Advertisement
Breast Imaging| Volume 75, P22-26, July 2021

Download started.

Ok

Effects of iron oxide particles on MRI and mammography in breast cancer patients after a sentinel lymph node biopsy with paramagnetic tracers

Published:December 26, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.12.011
Effects of iron oxide particles on MRI and mammography in breast cancer patients after a sentinel lymph node biopsy with paramagnetic tracers
Previous ArticlePost-lumpectomy breast calcifications: Can original tumor features assist in determining need for biopsy?
Next ArticleLesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography compared to full field digital screening mammography

      Highlights

      • •
        SLNB performed with iron oxide particles may accumulate in the breast and cause troublesome artifacts in follow-up MRI examinations
      • •
        Accumulating iron oxide particles that are administered in SLNB may cause artifacts in mammography mimicking malignant lesions
      • •
        Breast cancer patients must be questioned for the usage of iron oxide particles in SLNB before a follow-up mammogram or MRI

      Abstract

      Objective

      The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of iron oxide particle deposition on follow-up mammograms and MRI examinations of patients who underwent sentinel lymph node detection with iron oxide particles.

      Materials and methods

      Two hundred and eighteen patients who had sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with iron oxide particles were evaluated. Follow-up MRI and mammography were available in 36 and 69 cases respectively. MRI examinations were evaluated for ferromagnetic artifacts that were graded as follows: 0 = No artifact, 1 = Focal area, 2 = Segmental and 3 = Regional signal void artifact. Mammography artifacts were evaluated for the presence of dense particles. Pearson's chi-square test was used for statistical analyses and P < 0.05 was accepted as significant.

      Results

      MRI artifact grading was as follows: Grade 0: 11 (30.6%), Grade 1: 14 (38.9%), Grade 2: 3 (8.3%), and Grade 3: 8 (22.2%). The grade of artifacts differed across surgery types (P = 0.019). Grade 3 artifacts were higher in breast conserving cases whereas Grade 0 was more frequent in subcutaneous mastectomy cases. Three out of 69 (4.4%) cases who had follow-up mammography had artifacts due to iron oxide particle accumulation which presented as Grade 3 MRI artifact in all.

      Conclusion

      Accumulation of iron oxide particles after SLNB with paramagnetic tracers causes artifacts on follow-up MRI examinations in half of the cases but it is significantly low in mammograms. These artifacts may be confusing in the evaluation of the images. Radiologists must be aware of these tracers and their artifacts whereas patients should be questioned for the type of SLNB before a follow-up examination.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Thill M.
        • Kurylcio A.
        • Welter R.
        • et al.
        The central-European SentiMag study: sentinel lymph node biopsy with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) vs. radioisotope.
        Breast. 2014; 23: 175-179https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2014.01.004
        View in Article
        • Douek M.
        • Klaase J.
        • Monypenny I.
        • et al.
        Sentinel node biopsy using a magnetic tracer versus standard technique: the SentiMAG multicentre trial.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21: 1237-1245https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3379-6
        View in Article
        • Ghilli M.
        • Carretta E.
        • Di Filippo F.
        • et al.
        The superparamagnetic iron oxide tracer: a valid alternative in sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer treatment.
        Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017; 26 ([doi:10.1111/ecc.12385])https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12385
        View in Article

      4. Ersoy YE, Kadioglu H. Review of novel sentinel lymph node biopsy techniques in breast cancer patients treated with Neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018 Aug;18(4):e555-e559. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2018.01.004. Epub 2018 Jan 31. PMID: 29429940.

        View in Article
        • Rubio I.T.
        • Diaz-Botero S.
        • Esgueva A.
        • et al.
        The superparamagnetic iron oxide is equivalent to the Tc99 radiotracer method for identifying the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer.
        Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41: 46-51https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2014.11.006
        View in Article

      6. Piñero-Madrona A, Torró-Richart JA, de León-Carrillo JM, et al (2015). Piñero-Madrona A, Torró-Richart JA, de León-Carrillo JM, et al. Superparamagnetic iron oxide as a tracer for sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: a comparative non-inferiority study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(8):991–997. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.017.

        View in Article

      7. Arslan G, Yılmaz C, Çelik L, Çubuk R, Tasalı N. Unexpected finding on mammography and MRI due to accumulation of iron oxide particles used for sentinel lymph node detection. Eur J Breast Health. 2019;15(3):200–202. Published 2019 Jul 1. doi:https://doi.org/10.5152/ejbh.2019.4410.

        View in Article
        • Karakatsanis A.
        • Obondo C.
        • Abdsaleh S.
        • Hersi A.F.
        • Eriksson S.
        • Wärnberg F.
        Optimisation of breast MRI compatibility after sentinel node biopsy with paramagnetic tracers.
        Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018; 44: 731-732https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.241
        View in Article
        • Krischer B.
        • Forte S.
        • Niemann T.
        • Kubik-Huch R.A.
        • Leo C.
        Feasibility of breast MRI after sentinel procedure for breast cancer with superparamagnetic tracers.
        Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018; 44: 74-79https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.11.016
        View in Article

      10. Harvey JA, Hendrick RE, Coll JM, Nicholson BT, Burkholder BT, Cohen MA. Breast MR imaging artifacts: how to recognize and fix them. Radiographics. 2007;27 Suppl 1:S131-S145. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.27si075514.

        View in Article
        • Hargreaves B.A.
        • Hargreaves B.A.
        • Worters P.W.
        • et al.
        Metal-induced artifacts in MRI.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197: 547-555https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7364
        View in Article
        • Genson C.C.
        • Blane C.E.
        • Helvie M.A.
        • Waits S.A.
        • Chenevert T.L.
        Effects on breast MRI of artifacts caused by metallic tissue marker clips.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188: 372-376https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.1254
        View in Article

      13. Singh DR, Chin MS, Peh WC. Artifacts in musculoskeletal MR imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2014;18(1):12–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1365831.

        View in Article
        • Forte S.
        • Kubik-Huch R.A.
        • Leo C.
        Improvement in breast magnetic resonance imaging after a sentinel procedure for breast cancer with superparamagnetic tracers.
        Eur J Radiol Open. 2019; 6 (Published 2019 Jun 7): 215-219
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2019.05.006
        View in Article

      Article info

      Publication history

      Published online: December 26, 2020
      Accepted: December 17, 2020
      Received in revised form: November 16, 2020
      Received: May 23, 2020

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.12.011

      Copyright

      © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX