BACKGROUND: Intraoperative subareolar frozen sections are used to assess the nipple areolar complex's suitability for preservation for patients selected for nipple-sparing mastectomy. We aim to investigate the accuracy and value of the frozen section compared to formal histopathologic results. METHODS: In our 5-year retrospective study, 52 candidates for nipple-sparing mastectomies had subareolar frozen sections analyzed intraoperatively for malignant or atypical duct changes. Women were considered for nipple-sparing mastectomy if their primary breast malignancy was greater than 3 cm from the nipple-areolar complex and not multifocal in nature. Frozen-section results were compared to the formal histopathologic results, allowing analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. Causes of false negatives (negative frozen-section findings, positive histopathology findings) were then examined. RESULTS: Of 52 frozen sections, 47 (90%) yielded negative results and 5 (10%) yielded positive results. Of the 47 negative results, 39 were true negatives while 8 were false negatives. Of the 5 positive results, all were true positives with no false positives. Therefore, the positive predictive value of subareolar frozen section is 100%, negative predictive value 83%, sensitivity 38%, and specificity 100%. Of the 8 false negatives, 4 (50%) were due to sampling errors, 3 (37.5%) were due to interpretation errors, and 1 (12.5%) was due to diathermy artifact. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative subareolar frozen section is a specific but nonsensitive test. It is useful in nipple-sparing mastectomy because in 10% of cases a positive result allows immediate nipple and areolar excision. Its low sensitivity and negative predictive value means that 15% of patients will need a subsequent nipple and areolar excision. Eighty-five percent of patients can, however, have a single-stage excision.
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative subareolar frozen sections are used to assess the nipple areolar complex's suitability for preservation for patients selected for nipple-sparing mastectomy. We aim to investigate the accuracy and value of the frozen section compared to formal histopathologic results. METHODS: In our 5-year retrospective study, 52 candidates for nipple-sparing mastectomies had subareolar frozen sections analyzed intraoperatively for malignant or atypical duct changes. Women were considered for nipple-sparing mastectomy if their primary breast malignancy was greater than 3 cm from the nipple-areolar complex and not multifocal in nature. Frozen-section results were compared to the formal histopathologic results, allowing analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. Causes of false negatives (negative frozen-section findings, positive histopathology findings) were then examined. RESULTS: Of 52 frozen sections, 47 (90%) yielded negative results and 5 (10%) yielded positive results. Of the 47 negative results, 39 were true negatives while 8 were false negatives. Of the 5 positive results, all were true positives with no false positives. Therefore, the positive predictive value of subareolar frozen section is 100%, negative predictive value 83%, sensitivity 38%, and specificity 100%. Of the 8 false negatives, 4 (50%) were due to sampling errors, 3 (37.5%) were due to interpretation errors, and 1 (12.5%) was due to diathermy artifact. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative subareolar frozen section is a specific but nonsensitive test. It is useful in nipple-sparing mastectomy because in 10% of cases a positive result allows immediate nipple and areolar excision. Its low sensitivity and negative predictive value means that 15% of patients will need a subsequent nipple and areolar excision. Eighty-five percent of patients can, however, have a single-stage excision.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; frozen section; intraoperative; nipple-sparing mastectomy; skin-sparing mastectomy
Authors: Virgilio Sacchini; José A Pinotti; Alfredo C S D Barros; Alberto Luini; Alfonso Pluchinotta; Marianne Pinotti; Marcelo G Boratto; Marco D Ricci; Carlos A Ruiz; Antonio C Nisida; Paolo Veronesi; Jean Petit; Paolo Arnone; Fabio Bassi; Joseph J Disa; Carlos A Garcia-Etienne; Patrick I Borgen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Elena F Brachtel; Jennifer E Rusby; James S Michaelson; L Leon Chen; Alona Muzikansky; Barbara L Smith; Frederick C Koerner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carrie K Chu; Matthew J Davis; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Sebastian J Winocour; Albert Losken; Grant W Carlson Journal: Semin Plast Surg Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 2.314
Authors: Rebeca Neves Heinzen; Alfredo Carlos Simões Dornellas de Barros; Filomena Marino Carvalho; Fernando Nalesso Aguiar; Cristiane da Costa Bandeira Abrahão Nimir; Alfredo Luiz Jacomo Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2020-06
Authors: Jai Min Ryu; Seok Jin Nam; Seok Won Kim; Se Kyung Lee; Soo Youn Bae; Ha Woo Yi; Sungmin Park; Hyun-June Paik; Jeong Eon Lee Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: R A Agha; Y Al Omran; G Wellstead; H Sagoo; I Barai; S Rajmohan; M R Borrelli; M Vella-Baldacchino; D P Orgill; J E Rusby Journal: BJS Open Date: 2018-12-19