Background: We assessed confidence in visualization of markers within metastatic axillary lymph nodes (LNs) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which were placed post-ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy.
Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 55 MRI cases between May 2015 and October 2017. Twenty-two MRIs were performed before neoadjuvant therapy, and 33 MRIs were after its initiation. There were 34/55 HydroMARK®, 10/55 Tumark®, and 11/55 other marker types. Time interval between marker placement and MRI examination was 103 ± 81 days (mean ± standard deviation). Three readers with 1-30 years of experience independently assessed four axial sequences: unenhanced fat-suppressed three-dimensional T1-weighted spoiled gradient-recalled (SPGR), first contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed SPGR, T2-weighted water-only fast spin-echo (T2-WO), and T2-weighted fat-only fast-spin-echo (T2-FO).
Results: Markers were 5.2× more likely to be visualized on T2-WO than on unenhanced images (p = < 0.001), and 3.3× more likely to be visualized on contrast-enhanced than on unenhanced sequences (p = 0.009). HydroMARK markers demonstrated a 3× more likelihood of being visualized than Tumark (p = 0.003). Markers were 8.4× more likely to be visualized within morphologically abnormal LNs (p < 0.001). After 250 days post-placement, confidence in marker brightness of HydroMARK markers on T2-WO images was less than 50% (p < 0.001). Inter-rater agreement was excellent for T2-WO and contrast-enhanced SPGR, good for unenhanced SPGR, and poor for T2-FO images.
Conclusion: T2-WO and contrast-enhanced images should be used for marker identification. HydroMARK was the best visualized marker. Markers were easier to identify when placed in abnormal LNs. The visibility of HydroMARK markers was reduced with time.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7290014 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41747-020-00161-6 | DOI Listing |
Breast Cancer
November 2024
Department of Breast Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya-Shi, Aichi-Ken, 464-8681, Japan.
ANZ J Surg
January 2023
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
J Breast Cancer
August 2021
Department of Radiology, Hospital Prof. Doutor Fernando Fonseca EPE, Amadora, Portugal.
Breast tissue markers are common in current clinical practice and are susceptible to migration. Herein, we present the case of a 47-year-old woman with invasive breast carcinoma diagnosed through ultrasound-guided core biopsy, who underwent placement of a breast marker (HydroMARK) under ultrasound guidance 30 days after core biopsy and with subsequent marker migration to the nipple. The correct position of the marker was documented by mammography after its placement and by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFRadiother Oncol
May 2021
Medical Biophysics, Western University, London, Canada; London Health Sciences Centre, London, Canada; Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Canada; Department of Oncology, Western University, London, Canada. Electronic address:
Expert Rev Med Devices
January 2021
Department of Radiology, Division of Women's and Breast Imaging, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
: Percutaneous breast and axillary core biopsy followed by marker placement are integral parts of a breast imager's practice benefiting both patients and clinicians. Marker placement is the standard to facilitate future care. The purpose of this study is to characterize the safety and performance of MammoMARK, CorMARK, and HydroMARK biopsy markers by evaluating device-related adverse events, device deficiencies, and long-term safety.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!