Long-Term Ultrasound Twinkling Detectability and Safety of a Polymethyl Methacrylate Soft Tissue Marker Compared to Conventional Breast Biopsy Markers-A Preclinical Study in a Porcine Model.

OBJECTIVE: We have studied the use of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) as an alternative biopsy marker that is readily detectable with ultrasound Doppler twinkling in cases of in vitro, ex vivo, or limited duration in vivo settings. This study investigates the long-term safety and ultrasound Doppler twinkling detectability of a PMMA breast biopsy marker following local perturbations and different dwell times in a 6-mo animal experiment. METHODS: This study, which was approved by our Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, involved three pigs and utilized various markers, including PMMA (Zimmer Biomet), 3D-printed, and Tumark Q markers. Markers were implanted at different times for each pig. Mesh material or ethanol was used to induce a local inflammatory reaction near certain markers. A semiquantitative twinkling score assessed twinkling for actionable localization during monthly ultrasounds. At the primary endpoint, ultrasound-guided localization of lymph nodes with detectable markers was performed. Following surgical resection of the localized nodes, histomorphometric analysis was conducted to evaluate for tissue ingrowth and the formation of a tissue rind around the markers. RESULTS: No adverse events occurred. Twinkling scores of all markers for all three pigs decreased gradually over time. The Q marker exhibited the highest mean twinkling score followed by the PMMA marker, PMMA with mesh, and Q with ethanol. The 3D-printed marker with mesh and PMMA with ethanol had the lowest scores. All wire-localized lymph nodes were successfully resected. Despite varying percentages of tissue rind around the markers and a significant reduction in overall twinkling (p < 0.001) over time, mean PMMA twinkling scores remained clinically actionable at 6 and 5 mo using a General Electric C1-6 probe and 9L-probe, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this porcine model, the PMMA marker demonstrates an acceptable safety profile. Clinically actionable twinkling aids PMMA marker detection even after 6 mo of dwell time in porcine lymph nodes. The Q marker maintained the greatest twinkling over time compared to all the other markers studied.

Exosomal hsa_circ_000200 as a potential biomarker and metastasis enhancer of gastric cancer via miR-4659a/b-3p/HBEGF axis.

BACKGROUND: Exosome, a component of liquid biopsy, loaded protein, DNA, RNA and lipid gradually emerges as biomarker in tumors. However, exosomal circRNAs as biomarker and function mechanism in gastric cancer (GC) are not well understood. METHODS: Differentially expressed circRNAs in GC and healthy people were screened by database. The identification of hsa_circ_000200 was verified by RNase R and sequencing, and the expression of hsa_circ_000200 was evaluated using qRT-PCR. The biological function of hsa_circ_000200 in GC was verified in vitro. Western blot, RIP, RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization, and double luciferase assay were utilized to explore the potential mechanism of hsa_circ_000200. RESULTS: Hsa_circ_000200 up-regulated in GC tissue, serum and serum exosomes. Hsa_circ_000200 in serum exosomes showed better diagnostic ability than that of tissues and serum. Combined with clinicopathological parameters, its level was related to invasion depth, TNM staging, and distal metastasis. Functionally, knockdown of hsa_circ_000200 inhibited GC cells proliferation, migration and invasion in vitro, while its overexpression played the opposite role. Importantly, exosomes with up-regulated hsa_circ_000200 promoted the proliferation and migration of co-cultured GC cells. Mechanistically, hsa_circ_000200 acted as a "ceRNA" for miR-4659a/b-3p to increase HBEGF and TGF-ß/Smad expression, then promoted the development of GC. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that hsa_circ_000200 promotes the progression of GC through hsa_circ_000200/miR-4659a/b-3p/HBEGF axis and affecting the expression of TGF-ß/Smad. Serum exosomal hsa_circ_000200 may serve as a potential biomarker for GC.

Using US Twinkling Artifact to Identify Breast Biopsy Markers: Brief Report.

Breast biopsy markers play an essential role in the surgical management of patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer. Marking a pathology-proven lymph node ensures accurate imaging assessment of response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy and decreased false-negative rates in sentinel lymph node biopsy. There is a clinically unmet need to make breast biopsy markers, particularly in the axilla, more sonographically visible or identifiable for preoperative localization purposes. Previously described color Doppler US twinkling artifact of some breast biopsy markers in in vitro gel phantoms and in ex vivo cadaveric breasts suggests that twinkling of such markers can be leveraged for improved in vivo detection. In this retrospective case series of eight female patients (mean age, 58.6 years ± 12.3 [SD]), conventional B-mode US imaging failed to identify the biopsy marker associated with a surgical target in the breast or in an axillary lymph node. However, in each patient, the marker was successfully identified with the help of color Doppler US twinkling. Keywords: Breast, Ultrasound, Color Doppler US, Lymphatic, Artifacts, Biopsy Marker Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Does breast biopsy marker cost and availability influence utilisation in radiology practice?

INTRODUCTION: Breast Screen Australia and Breast Screen Aotearoa guidelines recommend breast biopsy marker (BBM) use in indicated patients. This study aims to evaluate whether BBM cost and availability impacts BBM utilisation. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated to radiologists who identified 'breast imaging' as their area of practice in the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) customer relationship management system. Survey questions addressed participant demographics and factors relating to BBM use. RESULTS: Most (92%, 245/266) participants report that BBMs are routinely available at their place of practice. Those employed in private practice were more likely to report that BBMs are not routinely available. 22% (58/266) of radiologists report that BBM cost influences choice of biopsy type (core biopsy vs fine needle aspirate), this finding was more frequent in those employed in private practice. 47% of respondents report that the cost of BBMs is passed on to the patient, with all these respondents employed in a private or mixed private/public setting. Half the respondents (133/266) reported that their decision to use BBMs would be influenced by the availability of insurance coverage to cover BBM costs. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that BBM cost and availability influences both choice of biopsy type (core biopsy vs FNA) and choice to use a BBM. Radiologists working in private practice or mixed private/public practice report that BBMs are less likely to be available for use, and that BBM cost is more likely passed to the patient; possibly disadvantaging patients who present to private radiology providers with imaging findings or conditions that would indicate BBM insertion under current national guidelines.

Evaluating breast biopsy practice and breast biopsy marker utilisation in the clinical setting.

INTRODUCTION: Breast Screen Australia and Breast Screen Aotearoa guidelines recommend breast biopsy marker (BBM) use in indicated patients. This study aims to evaluate breast biopsy practice and BBM utilisation by modality. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated to radiologists who identified 'breast imaging' as their area of practice in the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) customer relationship management system. Survey questions addressed participant demographics and factors relating to BBM use. RESULTS: Most respondents (72%) place between 1 and 4 BBMs per week. Almost all (99%) respondents perform ultrasound-guided biopsy of the breast or axillary nodes, with 85% performing stereotactic or tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsy and 27% performing MRI-guided breast biopsy. BBM utilisation differs by modality, with 97% respondents always placing a BBM post-MRI-guided breast biopsy, 50% always placing a BBM post-stereotactic-guided biopsy and 3% always placing a BBM post-ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all radiologists perform breast biopsy using ultrasound, stereotactic/tomosynthesis or MRI guidance. BBM utilisation varies by modality, with 72% of respondents placing between 1 and 4 clips per week. Reasons for placing or not placing BBM aligned with prior studies. This is the first study to evaluate the number of breast biopsies performed by radiologists on a weekly or monthly basis, providing a useful platform for comparison in the local setting.

Contrast-Enhanced In-Phase Dixon Sequence: Impact on Biopsy Clip Detection on Breast MRI.

