Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Radiofrequency identification tag localization is comparable to wire localization for non-palpable breast lesions

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag localization (TL) is a technique of localizing non-palpable breast lesions that can be performed prior to surgery. We sought to evaluate whether TL is comparable to wire localization (WL) in regard to specimen size, operative time, and re-excision rate.

Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on TL and WL excisional biopsies and lumpectomies performed by 5 surgeons at 2 institutions. Cases were stratified by surgery type and surgical indication. Associations between localization technique and specimen volume, operative time, and re-excision rate were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

A total of 503 procedures were included, 147 TL (29.2%) and 356 WL (70.8%). Nineteen (12.9%) RFID tags were placed before surgery, ranging 1–22 days. All intended targets were removed. TL and WL excisional biopsy and lumpectomy specimen volumes were similar (p = 0.560 and 0.494). TL and WL excisional biopsy and lumpectomy + SLNB operative times were similar (p = 0.152 and 0.158), but TL lumpectomies without SLNB took longer than WL (57 min vs 49 min; p = 0.027). Re-excision rates were similar by surgical procedure (p = 0.615), surgical indication (DCIS p = 0.145; invasive carcinoma p = 0.759), and confirmed by multivariable analysis (OR 0.754, 95% CI 0.392–1.450; p = 0.397).

Conclusions

TL has similar surgical outcomes to WL with added benefit that TL can occur prior to the day of surgery. TL is an acceptable alternative to WL and should be considered for non-palpable breast lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher B et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1233–1241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Veronesi U et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1227–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lautner M et al (2015) Disparities in the use of breast-conserving therapy among patients with early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 150(8):778–786

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lovrics PJ et al (2009) The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 197(6):740–746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hayes MK (2017) Update on preoperative breast localization. Radiol Clin N Am 55(3):591–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mayo RC 3rd, Kalambo MJ, Parikh JR (2019) Preoperative localization of breast lesions: current techniques. Clin Imaging 56:1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. In 't Hout BA et al (2016) Efficacy of localization of non-palpable, invasive breast cancer: wire localization vs. Iodine-125 seed: a historical comparison. Breast 29:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Parvez E et al (2018) Adoption and outcomes of radioguided seed localization for non-palpable invasive and in situ breast cancer at three academic tertiary care centers. Am J Surg 216(6):1160–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Murphy JO et al (2013) Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol 20(13):4121–4127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tran VT et al (2017) Comparative evaluation of Iodine-125 radioactive seed localization and wire localization for resection of breast lesions. Can Assoc Radiol J 68(4):447–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dauphine C et al (2015) A prospective clinical study to evaluate the safety and performance of wireless localization of nonpalpable breast lesions using radiofrequency identification technology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(6):W720–W723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reicher JJ et al (2008) Radio frequency identification tags for preoperative tumor localization: proof of concept. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(5):1359–1365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. DiNome ML et al (2019) Microchipping the breast: an effective new technology for localizing non-palpable breast lesions for surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 175:165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wapnir IL, Wartenberg DE, Greco RS (1996) Three dimensional staging of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 41(1):15–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Luiten JD et al (2015) Iodine seed- versus wire-guided localization in breast-conserving surgery for non-palpable ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg 102(13):1665–1669

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Boughey JC et al (2013) Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA 310(14):1455–1461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Caudle AS et al (2016) Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of targeted axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol 34(10):1072–1078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Boughey JC et al (2016) Identification and resection of clipped node decreases the false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node-positive breast cancer (T0-T4, N1-N2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from ACOSOG Z1071 (alliance). Ann Surg 263(4):802–807

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Woods RW et al (2019) A review of options for localization of axillary lymph nodes in the treatment of invasive breast cancer. Acad Radiol 26(6):805–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Hughes is a speaker for Hologic. Dr. Dontchos is a consultant for GE Healthcare. Drs. McGugin, Spivey, Coopey, Smith, Kelly, Gadd, and Specht have no disclosures to report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Yawkey 7, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Caroline McGugin, Tara Spivey, Suzanne Coopey, Barbara Smith, Bridget Kelly, Michele Gadd, Kevin Hughes & Michelle Specht

  2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Brian Dontchos

Authors
  1. Caroline McGugin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tara Spivey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suzanne Coopey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barbara Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bridget Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michele Gadd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kevin Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Brian Dontchos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michelle Specht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Specht.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. McGugin declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Spivey declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Coopey declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Smith declares that she has no conflict of interest. Ms. Kelly declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Gadd declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Hughes has received a speaker honorarium from Hologic. Dr. Dontchos has provided consultant work for GE Healthcare. Dr. Specht declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Research involved in human or animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McGugin, C., Spivey, T., Coopey, S. et al. Radiofrequency identification tag localization is comparable to wire localization for non-palpable breast lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat 177, 735–739 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05355-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05355-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation