Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is increasingly recommended for patients with early breast cancer, and the rate of patients with pathological complete remission (pCR) is increasing due to the use of modern chemotherapy regimens and targeted therapies, especially in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (HER2+) breast cancer and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). It is therefore important to mark a lesion (with e.g. clip) before the start of NST in order to safely identify and localize a clip and (former) tumor bed after completion of NST. Reliable sonographic detection of the clip would be preferred to mammography-guided detection and marking. In addition to avoiding radiation exposure by mammography and reducing time, personnel and financial expenditure, ultrasound-guided wire marking of the clip is less painful for the patient than stereotactic wire marking.
The present prospective registry study aims to evaluate how often the intramammary TumarkĀ® Vision clip can be detected by ultrasound after completion of NST in patients with TNBC and HER2+ breast cancer and thus, in the case of pCR, how often the elaborate clipping with mammographic (stereotactic) guidance can be avoided.
Breast cancer patients whose carcinomas have an aggressive tumor biology which implies the need for chemotherapy are increasingly being treated with NST. As a standard procedure, clip placement of the suspicious lesion is performed after ultrasound-guided core biopsy or mammography-guided vacuum biopsy. Clipping is necessary to enable the clear identification of the sonographically suspicious area of the breast and safe surgical removal of the remaining tumor tissue (if any) during a later surgery, even following a good response under NST. The placement of a marker (clip) is particularly important for the precise localization of the original tumor bed in patients with pCR.
There are a number of commercially available markers (clips) which are indicated for intramammary marking of a lesion and which differ in terms of shape and material. Difficulties may arise in placing the clip in the tumor or the tumor center. In addition, the clip can dislocate from the initial location and/or the clip might not be visualized during response monitoring. Evaluations of the ultrasound-visible clip made of nitinol investigated in this study showed very good results regarding marker dislocation and visibility within 7 days after inital placement.The clip, which immediately unfolds into a 3-dimensional spherical structure after insertion into the tissue, could be detected by both sonography and mammography in all 50 cases after the intervention; however, long-term data data at follow-up controls during and after NST are not available so far.
According to current German guidelines, imaging-assisted wire marking is recommended without restriction before breast conserving surgery for non-palpable lesions. The clip is considered the target lesion for wire marking, which can be done under sonographic or stereotactic control. If the clip is reliably visible on ultrasound (even in patients with pCR), the stereotactic control of wire marking can be omitted. Therefore, the ability to visualize a clip in breast ultrasonography is of great importance.
The present multicenter study aims to evaluate the sonographic detection rate of the intramammary TumarkĀ® Vision clips after NST in clinical routine and the proportion of cases in which the clip cannot be detected, and thus the rate of mammography-guided wire markings.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| US-guided core biopsy and clip placement | Female patients with sonographically suspicious, intramammary foci, scheduled for ultrasound-guided core biopsy and marking of the lesion with the TumarkĀ® Vision Clip |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TumarkĀ® Vision clip | Device | Suspicious intramammary lesion is marked with clip |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Sonographic detection rate of clip at the time of surgery after completion of NST | Intraoperative detection rate of the clip in patients with HER2+ breast cancer or TNBC after at least 12 weeks of NST treatment | At the time of surgery |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Number of ultrasound-guided clip placements per patient | a) Number of lesions marked with a clip per patient and b) Number of clips per lesion | Immediately after placement of clip |
| Rate of successful clip placements in the tumor center |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients with a suspicious intramammary lesion in the breast are identified as female during presentation in the clinic according to their health insurance ID card.
Not provided
Female patients with sonographically suspicious unilateral or bilateral intramammary foci, scheduled for sonography-guided core biopsy and marking of the lesion with the TumarkĀ® Vision Clip.