BACKGROUND. Identification of breast biopsy clips using conventional MRI sequences may be challenging. A contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence may have greater conspicuity for areas of susceptibility compared with standard clinical sequences. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to compare detection of breast biopsy clips on MRI between the contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence and three routine clinical sequences. METHODS. This retrospective study included 164 patients (mean age, 50.3 years) with a total of 281 breast biopsy clips who underwent contrast-enhanced breast MRI between January 2, 2019, and April 16, 2020. Three radiologists, blinded to the clip location and sequence used, independently annotated biopsy clip locations on three clinical sequences (T1-weighted non-fat-suppressed [NFS], STIR, and first phase from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted fat-suppressed [FS]) and on a contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence and then recorded confidence scores (1-4 scale). A study coordinator used all available imaging and reports to localize clips on MRI, which served as the reference standard. A physicist measured clip CNR. Sequences were compared using the McNemar test and two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS. Among the three readers, pooled sensitivity and PPV were 78.2% and 96.2% for T1-weighted NFS, 26.6% and 92.7% for STIR, 61.7% and 95.9% for contrast-enhanced T1-weighted FS, and 85.1% and 95.1% for contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence. Pooled sensitivity was higher for contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence than for the other sequences (all p < .05); pooled PPV was not significantly different between contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon and the other sequences (all p > .05). Mean confidence scores (pooled across readers for true-positive assessments) and mean CNR were 3.0 ± 0.9 (SD) and 1.21 ± 0.61 for T1-weighted NFS, 1.7 ± 0.9 and 0.57 ± 0.69 for STIR, 2.5 ± 1.0 and 0.54 ± 0.61 for contrast-enhanced T1-weighted FS, and 3.5 ± 0.8 and 4.05 ± 2.6 for the contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence. Pooled mean confidence scores and CNR were higher for contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon than for the other sequences (all p < .001). CONCLUSION. Compared with clinical sequences, the contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence had higher sensitivity for detecting breast biopsy clips on MRI and higher reader confidence and CNR, without change in PPV. CLINICAL IMPACT. The contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence may help address a current challenge in clinical breast MRI interpretation.

Factors Associated With Ultrasound Color Doppler Twinkling by Breast Biopsy Markers: In Vitro and Ex Vivo Evaluation of 35 Commercially Available Markers.

BACKGROUND. Targeted axillary lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for breast cancer depends on identifying marked metastatic lymph nodes. However, ultrasound visualization of biopsy markers is challenging. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to identify biopsy markers that show actionable twinkling in cadaveric breast and to assess the association of actionable twinkling with markers' surface roughness. METHODS. Commercial breast biopsy markers were evaluated for twinkling artifact in various experimental conditions relating to scanning medium (solid gel phantom, ultrasound coupling gel, cadaveric breast), transducer (ML6-15, 9L, C1-6), and embedding material (present vs absent). Markers were assigned twinkling scores from 0 (confident in no twinkling) to 4 (confident in exuberant twinkling); a score of 3 or greater represented actionable twinkling (sufficient confidence to rely solely on twinkling for target localization). Markers were hierarchically advanced to evaluation with increasingly complex media if showing at least minimal twinkling for a given medium. A 3D coherence optical profiler measured marker surface roughness. Mixed-effects proportional odds regression models assessed associations between twinkling scores and transducer and embedding material; Wilcoxon rank sum test evaluated associations between actionable twinkling and surface roughness. RESULTS. Thirty-five markers (21 with embedding material) were evaluated. Ten markers without embedding material advanced to evaluation in cadaveric breast. Higher twinkling scores were associated with presence of embedding material (odds ratio [OR] = 5.05 in solid gel phantom, 9.84 in coupling gel) and transducer (using the C1-6 transducer as reference; 9L transducer: OR = 0.36, 0.83, and 0.04 in solid gel phantom, ultrasound coupling gel, and cadaveric breast; ML6-15 transducer: OR = 0.07, 0.18, and 0.00 respectively; post hoc p between 9L and ML6-15: p < .001, p = .02, and p = .04). In cadaveric breast, three markers (Cork, Professional Q, MRI [Flex]) exhibited actionable twinkling for two or more transducers; surface roughness was significantly higher for markers with than without actionable twinkling for C1-6 (median values: 0.97 vs 0.35, p = .02) and 9L (1.75 vs 0.36; p = .002) transducers. CONCLUSION. Certain breast biopsy markers exhibited actionable twinkling in cadaveric breast. Twinkling was observed with greater confidence for the C1-6 and 9L transducers than the ML6-15 transducer. Actionable twinkling was associated with higher marker surface roughness. CLINICAL IMPACT. Use of twinkling for marker detection could impact preoperative or intraoperative localization after NST.

Current status of biopsy markers for the breast in clinical settings.

INTRODUCTION: A breast biopsy marker is a very small object that is introduced into the breast to serve as a tissue marker. The placement of a breast marker following a biopsy or to mark an abnormality in the breast has become standard practice in the clinical setting. Breast biopsy markers offer a wide range of benefits which includes the prevention of re-biopsy of a benign tumor, differentiating multiple lesions within the breast, evaluation of the extent of a tumor, and increased precision during surgery. AREAS COVERED: This review article presents a range of breast biopsy markers used in clinical practice. First, an overview of the necessity of breast markers in healthy breast management. Second, it summarizes the diversity in composition, shape, unique properties and features, and bio-absorbable carriers of breast biopsy markers. Finally, it also discusses the possible use of clinically approved breast biopsy markers in various scenarios and their implications. EXPERT OPINION: This review serves as a guide in the selection of an appropriate breast marker. We believe that some of the common drawbacks associated with current breast biopsy markers can be overcome by developing novel polymer-metal and composite-based breast biopsy markers.

Advantages and Challenges of Using Breast Biopsy Markers.

Percutaneous image-guided biopsy procedures are the standard of care for histologic assessment of suspicious breast lesions. Post-biopsy tissue markers (clips) optimize patient management by allowing for assessment on follow-up imaging and precise lesion localization. Markers are used to ensure accurate correlation between imaging modalities, guide preoperative localization for malignant and high-risk lesions, and facilitate accurate identification of benign lesions at follow-up. Local practices differ widely, and there are no data detailing the exact frequency of use of clips for different breast biopsies. There are many indications for biopsy marker deployment, and some difficulties may be encountered after placement. The placement of biopsy markers has many advantages and few disadvantages, such that deployment should be routinely used after percutaneous biopsy procedures with rare exception.

Structured Reporting: An Intervention to Improve Procedure Documentation in Breast Imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate intervention of structured reporting after wrong-site surgery that occurred after localization of an incorrect breast biopsy marker. METHODS: An IRB-exempt retrospective database review identified patients who underwent core-needle biopsy of a breast lesion from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2020. They were divided into three cohorts: 2014 pre-intervention/pre-sentinel, 2017 pre-intervention/post-sentinel, and 2019 post-intervention of structured reports. One hundred reports per cohort were reviewed for documentation of marker and shape. Statistical analysis was performed with mixed-effects logistic regression model and chi-squared test with P < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: The 2014 cohort consisted of 100 patients with 122 biopsies. Twenty-seven (22.1%) were excluded: 5/122 (4.1%) lesion resolution, 22/122 (18.0%) no documentation whether marker was/was not placed. Of the 95 biopsies remaining, 4/95 (4.2%) had no marker placed, 62/95 (65.3%) reported marker only, and 29/95 (30.5%) reported marker and shape. In the 2017 cohort, 100 patients underwent 108 biopsies. Four/108 (3.7%) were excluded: lesion resolution. Of the 104, 10/104 (9.6%) had no marker placed, 22/104 (21.2%) reported marker only, and 72/104 (69.2%) reported marker and shape. In the 2019 cohort, 100 patients underwent 114 biopsies. Two/114 (1.8%) were excluded: lesion resolution. Of the 112, 3/112 (2.7%) had no marker placed, 3/112 (2.7%) reported marker only, and 106/112 (94.6%) reported marker and shape. The predicted probability of both marker placement and shape described were statistically greater for 2019 compared to the other cohorts (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Using structured reports facilitates and improves documentation of breast biopsy markers and may potentially reduce the risk of medical errors.

Using Ultrasound Color Doppler Twinkling to Identify Biopsy Markers in the Breast and Axilla.

In breast radiology, ultrasound detection of biopsy markers or clips for localization purposes is often challenging, especially in the axilla. The purpose of this research was to test the hypothesis that the surface roughness of biopsy clips would elicit a twinkling signature on color Doppler, making them more readily identifiable by ultrasound. Ultrasound color Doppler imaging of 12 biopsy markers was performed and consensus scoring of the degree of twinkling (0 [no twinkling] to 4 [exuberant twinkling]) was obtained for each of the markers. The surface roughness characteristics of the markers were measured using 3-D coherence scanning interferometry. The 3 markers scoring at least 3 for twinkling in vitro were cork, Q and Vision. Of these 3 markers, only the cork marker scored a 4 ex vivo and in cadaveric tissue. Surface roughness metrics demonstrated a positive estimated correlation with the twinkling scores (rho = 0.33, 95% CI = [-0.48 to 0.84]). Of the 12 markers tested, the markers that twinkled corresponded to surface roughness measured with non-contact 3-D optical imaging. Qualitatively, lower color scales and color frequencies optimized twinkling, but the most specific qualitative predictor of confidence in twinkling was insensitivity to changes in color scale and color frequency values.

Multispectral Imaging for Metallic Biopsy Marker Detection During MRI-Guided Breast Biopsy: A Feasibility Study for Clinical Translation.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of multispectral MRI (MSI) in the detection and localization of biopsy markers during MRI-guided breast biopsy. METHODS: This prospective study included 20 patients undergoing MR-guided breast biopsy. In 10 patients (Group 1), MSI was acquired following tissue sampling and biopsy marker deployment. In the other 10 patients (Group 2), MSI was acquired following tissue sampling but before biopsy marker deployment (to simulate deployment failure). All patients received post-procedure mammograms. Group 1 and Group 2 designations, in combination with the post-procedure mammogram, served as the reference standard. The diagnostic performance of MSI for biopsy marker identification was independently evaluated by two readers using two-spectral-bin MR and one-spectral-bin MR. The κ statistic was used to assess inter-rater agreement for biopsy marker identification. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of biopsy marker detection for readers 1 and 2 using 2-bin MSI were 90.0% (9/10) and 90.0% (9/10), 100.0% (10/10) and 100.0% (10/10), 95.0% (19/20) and 95.0% (19/20); and using 1-bin MSI were 70.0% (7/10) and 80.0% (8/10), 100.0% (8/8) and 100.0% (10/10), 85.0% (17/20) and 90.0% (18/20). Positive predictive value was 100% for both readers for all numbers of bins. Inter-rater agreement was excellent: κ was 1.0 for 2-bin MSI and 0.81 for 1-bin MSI. CONCLUSION: MSI is a feasible, diagnostically accurate technique for identifying metallic biopsy markers during MRI-guided breast biopsy and may eliminate the need for a post-procedure mammogram.

Are breast biopsy markers underused?

