BACKGROUND: Whereas specimen radiography (SR) is an established strategy for intraoperative resection margin analysis during breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable lesions, the use of frozen section analysis (FSA) is still a matter of debate. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 115 consecutive operations in which the two objectives sought were the excision of nonpalpable malignant lesions and breast conservation. Breast surgery was performed in the Gynecology and the Surgery Departments at the Basel University Hospital Breast Center. Whereas one department preferably uses SR for intraoperative margin assessments of lesions involving ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or atypical ductal hyperplasia, the other uses FSA to increase the rate of complete removal of these lesions with a single procedure. The respective accuracy and therapeutic impact of these two techniques are compared here. RESULTS: Intraoperative resection margin assessments were performed with FSA in 80 and SR in 35 of a total of 115 operations performed on 111 patients with pTis, pT1, or pT2 nonpalpable breast cancer. FSA diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 83.8%, 80.0%, and 87.5%, respectively, compared to 60%, 60%, and 60%, respectively, for SR. FSA tended to have a stronger therapeutic impact than SR in terms of the number of patients in whom initially positive margins were rendered margin-negative thanks to intraoperative analysis and immediate reexcision or mastectomy (27.5% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.124). More importantly, significantly fewer secondary reexcisions were performed in the FSA series than in the SR series (12.5% vs. 37.1%; p = 0.002). Finally, the intraoperative detection of invasive cancer with FSA led to a significantly lower number of secondary procedures for axillary lymph node staging (5% vs. 25.7%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that FSA may be more accurate than SR for analyzing intraoperative resection margins during breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable lesions.
BACKGROUND: Whereas specimen radiography (SR) is an established strategy for intraoperative resection margin analysis during breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable lesions, the use of frozen section analysis (FSA) is still a matter of debate. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 115 consecutive operations in which the two objectives sought were the excision of nonpalpable malignant lesions and breast conservation. Breast surgery was performed in the Gynecology and the Surgery Departments at the Basel University Hospital Breast Center. Whereas one department preferably uses SR for intraoperative margin assessments of lesions involving ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or atypical ductal hyperplasia, the other uses FSA to increase the rate of complete removal of these lesions with a single procedure. The respective accuracy and therapeutic impact of these two techniques are compared here. RESULTS: Intraoperative resection margin assessments were performed with FSA in 80 and SR in 35 of a total of 115 operations performed on 111 patients with pTis, pT1, or pT2 nonpalpable breast cancer. FSA diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 83.8%, 80.0%, and 87.5%, respectively, compared to 60%, 60%, and 60%, respectively, for SR. FSA tended to have a stronger therapeutic impact than SR in terms of the number of patients in whom initially positive margins were rendered margin-negative thanks to intraoperative analysis and immediate reexcision or mastectomy (27.5% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.124). More importantly, significantly fewer secondary reexcisions were performed in the FSA series than in the SR series (12.5% vs. 37.1%; p = 0.002). Finally, the intraoperative detection of invasive cancer with FSA led to a significantly lower number of secondary procedures for axillary lymph node staging (5% vs. 25.7%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that FSA may be more accurate than SR for analyzing intraoperative resection margins during breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable lesions.
Authors: Neslihan Cabioglu; Kelly K Hunt; Aysegul A Sahin; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; S Eva Singletary; Gary J Whitman; Merrick I Ross; Frederick C Ames; Barry W Feig; Thomas A Buchholz; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-01-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: E Ramsay Camp; Priscilla F McAuliffe; Jeffrey S Gilroy; Christopher G Morris; D Scott Lind; Nancy P Mendenhall; Edward M Copeland Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-09-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: U Veronesi; A Banfi; B Salvadori; A Luini; R Saccozzi; R Zucali; E Marubini; M Del Vecchio; P Boracchi; S Marchini Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1990 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: J A Jacobson; D N Danforth; K H Cowan; T d'Angelo; S M Steinberg; L Pierce; M E Lippman; A S Lichter; E Glatstein; P Okunieff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-04-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: B Fisher; C Redmond; R Poisson; R Margolese; N Wolmark; L Wickerham; E Fisher; M Deutsch; R Caplan; Y Pilch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ye Chen; Weisi Xie; Adam K Glaser; Nicholas P Reder; Chenyi Mao; Suzanne M Dintzis; Joshua C Vaughan; Jonathan T C Liu Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Lee G Wilke; J Quincy Brown; Torre M Bydlon; Stephanie A Kennedy; Lisa M Richards; Marlee K Junker; Jennifer Gallagher; William T Barry; Joseph Geradts; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Julie M Jorns; Daniel Visscher; Michael Sabel; Tara Breslin; Patrick Healy; Stephanie Daignaut; Jeffrey L Myers; Angela J Wu Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Woohyun Jung; Eunyoung Kang; Sun Mi Kim; Dongwon Kim; Yoonsun Hwang; Young Sun; Cha Kyong Yom; Sung-Won Kim Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2012-12-31 Impact factor: 3.588