ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2021
Performance of a novel protease-activated fluorescent imaging system for intraoperative detection of residual breast cancer during breast conserving surgery.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Impact of Intraoperative Margin Assessment in Breast-Conserving Surgery With a Novel Pegulicianine Fluorescence-Guided System: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.JAMA surgery · 2022Trial
- Whole-body tomographic fluorescence lifetime imaging of PD-L1 expression.Research square · 2026Article
- Detection of margin positivity in breast cancer using fluorescence and diffuse reflectance imaging.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Perspective on the use of fluorescence molecular imaging for peripheral and deepJournal of biomedical optics · 2025Review
- Ex vivo fluorescence-guided resection margin assessment in breast cancer surgery using a topically applied, cathepsin-activatable imaging agent.Pharmacological research · 2024Article
- Chemical Tools to Image the Activity of PAR-Cleaving Proteases.ACS bio & med chem Au · 2023Review
- Protease Activated Probes for Real-Time Ratiometric Imaging of Solid Tumors.ACS central science · 2023Article
- Cysteine Cathepsins in Breast Cancer: Promising Targets for Fluorescence-Guided Surgery.Molecular imaging and biology · 2023Review
- A Cathepsin-Targeted Quenched Activity-Based Probe Facilitates Enhanced Detection of Human Tumors during Resection.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022Article
- Review
- Preclinical Evaluation of an Activity-Based Probe for Intraoperative Imaging of Esophageal Cancer.Molecular imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSafe breast cancer lumpectomies require microscopically clear margins. Real-time margin assessment options are limited, and 20-40% of lumpectomies have positive margins requiring re-excision. The LUM Imaging System previously showed excellent sensitivity and specificity for tumor detection during lumpectomy surgery. We explored its impact on surgical workflow and performance across patient and tumor types.
methodsWe performed IRB-approved, prospective, non-randomized studies in breast cancer lumpectomy procedures. The LUM Imaging System uses LUM015, a protease-activated fluorescent imaging agent that identifies residual tumor in the surgical cavity walls. Fluorescent cavity images were collected in real-time and analyzed using system software.
resultsCavity and specimen images were obtained in 55 patients injected with LUM015 at 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg and in 5 patients who did not receive LUM015. All tumor types were distinguished from normal tissue, with mean tumor:normal (T:N) signal ratios of 3.81-5.69. T:N ratios were 4.45 in non-dense and 4.00 in dense breasts (p = 0.59) and 3.52 in premenopausal and 4.59 in postmenopausal women (p = 0.19). Histopathology and tumor receptor testing were not affected by LUM015. Falsely positive readings were more likely when tumor was present < 2 mm from the adjacent specimen margin. LUM015 signal was stable in vivo at least 6.5 h post injection, and ex vivo at least 4 h post excision.
conclusionsIntraoperative use of the LUM Imaging System detected all breast cancer subtypes with robust performance independent of menopausal status and breast density. There was no significant impact on histopathology or receptor evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.