OBJECTIVE: To develop an intraoperative method for margin status evaluation during breast conservation therapy (BCT) using an automated analysis of imprint cytology specimens. STUDY DESIGN: Imprint cytology samples were prospectively taken from 47 patients undergoing either BCT or breast reduction surgery. Touch preparations from BCT patients were taken on cut sections through the tumor to generate positive margin controls. For breast reduction patients, slide imprints were taken at cuts through the center of excised tissue. Analysis results from the presented technique were compared against standard pathologic diagnosis. Slides were stained with cytokeratin and Hoechst, imaged with an automated fluorescent microscope, and analyzed with a fast algorithm to automate discrimination between epithelial cells and noncellular debris. RESULTS: The accuracy of the automated analysis was 95% for identifying invasive cancers compared against final pathologic diagnosis. The overall sensitivity was 87% while specificity was 100% (no false positives). This is comparable to the best reported results from manual examination of intraoperative imprint cytology slides while reducing the need for direct input from a cytopathologist. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates a proof of concept for developing a highly accurate and automated system for the intraoperative evaluation of margin status to guide surgical decisions and lower positive margin rates.
OBJECTIVE: To develop an intraoperative method for margin status evaluation during breast conservation therapy (BCT) using an automated analysis of imprint cytology specimens. STUDY DESIGN: Imprint cytology samples were prospectively taken from 47 patients undergoing either BCT or breast reduction surgery. Touch preparations from BCT patients were taken on cut sections through the tumor to generate positive margin controls. For breast reductionpatients, slide imprints were taken at cuts through the center of excised tissue. Analysis results from the presented technique were compared against standard pathologic diagnosis. Slides were stained with cytokeratin and Hoechst, imaged with an automated fluorescent microscope, and analyzed with a fast algorithm to automate discrimination between epithelial cells and noncellular debris. RESULTS: The accuracy of the automated analysis was 95% for identifying invasive cancers compared against final pathologic diagnosis. The overall sensitivity was 87% while specificity was 100% (no false positives). This is comparable to the best reported results from manual examination of intraoperative imprint cytology slides while reducing the need for direct input from a cytopathologist. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates a proof of concept for developing a highly accurate and automated system for the intraoperative evaluation of margin status to guide surgical decisions and lower positive margin rates.
Authors: Wenjin Chen; Peter Meer; Bogdan Georgescu; Wei He; Lauri A Goodell; David J Foran Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: C E Cox; M Hyacinthe; R J Gonzalez; G Lyman; D Reintgen; N N Ku; M S Miller; H Greenberg; S V Nicosia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Maria Jose Cortes-Mateos; David Martin; Sergio Sandoval; Manuel E Ruidiaz; Davorka Messmer; Jessica Wang-Rodriguez; William Trogler; Andrew C Kummel; Sarah L Blair Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Funda Meric; Nadeem Q Mirza; Georges Vlastos; Thomas A Buchholz; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; S Eva Singletary; Merrick I Ross; Frederick C Ames; Barry W Feig; Savitri Krishnamurthy; George H Perkins; Marsha D McNeese; Eric A Strom; Vicente Valero; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Shaimaa Al-Janabi; Henk-Jan van Slooten; Mike Visser; Tjeerd van der Ploeg; Paul J van Diest; Mehdi Jiwa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 3.240