification of the I-125 seed and more convenient logistics, we favour RSL over ROLL to guide breast-conserving therapy. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.European Journal of Surgical Oncology 02/2015; 41(4). DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2015.01.022 · 3.01 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.