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Sherko Kuemmel, MD, PhD | Interdisciplinary Breast Unit, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Germany | Principal Investigator |
| Mattea Reinisch, MD | Interdisciplinary Breast Unit, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Germany | Study Chair |
| Jƶrg Heil, MD, PhD | Department of Gynecology, Breast Center, Heidelberg University, Germany | Study Chair |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interdisciplinary Breast Unit, Kliniken Essen-Mitte | Essen | 45136 | Germany |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29887788 | Background | Ruland AM, Hagemann F, Reinisch M, Holtschmidt J, Kummel A, Dittmer-Grabowski C, Stoblen F, Rotthaus H, Dreesmann V, Blohmer JU, Kummel S. Using a New Marker Clip System in Breast Cancer: Tumark Vision(R) Clip - Feasibility Testing in Everyday Clinical Practice. Breast Care (Basel). 2018 Apr;13(2):116-120. doi: 10.1159/000486388. Epub 2018 Mar 9. | |
| 29175149 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001943 | Breast Neoplasms |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| D001941 | Breast Diseases |
| D012871 | Skin Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Formalin fixed tissue from routine histopathology assessment
Not successful: clip placement technically not possible or clip was placed outside the tumor (indication of the distance from the tumor center in mm)
| Immediately after placement of clip |
| Visibility of the device (TumarkĀ® Vision) cannula | Visibility (very good, good, sufficient or bad) of the cannula during US-guided clip placement | During placement of clip |
| Complications associated with the application of the clip | e.g. hematoma, infection, dislocation, pain (in patients with or without NST) | Up to 6 months after placement of clip |
| Sonographic detection rate of clips in patients receiving NST | Detection rate at different time points in all patients receiving NST | Immediately after placement of clip as well as after 4-8, 9-12, 13-26 weeks of NST treatment and preoperatively |
| Sonographic detection rate of clips in TNBC and HER2+ patients receiving NST | Detection rate at different time points in TNBC or HER2+ breast cancer receiving NST | Immediately after clip placement as well as after 4-8, 9-12, 13-26 weeks of NST treatment and preoperatively |
| Sonographic detection rate of clips in all patients receiving NST and with pCR | Definition of pCR according to residual cancer burden (RCB) score | Immediately after clip placement as well as after 4-8, 9-12,13-26 weeks of NST treatment and preoperatively |
| Sonographic detection rate of clips in patients not receiving NST | Subgroup of study population not receiving NST | Immediately after clip placement and preoperatively |
| Intraoperative detection rate of the clip in specimen radiographs | Detection of clip in surgical specimen from the breast subjected to radiography | At the time of surgery |
| Intraoperative detection rate of the clip on specimen utrasound images | Detection of clip in surgical specimen from the breast subjected to ultrasonography | At the time of surgery |
| Proportion of patients requiring preoperative, mammography-guided wire marking | If ultrasound-guided wire marking is not feasible, mammography-guided wire marking is performed | Preoperatively |
| Proportion of patients with mammographic verification after sonographic wire-marking | If ultrasound-guided wire marking is inconclusive | Preoperatively |
| Proportion of patients with artifacts caused by clips | On ultrasound and/or mammography images | Up to 6 months after placement of clip |
| Number of patients with complete pathological remission | ypT0/is, ypN0 status after histological evaluation (according to Residual Cancer Burden [RCB] score) of Symmans (2007) | Up to 10 weeks after surgery |
| Hurvitz SA, Martin M, Symmans WF, Jung KH, Huang CS, Thompson AM, Harbeck N, Valero V, Stroyakovskiy D, Wildiers H, Campone M, Boileau JF, Beckmann MW, Afenjar K, Fresco R, Helms HJ, Xu J, Lin YG, Sparano J, Slamon D. Neoadjuvant trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and chemotherapy versus trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (KRISTINE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19(1):115-126. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30716-7. Epub 2017 Nov 23. |
| 22508812 | Background | von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, Gerber B, Eiermann W, Hilfrich J, Huober J, Jackisch C, Kaufmann M, Konecny GE, Denkert C, Nekljudova V, Mehta K, Loibl S. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 20;30(15):1796-804. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595. Epub 2012 Apr 16. |
| 30059952 | Background | Shah AD, Mehta AK, Talati N, Brem R, Margolies LR. Breast tissue markers: Why? What's out there? How do I choose? Clin Imaging. 2018 Nov-Dec;52:123-136. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.07.003. Epub 2018 Jul 6. |
| D017437 |
| Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases |