Article Data

  • Views 399
  • Dowloads 133

Original Research

Open Access

Magnetic seed localisation for non-palpable lesions in patients undergoing breast conservative surgery

  • A. Conversano1,*,
  • C. Balleyguier2
  • M.K. De Fremicourt1
  • H. Alkhashnam1
  • C. Mazouni1
  • J. Arfi-Rouche2
  • N. Leymarie1
  • F. Rimareix1

1Service de Chirurgie Sénologique, Plastique et Reconstructrice

2Service de Radiologie,Gustave Roussy Hospital, Villejuif (France)

DOI: 10.31083/j.ejgo.2020.01.4985 Vol.41,Issue 1,February 2020 pp.48-53

Published: 15 February 2020

*Corresponding Author(s): A. Conversano E-mail:


Purpose: Breast-conservative surgery is the standard procedure for breast cancer when tumour resection does not lead to significant cosmetic sequelae. The usual technique to locate non-palpable lesions is the wire-guided localization (WGL). However, the WGL may migrate and cause interference with the electro cautery. The placement of the WGL has to be performed on the day before or the day of the surgery, causing organizational problems. To optimize care pathway and increase ambulatory activity, the authors studied the feasibility and efficacy of a 5-mm iron seed MAGSEED. Materials and Methods: During four months, 20 seeds were placed in 19 patients undergoing a lumpectomy for non-palpable breast lesions. The evaluation questionnaire was filled by radiologists, surgeons, and patients. Results: All clips were detected. The radiological and surgical team found the MAGSEED simple and intuitive. Placement was done by ultrasound and stereotaxic guidance up to 15 days before surgery. Time of lumpectomy was reduced to an average of 11 minutes. Patients’ pain level was low (2/10). Conclusion: The use of MAGSEED for the detection of non-palpable breast lesions is simple, safe, and feasible. A comparative randomized prospective study should be performed between MAGSEED and WGL to study the medico-economic outcomes and the surgical and radiological benefits of the magnetic seed.


Magnetic seed; Breast cancer; Localization; Wire; Lumpectomy.

Cite and Share

A. Conversano,C. Balleyguier,M.K. De Fremicourt,H. Alkhashnam,C. Mazouni,J. Arfi-Rouche,N. Leymarie,F. Rimareix. Magnetic seed localisation for non-palpable lesions in patients undergoing breast conservative surgery. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2020. 41(1);48-53.


[1] Chan B.K., Wiseberg-Firtell J.A., Jois R.H., Jensen K., Audisio R.A.: “Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of non-palpable breast lesions”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2015, 12, CD009206.

[2] Gray R.J., Salud C., Nguyen K., Dauway E., Friedland J., Berman C., et al.: “Randomized prospectie evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization”. Ann. Surg. Oncol., 2001, 8, 711.

[3] Lovrics P.J., Goldsmith C.H., Hodgson N., McCready D., Gohla G., Boylan C., et al.: “A multicentered, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas”. Ann. Surg. Oncol., 2011, 18, 3407.

[4] Sharek D., Zuley M.L., Zhang J.Y., Soran A., Ahrendt G.M., Ganott M.A.: “Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for lumpectomies: a comparison of outcomes”. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol., 2015, 204, 872.

[5] McGhan L.J., McKeever S.C., Pockaj B.A., Wasif N., Giurescu M.E., Walton H.A., Gray R.J.: “Radioactive seed localization for nonpalpable breast lesions: review of 1,000 consecutive procedures at a single institution”. Ann. Surg. Oncol., 2011, 18, 3096.

[6] Bloomquist E.V., Ajkay N., Patil S., Collett A.E., Frazier T.G., Barrio A.V.: “A Randomized Prospective Comparison of Patient-Assessed Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes with Radioactive Seed Localization versus Wire Localization”. Breast J., 2016, 22, 151.

[7] Jakub J., Gray R.: “Starting a Radioactive Seed Localization Program”. Ann. Surg. Oncol., 2015, 22, 3197.

[8] Cheang E., Ha R., Thornton C.M., Mango V.L.: “Innovations in image guided preoperative breast lesion localization”. Br. J. Radiol., 2018, 91, 20170740

[9] Jeffries D.O., Dossett L.A., Jorns J.M.: “Localization for Breast Surgery: The Next Generation”. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., 2017, 141, 1324.

[10] Cox C.E., Garcia-Henriquez N., Glancy M.J., Whitworth P., Cox J.M., Themar-Geck M., et al.: “Pilot Study of a New Nonradioactive Surgical Guidance Technology for Locating Nonpalpable Breast Lesions”. Ann. Surg. Oncol., 2016, 23, 1824.

[11] Mango V., Ha R., Gomberawalla A., Wynn R., Feldman S.: “Evaluation of the SAVI SCOUT Surgical Guidance System for Localization and Excision of Nonpalpable Breast Lesions: A Feasibility Study”. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol., 2016, 15, W1.

[12] Hayes M.K.: “Update on Preoperative Breast Localization”. Radiol. Clin. N. Am., 2017, 55, 591.

[13] Schermers B., van der Hage J.A., Loo C.E., Vrancken Peeters M.T.F.D., Winter-Warnars H.A.O., van Duijnhoven F., et al.: “Feasibility of magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer”. Breast, 2017, 33, 50.

[14] Price E.R., Khoury A.L., Esserman L.J., Joe B.N., Alvarado M.D.: “Initial Clinical Experience with an Inducible Magnetic Seed System for Preoperative Breast Lesion Localization”. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol., 2018, 210, 913.

[15] Harvey J.R., Lim Y., Murphy J., Howe M., Morris J., Goyal A., Maxwell A.J.: “Safety and feasibility of breast lesion localization using magnetic seeds (Magseed): a multi-centre, open-label cohort study”. Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 2018, 169, 531.

[16] Magseed Magnetic Marker Localization. Identifier: NCT03020888. Available at: https://clinicaltrials. gov/ct2/show/NCT03020888

[17] Study the Use of Magseed and Sentimag to Localize Axillary Lymph Nodes. Identifier: NCT03038152. Available at:

[18] Magnetic Marker Localization for breast cancer surgery: An exploratory study. NTR NumberNTR6767. Available at: admin/rctview.asp?TC=6767

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time