Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42594023›Full record

ReviewRadiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc2026

Selection of Breast Biopsy Markers: Effect on Breast Imaging Procedures, Follow-up, and Costs.

Tanya W Moseley, Beatriz E Adrada, Elsa M Arribas, Matthew W Urban, Gina Hesley, Gary J Whitman, Ronald A Rauch, Mary S Guirguis, Megha M Kapoor, Christine U Lee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tanya W MoseleyDivisions of Radiology and Surgery, Departments of Breast Imaging and Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Box 1340, Houston, TX 77030-4000.ORCID 0000-0002-2018-8253
Beatriz E AdradaDivision of Radiology, Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.ORCID 0000-0002-5539-5332
Elsa M ArribasDivision of Radiology, Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.ORCID 0000-0002-7317-8972
Matthew W UrbanDivision of Radiology Research, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.ORCID 0000-0003-1360-4287
Gina HesleyDivision of Ultrasound, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.ORCID 0000-0003-1246-696X
Gary J WhitmanDivision of Radiology, Departments of Breast Imaging and Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.ORCID 0000-0003-2002-7457
Ronald A RauchWesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.ORCID 0009-0003-1005-3587
Mary S GuirguisDivision of Radiology, Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.ORCID 0000-0001-5874-8861
Megha M KapoorDivision of Radiology, Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.ORCID 0000-0003-1898-7619
Christine U LeeDivision of Breast Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.ORCID 0000-0001-5298-6949

Funding

Development of an ultrasound detectable, migration-resistant biopsy marker for improving care in patients with breast cancerR01EB033008 · NIBIB · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Christine U. Lee, Matthew William Urban · 2023 to 2026
$2.5M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB033008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast biopsy markers have evolved from simple metallic markers to sophisticated multimaterial devices that serve critical purposes throughout the breast cancer care continuum. This evolution began at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the 1960s for gynecologic and head and neck tumors. After the MicroMark (Biopsys) clip was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1995, markers were subsequently adapted for patients with breast cancer in 1999. By 2003, markers had become the standard of care. Modern markers serve multiple clinical functions: marking biopsy sites, facilitating cross-modality imaging correlation, guiding surgical planning and radiation therapy targeting, and ensuring continuity of care across health care facilities. Long-term studies demonstrate excellent safety profiles with minimal adverse events and significant cost-effectiveness through improved surgical precision and reduced re-excision rates. Despite the widespread adoption of these markers, contemporary challenges persist, including marker migration, allergic reactions to metallic components or embedding materials, and visibility limitations on US images. However, recent technological advances address these concerns through improved marker designs, nonmetallic alternatives, and innovative detection methods. Current best practices emphasize optimal placement timing, appropriate marker selection based on patient-specific factors, migration prevention techniques, and use of Doppler US "twinkling" artifacts for enhanced US visualization.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFiducial MarkersImage-Guided BiopsyFemaleHumansUltrasonography, Mammary

Identifiers

PMID42594023
PMCPMC13550975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.