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate current use of breast biopsy markers (BBM) amongst Australian and New Zealand radiologists. METHODS: Radiologists attending a national breast conference were invited to complete an online survey addressing demographics, BBM use following ultrasound, stereotactic, tomosynthesis and MRI-guided biopsy, frequency of early BBM displacement, preoperative lesion localisation (PLL) and axillary BBM use. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 52% (60/115). The majority (n = 45) 75% practiced in Australia. 98% had BBMs available in their practice, 40% reported BBM costs weren't covered by insurance. 27% would use BBMs more often if they were, with some utilising smaller gauge devices for lesion sampling to minimise need for BBM use and patient out-of-pocket costs. Ultrasound-guided procedures were associated with lower rates of clinically significant BBM displacement (P = 0.001). Considering PLL, 44% were able to perform US-guided PLL in <25% of cases. Poor sonographic visibility was the commonest reason why this wasn't possible. In the axilla, BBMs were mainly used to mark positive nodes in pre-neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients. CONCLUSION: This survey is the first to provide data on BBM use amongst a sample of predominantly Australian and New Zealand radiologists, and provides compelling evidence of significantly lower incidence of BBM displacement with US-guided procedures. Our results suggest some radiologists may hesitate to use BBMs due to cost, and this can influence their choice of biopsy technique. Provision of a Medicare item Number for BBMs may lead to increased adoption of best practice guidelines for preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions.

Long-term safety and efficacy of breast biopsy markers in clinical practice.

Objective: 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.Methods: A retrospective review of three radiology practices identified patients who underwent image-guided breast or axillary biopsies followed by marker placement between 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2017. Medical records were reviewed with adverse events related to marker placement and use recorded.Results: 768 markers were placed with three (0.4%) events recorded. Two device deficiencies and one non-serious adverse event occurred in three patients. Device deficiency events involved user errors deploying the markers, one to inability to locate the marker on post-biopsy imaging, and the second to misplacement relative to biopsy target. One non-serious adverse event involved inability to locate/retain the marker in a surgically resected specimen. No serious adverse events were reported.Conclusion: Placement of breast biopsy markers is safe with minimal associated risks. Issues related to device malfunction, durability, reliability, safety, or performance were not reported.

Dipole modeling of multispectral signal for detecting metallic biopsy markers during MRI-guided breast biopsy: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: During MRI-guided breast biopsy, a metallic biopsy marker is deployed at the biopsy site to guide future interventions. Conventional MRI during biopsy cannot distinguish such markers from biopsy site air, and a post-biopsy mammogram is therefore performed to localize marker placement. The purpose of this pilot study is to develop dipole modeling of multispectral signal (DIMMS) as an MRI alternative to eliminate the cost, inefficiency, inconvenience, and ionizing radiation of a mammogram for biopsy marker localization. METHODS: DIMMS detects and localizes the biopsy marker by fitting the measured multispectral imaging (MSI) signal to the MRI signal model and marker properties. MSI was performed on phantoms containing titanium biopsy markers and air to illustrate the clinical challenge that DIMMS addresses and on 20 patients undergoing MRI-guided breast biopsy to assess DIMMS feasibility for marker detection. DIMMS was compared to conventional MSI field map thresholding, using the post-procedure mammogram as the reference standard. RESULTS: Biopsy markers were detected and localized in 20 of 20 cases using MSI with automated DIMMS post-processing (using a threshold of 0.7) and in 18 of 20 cases using MSI field mapping (using a threshold of 0.65 kHz). CONCLUSION: MSI with DIMMS post-processing is a feasible technique for biopsy marker detection and localization during MRI-guided breast biopsy. With a 2-min MSI scan, DIMMS is a promising MRI alternative to the standard-of-care post-biopsy mammogram.

Challenges to I-125 Seed Localization of Metastatic Axillary Lymph Nodes Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective study is to characterize challenges with ultrasound (US)-guided localization of clipped metastatic axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, our radiology database was searched for all radioactive seed localizations (RSLs), which use a low-dose radioactive isotope, Iodine-125, performed for clipped axillary lymph nodes between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. The details of each procedure were reviewed. RSL was defined to be successful if US-guidance was used, and postlocalization imaging showed the seed was no more than 1 cm away from the target. Cause and subsequent management of unsuccessful localizations were documented. RESULTS: During the study period, 139 clipped axillary lymph nodes (in 138 women and 1 man) were scheduled for preoperative RSL. The overall success rate of RSL was 106/139 (76%). The number of unsuccessful localizations was 10/37 (27%) in 2016, 7/39 (18%) in 2017, and 16/63 (25%) in 2018, with a total unsuccessful case frequency of 33/139 (24%) over the entire study period. The mean time interval between marker placement and localization was 6.0 months (range 0.4-18.1 months). The coil biopsy marker was the most frequently used marker. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative US-guided I-125 seed localization of clipped metastatic axillary lymph nodes is suboptimal or unsuccessful 24% of the time. Other options for non-US imaging-guided localizations, such as tomosynthesis, are available for consideration when US detection is unsuccessful.

The ambiguous role of microRNA-205 and its clinical potential in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Early treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is significantly delayed due to the lack of liquid biopsy markers for early diagnosis at surgically resectable tumor stages. Recent studies suggest that microRNA-205 (miR-205) is involved in PDAC progression by post-transcriptional regulation of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). However, the clinical potential of miR-205 as diagnostic and prognostic marker remains undefined and its exact role in PDAC is still ambiguous. This retrospective study is a substantial contribution to this on-going scientific discussion. METHODS: Expression analysis of miR-205 and its molecular targets in PDAC cell lines (n = 5), human tissue (n = 73), and blood serum samples (n = 85) by qRT-PCR, tissue microarray immunohistochemistry, and western blot. Descriptive and explorative statistical analysis of miR-205's clinical potential for diagnosis and prognosis of PDAC. RESULTS: The expression of miR-205 differs more than 2000-fold (p < 0.001) between epithelial and mesenchymal-like human PDAC cell lines correlating with EMT-marker expression of E-cadherin, vimentin, fibronectin, and ZEB-1. Expression of miR-205 is significantly upregulated in carcinoma tissue (eightfold, p = 0.028) and serum (2.3-fold, p = 0.023) of PDAC patients compared to age-matched healthy controls. In our patient collective circulating miR-205 in combination with CA.19-9 outperforms the diagnostic accuracy of CA.19-9 alone with an AUC of 0.890 (p < 0.001), sensitivity of 0.867, and specificity of 0.933. Though non-significant, low expression of circulating miR-205 is more frequent in advanced tumor stages combined with a worse overall survival (6.9 vs. 11.9 months, p = 0.176). CONCLUSION: Besides its controversial role in carcinogenesis, miR-205 shows high potential as a solid and liquid biopsy marker in PDAC. This result is an urgent call for larger confirmatory multi-center studies.

Evaluation of the dislocation and long-term sonographic detectability of a hydrogel-based breast biopsy site marker.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the usefulness of the HydroMARK, a hydrogel-based breast biopsy site marker for ultrasound localization of breast lesions, we investigated the tendency for dislocation and sonographic detectability of the marker placed in patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The marker was placed in lesions that were expected to become obscured after biopsy for a suspicious breast lesion or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. The patients consented to return for a repeat ultrasound ± mammography examination, and the degree of displacement of the marker was measured as the marker-to-residual lesion distance. RESULTS: The marker was placed after stereotactic biopsy, ultrasound-guided biopsy, and before/during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in 11, 22, and 7 lesions, respectively. Surgical resection was performed for 22 of the 40 lesions, while remaining 18 benign lesions were followed. The marker was sonographically detectable in 89.7% (35/39), 100% (35/35), and 100% (18/18) of the cases, respectively, at a median of 8 days, 13 weeks, and 11 months after the deployment. The degree of displacement was lower in the ultrasound-guided placement group than in the stereotactic placement group (median displacement: 0 vs. 4.3 mm; p = 0.001), it was also lower in the core-needle biopsy and neoadjuvent therapy cases than in the vacuum-assisted biopsy cases (p = 0.003). At a median interval of 2.5 months after deployment, the marker remained unchanged in location in all cases (n = 18, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The HydroMARK appears to be a safe and effective marker with the advantageous characteristics of a low tendency for dislocation with time and long-term sonographic detectability.