Multicentre evaluation of magnetic technology for localisation of non-palpable breast lesions and targeted axillary nodes.

BACKGROUND: Magseed technology is a recently introduced localisation technique for impalpable breast lesions with possible advantages over traditional techniques. These include improved theatre logistics, flexibility in incision placement and improved patient experience. This multicentre study evaluates the experience of introducing Magseed technology into routine surgical practice. METHODS: A prospective multicentre study of Magseed localised procedures was performed. Insertion data were recorded by the radiologist including lesion characteristics and Magseed insertion accuracy. The surgical team recorded time from insertion to operation, operating time and surgical satisfaction. Pathology results were reviewed for specimen weight and margins. RESULTS: Between February 2019 and June 2020, 100 patients were enrolled. Magseed localised procedures included 18 excisional biopsies, 23 wide local excisions (WLE), 50 WLE with axillary surgery and four cases of Magseed localised breast WLE with Magseed localised axillary surgery. There were three therapeutic mammoplasties and two cases of Magseed localised targeted axillary node dissection alone. A total of 90% of Magseeds were radiologically placed within 5 mm of the target lesion/node. Time between incision and specimen removal was 17 min (range 6-40 min). All breast and axillary Magseeds were successfully identified and retrieved during surgery. The target lesion was identified in the specimen in all cases. A total of 10% of cases required further surgery for pathologically positive margins. Overall, surgeons reported that Magseed localisation was "easy" or "very easy" in 77% of cases. CONCLUSION: Magseed is a reliable, safe and accurate surgical technique that provides logistical advantages and flexibility of surgical approach. The method was well-accepted by all users.

Integrating marker-assisted background analysis with foreground selection for pyramiding bacterial blight resistance genes into Basmati rice.

Bacterial leaf blight (BB), caused by the bacterium Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae (Xoo), is the major constraint amongst rice diseases in India. CSR-30 is a very popular high-yielding, salt-tolerant Basmati variety widely grown in Haryana, India, but highly susceptible to BB. In the present study, we have successfully introgressed three BB resistance genes (Xa21, xa13 and xa5) from BB-resistant donor variety IRBB-60 into the BB-susceptible Basmati variety CSR-30 through marker-assisted selection (MAS) exercised with stringent phenotypic selection without compromising the Basmati traits. Background analysis using 131 polymorphic SSR markers revealed that recurrent parent genome (RPG) recovery ranged up to 97.1% among 15 BC3F1 three-gene-pyramided genotypes. Based on agronomic evaluation, BB reaction, aroma, percentage recovery of RPG, and grain quality evaluation, four genotypes, viz., IC-R28, IC-R68, IC-R32, and IC-R42, were found promising and advanced to BC3F2 generation.

Cancer on a mammogram is not memorable: readers remember their recalls and not cancers.

AIM: To determine if presence of cancer on a mammogram makes that mammogram more memorable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 mammograms (25 cancers) were grouped into 5 sets of 20 cases. Set pairs were presented in five reads to eight radiologist readers. Readers were asked to 'clear' or 'call back' cases, and at post-baseline reads to indicate whether each case was 'new' or 'old' (remembered from prior read). Two sets were presented only at baseline, to calculate each reader's false recollection rate. For cases presented more than once ('old' cases, 100 presentations) readers could have 'correct memory' or 'memory loss'. Memory performance was defined as odds ratio of correct memory to memory loss. Multivariate logistic data regression analysis identified predictors of memory performance from: reader, set, time since last read, presence of cancer, and whether the case was called back at the last read. RESULTS: Memory performance differed markedly between readers and reader identity was a highly significant predictor of memory performance. Presence of cancer was not a significant predictor of memory performance (odds ratio 0.77, 95% CI: 0.49-1.21). Whether the case was called back at the last read was a highly significant predictor (odds ratio 4.22, 95% CI: 2.70-6.61) for the model incorporating reader variability, and also the model without reader variability (odds ratio 2.67, 95% CI: 1.74-4.08). CONCLUSION: The only statistically significant predictor of radiologist memory for a mammogram was whether the radiologist 'called it back' at a prior reading round. Presence of cancer on a mammogram did not make it memorable.