Intraoperative [18F]FDG flexible autoradiography for tumour margin assessment in breast-conserving surgery: a first-in-human multicentre feasibility study

Patriek A G T Jurrius, Maarten R Grootendorst, Marika Krotewicz, Massimiliano Cariati, Ashutosh Kothari, Neill Patani, Paulina Karcz, Monika Nagadowska, Kunal N Vyas, Arnie Purushotham, Maria Turska-d'Amico, Patriek A G T Jurrius, Maarten R Grootendorst, Marika Krotewicz, Massimiliano Cariati, Ashutosh Kothari, Neill Patani, Paulina Karcz, Monika Nagadowska, Kunal N Vyas, Arnie Purushotham, Maria Turska-d'Amico

Abstract

Introduction: In women undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS), 20-25% require a re-operation as a result of incomplete tumour resection. An intra-operative technique to assess tumour margins accurately would be a major advantage. A novel method for intraoperative margin assessment was developed by applying a thin flexible scintillating film to specimens-flexible autoradiography (FAR) imaging. A single-arm, multi-centre study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of intraoperative [18F]FDG FAR for the assessment of tumour margins in BCS.

Methods: Eighty-eight patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing BCS received ≤ 300 MBq of [18F]FDG 60-180 min pre-operatively. Following surgical excision, intraoperative FAR imaging was performed using the LightPath® Imaging System. The first 16 patients were familiarisation patients; the remaining 72 patients were entered into the main study. FAR images were analysed post-operatively by three independent readers. Areas of increased signal intensity were marked, mean normalised radiances and tumour-to-tissue background (TBR) determined, agreement between histopathological margin status and FAR assessed and radiation dose to operating theatre staff measured. Subgroup analyses were performed for various covariates, with thresholds set based on ROC curves.

Results: Data analysis was performed on 66 patients. Intraoperative margin assessment using FAR was completed on 385 margins with 46.2% sensitivity, 81.7% specificity, 8.1% PPV, 97.7% NPV and an overall accuracy of 80.5%, detecting both invasive carcinoma and DCIS. A subgroup analysis based on [18F]FDG activity present at time of imaging revealed an increased sensitivity (71.4%), PPV (9.3%) and NPV (98.4%) in the high-activity cohort with mean tumour radiance and TBR of 126.7 ± 45.7 photons/s/cm2/sr/MBq and 2.1 ± 0.5, respectively. Staff radiation exposure was low (38.2 ± 38.1 µSv).

Conclusion: [18F]FDG FAR is a feasible and safe technique for intraoperative tumour margin assessment. Further improvements in diagnostic performance require optimising the method for scintillator positioning and/or the use of targeted radiopharmaceuticals.

Trial registration: Identifier: NCT02666079. Date of registration: 28 January 2016. URL: https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02666079 . ISRCTN registry: Reference: ISRCTN17778965. Date of registration: 11 February 2016. URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17778965 .

Keywords: Breast cancer; Breast-conserving surgery; Flexible autoradiography; Margin assessment; Re-operation rate.

Conflict of interest statement

Professor Arnie Purushotham is joint chief investigator for the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre which is jointly funded by Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research. Maarten R. Grootendorst and Kunal N. Vyas are both employees of and shareholders in Lightpoint Medical Ltd. There are no other relevant potential conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic representation of FAR imaging using a flexible scintillating film. Tumour cells containing a PET-radiotracer (e.g. [18F]FDG) emit β+-particles which are converted to scintillations by the flexible scintillator. As β+-particles travel a limited distance in tissue, [18F]FDG containing cells are detected up to approximately 1 mm in tissue. The scintillations are measured by an ultra-sensitive emCCD camera. The flexible scintillators 12 µm thickness makes the scintillator insensitive to 511 keV ɣ-photons
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Workflow of intraoperative FAR imaging. a The LightPath® Imaging System was located within the operating theatre. b Immediately following dissection, the intact WLE specimen was placed in a disposable specimen tray. c The specimen tray and specimen were loaded into the light-tight specimen chamber, and a photographic reference image was acquired to confirm that the specimen was correctly positioned. The specimen contours were drawn on a transparent CRF, and each tumour margin was annotated (not shown). d A 5 μm Mylar separator sheet and a flexible scintillator film were draped over the specimen, and a FAR image was acquired. (e) FAR image of WLE specimen shows elevated tumour radiance. The transparent CRF attached to the LightPath® monitor shows the specimen contours, tumour margin borders, the incision line and the location of the primary tumour (T) in the area of the elevated radiance
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A WLE excision specimen (outlined in yellow) analysed in OsiriX Lite version 11. ROIs are drawn to quantify the signal intensity of the empty background (EBG), tissue background (TBG) and tumour hotspot (THS). The area of increased signal intensity at the superior margin (THS1 superior) contained invasive carcinoma on histopathology analysis
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Receiver operator curve (ROC) of intraoperative FAR performance on intact WLE specimen for various decay corrected injected [18F]FDG activity thresholds with increments of 1 MBq

References

    1. Pleijhuis RG, Graafland M, De Vries J, Bart J, De Jong JS, Van Dam GM. Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2717–2730. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0609-z.
    1. Jeevan R, Cromwell D. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ Br Med. 2012;4505:1–9.
    1. Talsma AK, Reedijk AMJ, Damhuis RAM, Westenend PJ, Vles WJ. Re-resection rates after breast-conserving surgery as a performance indicator: introduction of a case-mix model to allow comparison between Dutch hospitals. Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol. 2011;37:357–363.
    1. St John ER, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, Athanasiou T, Takats Z, Hadjiminas DJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265:300–310. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001897.
    1. Thill M, Baumann K, Barinoff J. Intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conservative surgery—still in use? J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:15–20. doi: 10.1002/jso.23634.
    1. Grootendorst MR, Cariati M, Pinder SE, Kothari A, Douek M, Kovacs T, et al. Intraoperative assessment of tumor resection margins in breast-conserving surgery using 18F-FDG Cerenkov luminescence imaging: a first-in-human feasibility study. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:891–898. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.181032.
    1. Göker M, Marcinkowski R, Van Bockstal M, Keereman V, Van Holen R, Van Dorpe J, et al. 18F-FDG micro-PET/CT for intra-operative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgery. Acta Chir Belg. 2020;120:366–374. doi: 10.1080/00015458.2020.1774163.
    1. Jenkins CH, Naczynski DJ, Yu SJS, Xing L. Monitoring external beam radiotherapy using real-time beam visualization. Med Phys. 2015;42:5–13. doi: 10.1118/1.4901255.
    1. King MT, Jenkins CH, Sun C, Carpenter CM, Ma X, Cheng K, et al. Flexible radioluminescence imaging for FDG-guided surgery. Med Phys. 2016;43:5298–5306. doi: 10.1118/1.4961745.
    1. Vyas KN, Grootendorst M, Mertzanidou T, Macholl S, Stoyanov D, Arridge SR, et al. Flexible scintillator autoradiography for tumor margin inspection using 18F-FDG. ProcSPIE. 2018.
    1. Moses WW. Fundamental limits of spatial resolution in PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2011;648:S236–S240. doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2010.11.092.
    1. Gray RJ, Pockaj BA, Garvey E, Blair S. Intraoperative margin management in breast-conserving surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:18–27. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5756-4.
    1. Ciarrocchi E, Vanhove C, Descamps B, De Lombaerde S, Vandenberghe S, Belcari N. Performance evaluation of the LightPath imaging system for intra-operative Cerenkov luminescence imaging. Phys Medica Elsevier. 2018;52:122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.07.005.
    1. Olde Heuvel J, Veen BJDW, Tuch DS, Vyas K, Grootendorst MR, Leitao PDS. Performance evaluation of Cerenkov luminescence imaging versus autoradiography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:S252–S253.
    1. Povoski SP, Sarikaya I, White WC, Marsh SG, Hall NC, Hinkle GH, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of occupational radiation exposure to intraoperative and perioperative personnel from 18F-FDG radioguided surgical procedures. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:2026–2034. doi: 10.1007/s00259-008-0880-4.
    1. Heckathorne E, Dimock C, Dahlbom M. Radiation dose to surgical staff from positron-emitter-based localization and radiosurgery of tumors. Health Phys. 2008;95:220–226. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000310962.96089.44.
    1. Regulation 20 - The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999. The United Kingdom: ; 1999.
    1. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Standards for protection against radiation. United States of America; 1991.
    1. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). ICRP Publication 62: Radiological Protection in Biomedical Research. ICRP 62. 1992.
    1. OldeHeuvel J, de Wit-vanderVeen BJ, Vyas KN, Tuch DS, Grootendorst MR, Stokkel MPM, et al. Performance evaluation of Cerenkov luminescence imaging: a comparison of 68Ga with 18F. EJNMMI Phys. 2019;6:1–3. doi: 10.1186/s40658-018-0238-3.
    1. Graham RA, Homer MJ, Katz J, Rothschild J, Safaii H, Supran S. The pancake phenomenon contributes to the inaccuracy of margin assessment in patients with breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2002;184:89–93. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(02)00902-9.
    1. Buck AK, Schirrmeister H, Mattfeldt T, Reske SN. Biological characterisation of breast cancer by means of PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:S80–S87. doi: 10.1007/s00259-004-1529-6.
    1. Iakovou I, Giannoula E, Gkantaifi A, Levva S, Frangos S. Positron emission tomography in breast cancer: 18F- FDG and other radiopharmaceuticals. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2018;2:1–19. doi: 10.1186/s41824-018-0039-x.
    1. Hyo SL, Yoon W, Tae WC, Jae KK, Jin GP, Heoung KK, et al. FDG PET/CT for the detection and evaluation of breast diseases: Usefulness and limitations. Radiographics. 2007;27:197–214. doi: 10.1148/rg.27si075507.
    1. Caresia Aroztegui AP, García Vicente AM, Alvarez Ruiz S, Delgado Bolton RC, Orcajo Rincon J, Garcia Garzon JR, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Evidence-based recommendations in initial staging. Tumor Biol. 2017;39:1–23. doi: 10.1177/1010428317728285.
    1. García Vicente AM, Soriano Castrejón Á, León Martín A, Chacón López-Muñiz I, Muñoz Madero V, Muñoz Sánchez MDM, et al. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer: metabolic correlation with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1304–1311. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2418-7.
    1. Kumar M, Salem K, Michel C, Jeffery JJ, Yan Y, Fowler AM. 18F-fluoroestradiol PET imaging of activating estrogen receptor-a mutations in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1247–1252. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.224667.
    1. Alhuseinalkhudhur A, Lubberink M, Lindman H, Tolmachev V, Frejd FY, Feldwisch J, et al. Kinetic analysis of HER2-binding ABY-025 Affibody molecule using dynamic PET in patients with metastatic breast cancer. EJNMMI Res. 2020;10:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13550-020-0603-9.
    1. Shuhendler AJ, Cui L, Chen Z, Shen B, Chen M, James ML, et al. [18F]-SuPAR: A radiofluorinated probe for noninvasive imaging of DNA Damage-Dependent Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Activity. Bioconjug Chem. 2019;30:1331–1342. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.9b00089.
    1. Giesel FL, Kratochwil C, Lindner T, Marschalek MM, Loktev A, Lehnert W, et al. 68 Ga-FAPI PET/CT: biodistribution and preliminary dosimetry estimate of 2 DOTA-containing FAP-targeting agents in patients with various cancers. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:386–392. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.215913.
    1. Stoykow C, Erbes T, Maecke HR, Bulla S, Bartholomä M, Mayer S, et al. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptor imaging in breast cancer using the receptor antagonist 68 Ga-RM2 And PET. Theranostics. 2016;6:1641–1650. doi: 10.7150/thno.14958.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi