Purpose: The aim of this study is to describe our initial experience using magnetic seeds (Magseed^®) to guide breast-conserving surgery in non-palpable breast lesions and compare the use of magnetic seed with wires to guide breast-conserving surgery in terms of clinical and pathological characteristics. Methods: We performed a retrospective study including all breast-conserving surgeries for non-palpable breast lesions under 16 mm from June 2018 to May 2021. We compared breast-conserving surgeries guided with magnetic seeds (Magseed^®) to those guided with wires, analyzing tumor and patient characteristics, surgical time, and pathological results of the surgical specimens. Results: Data from 225 cases were collected, including 149 cases guided by magnetic seeds and 76 cases guided by wires. The breast lesion was localized in every case. Both cohorts were similar regarding clinical and pathological characteristics. We found significant statistical differences (p < 0.02) in terms of the median volume (cm³) of the excised specimen, which was lower (29.3%) in the magnetic seed group compared with the wire group (32.5 [20.5–60.0]/46.0 [20.3–118.7]). We did not find significant differences regarding surgical time (min) or the affected or close margins. Conclusion: In our experience, the use of magnetic seed (Magseed^®) is a feasible option to guide breast-conserving surgery of non-palpable lesions and enabled us to resect less breast tissue.

Introduction: Following up on treated high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (HSIL/CIN) lesions poses a challenge. Cervical cytology often has a high false-negative rate, while high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA testing, though sensitive, lacks specificity. The detection of messenger RNA of the HR-HPV E6 and E7 oncoproteins (E6/E7 mRNA) is proposed as an indicator of viral integration, which is crucial for identifying severe lesions. Additionally, HPV vaccination could reduce recurrence rates in patients treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Objective: Our study aimed to assess the clinical utility of E6/E7 mRNA determination in the follow-up of HPV-immunized patients who were treated for HSIL/CIN. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study including 407 patients treated for HSIL/CIN. The recurrence rate and the validity parameters of E6/E7 mRNA testing were analyzed. Results: The recurrence rate for high-grade lesions was 1.7%. This low percentage might be related to the vaccination of patients who were not immunized before treatment. The sensitivity of the E6/E7 mRNA test was 88% at the first clinical visit, reaching 100% in the second and third reviews. Specificity was 91% at the first visit, 92% at the second, and 85% at the third. Regarding predictive values, the positive predictive value was 18% at the first visit, 10% at the second, and 14% at the third, while the negative predictive value was 100% across all follow-up visits. Conclusions: The E6/E7 mRNA test appears to be an effective tool for ruling out recurrence after treatment for HSIL/CIN lesions in HPV-immunized patients.

In the follow-up of treated high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (HSIL/CIN) lesions, cer-vical cytology has a high false-negative rate, while high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA testing showed high sensitivity and lower specificity. The detection of messenger RNA of the HR-HPV E6 and E7 oncoproteins (E6/E7 mRNA) seems to be an indicator of viral integration and it allows the identification of severe lesions. Our objective was to assess the clinical utility of E6/E7 mRNA determination in the follow-up of patients treated for HSIL/CIN. A retrospective obser-vational study including 407 patients treated for HSIL/CIN was performed. The recurrence rate and the validity of E6/E7 mRNA testing were evaluated. The recurrence rate of high-grade lesions was 1.7%. The sensitivity of the test was 88% in the first clinical revision and 100% in the second and third revisions. Specificity was 91% in the first revision, 92% in the second revision, and 85% in the third revision. The positive predictive value was 18% in the first medical revision, 10% in the second and 14% in the third. The negative predictive value was 100% in all follow-up visits. In conclusion, the E6/E7 mRNA test seems to be effective in ruling out recurrence after treatment for HSIL/CIN lesions.