ArticleInternational journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group2026
Impact of breast biopsy markers on magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound.
Article in International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe placement of a biopsy marker at the time of breast biopsy is standard of care to mark the biopsy site and facilitate surgical excision. However, their impact on incisionless treatments like magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound remains underexplored. These factors are important considerations for the design and execution of translational research in this field.
methodsFive commercially available markers were evaluated. Magnetic resonance imaging studies characterized artifact size across various treatment planning and monitoring sequences, as well as MR thermometry performance during focused ultrasound heating. Hydrophone scans collected acoustic field measurements in the presence of biopsy markers. Ablated volume in
resultsSubstantial variability in artifact size and shape was observed across the markers. Thermometry showed both imaging and measurement artifacts, with off-target sites showing erroneous temperature change measurements of -30 to 100 °C in some cases. Acoustic field measurements revealed shape- and material-dependent distortions when markers were positioned near the ultrasound focus. Ablation experiments showed mixed effects on treatment volumes.
conclusionThe presence of biopsy markers introduces marker-dependent complexities into magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment planning and monitoring. Reliable monitoring and energy delivery are achievable when the target is sufficiently far from the marker but become unreliable when the target is close to the marker. Accordingly, the potential impacts of biopsy markers on the safety and efficacy of MR-guided focused ultrasound treatments should be considered carefully.
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.