Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 16.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-025-11817-5. Online ahead of print.

Placement of radiofrequency identification tags: Is there an optimal tag-to-target distance?

Affiliations

Placement of radiofrequency identification tags: Is there an optimal tag-to-target distance?

Kyle J Anderman et al. Eur Radiol. .

Abstract

Objectives: Radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag localization (TL) is a method of localizing non-palpable breast lesions. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the association between RFID tag-to-target distance, margin positivity rates, and surgical specimen sizes.

Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on consecutive TL excisional biopsies and lumpectomies performed between 2018 and 2021. Associations between the longest distance between tag and target, positive margins, and the surgical specimen volume were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results: Four hundred fifty-six non-palpable breast lesions in 445 patients were included, with a median tag-to-target distance of 4.5 mm and a positive margin rate of 15.1%. For lumpectomies, there was no significant association between tag-to-target distance and margin positivity rate, nor surgical specimen size on multivariate analysis. The only significant predictor of positive lumpectomy margins was ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on final pathology (p < 0.001). Significant predictors of increased lumpectomy specimen volume included operating surgeon (p = 0.005) and body mass index (BMI) (p < 0.001). For excisional biopsies, tag-to-target distances ≥ 10 mm were associated with larger surgical specimen size on univariate analysis (OR: 2.961, p = 0.04). However, when confounding variables were adjusted for, there was no significant association between tag-to-target distance ≥ 10 mm and surgical specimen size (p = 0.12). Factors predictive of increased excisional biopsy specimen volume were surgeon (OR: 4.762, p = 0.03), BMI (OR: 1.164, p = 0.001), and age (OR: 1.062, p = 0.007).

Conclusion: There was no evidence of a significant association between tag-to-target distance and margin positivity rate or surgical specimen size for lumpectomies or excisional biopsies.

Key points: Question Currently, there exists little guidance for breast surgeons and radiologists regarding the ideal localization tag-to-target distance prior to breast-conserving surgery. Findings With communication between radiologists and surgeons, increased tag-to-target distance had no significant effect on surgical outcomes. Clinical relevance This data provides guidance regarding the need for additional localization after distant placement of radiofrequency-identification tags. While cases should be assessed individually to determine the need for additional localization, these data better inform multidisciplinary decision-making regarding TL.

Keywords: Breast; Breast neoplasm; Breast-conserving surgery; Radio frequency identification device.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with ethical standards. Guarantor: The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Michelle Specht. Conflict of interest: The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. Statistics: No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Informed consent: Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Ethics approval: Institutional Review Board Approval was obtained. Methodology: Retrospective

References

    1. DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM et al (2019) Breast cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 69:438–451 - PubMed
    1. Chan BK, Wiseberg-Firtell JA, Jois RH, Jensen K, Audisio RA (2015) Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of non-palpable breast lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD009206
    1. Thomas PS (2018) Diagnosis and management of high-risk breast lesions. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16:1391–1396 - PubMed
    1. Hayes MK (2017) Update on preoperative breast localization. Radiol Clin North Am 55:591–603 - PubMed
    1. McGugin C, Spivey T, Coopey S et al (2019) Radiofrequency identification tag localization is comparable to wire localization for non-palpable breast lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat 177:735–739 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources