OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) examination in breast carcinoma is crucial to spare patients unnecessary lymph node (LN) dissection. The specificity and accuracy of SLN examination by frozen section has been variable in many studies. This study aims to describe our experience in frozen section (FS) analysis of SLN. METHODS: We have retrospectively analyzed data from 449 axillary SLN subjected to FS examination from 440 patients with breast cancer. All patients had free axillary LN clinically. RESULTS: Out of 449 cases, no false positive cases were found on FS (specificity of 100 %). Twenty-six cases were false negative (6 interpretation-related reasons and 20 technical-related reasons). The overall sensitivity was 84 % with a total accuracy rate of 93 % and interpretation sensitivity of 96 %. Three cases were deferred. Twenty-two of the false negative cases were micrometastases, whereas 4 were macrometastases. The interpretation-related false negative cases were not related to the subtype of carcinoma (ductal vs. lobular). However, they were all of low nuclear grade. CONCLUSION: These findings are similar to most published data. FS is a reliable method for evaluating SLN. The most common cause of false negative diagnosis is sampling error. More attention should be paid to low-grade tumors. Moreover, in FS analysis, we recommend to totally submit SLNs that are less than 5 mm in diameter, bisecting them if possible, and to serially section SLNs that are at least 5 mm at 2-mm intervals.
OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) examination in breast carcinoma is crucial to spare patients unnecessary lymph node (LN) dissection. The specificity and accuracy of SLN examination by frozen section has been variable in many studies. This study aims to describe our experience in frozen section (FS) analysis of SLN. METHODS: We have retrospectively analyzed data from 449 axillary SLN subjected to FS examination from 440 patients with breast cancer. All patients had free axillary LN clinically. RESULTS: Out of 449 cases, no false positive cases were found on FS (specificity of 100 %). Twenty-six cases were false negative (6 interpretation-related reasons and 20 technical-related reasons). The overall sensitivity was 84 % with a total accuracy rate of 93 % and interpretation sensitivity of 96 %. Three cases were deferred. Twenty-two of the false negative cases were micrometastases, whereas 4 were macrometastases. The interpretation-related false negative cases were not related to the subtype of carcinoma (ductal vs. lobular). However, they were all of low nuclear grade. CONCLUSION: These findings are similar to most published data. FS is a reliable method for evaluating SLN. The most common cause of false negative diagnosis is sampling error. More attention should be paid to low-grade tumors. Moreover, in FS analysis, we recommend to totally submit SLNs that are less than 5 mm in diameter, bisecting them if possible, and to serially section SLNs that are at least 5 mm at 2-mm intervals.
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: Justin S Poling; Theodore N Tsangaris; Pedram Argani; Ashley Cimino-Mathews Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anne Grabenstetter; Tracy-Ann Moo; Sabina Hajiyeva; Peter J Schüffler; Pallavi Khattar; Maria A Friedlander; Maura A McCormack; Monica Raiss; Emily C Zabor; Andrea Barrio; Monica Morrow; Marcia Edelweiss Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Yu Wang; Soyoung Kang; Altaz Khan; Gabriel Ruttner; Steven Y Leigh; Melissa Murray; Sanjee Abeytunge; Gary Peterson; Milind Rajadhyaksha; Suzanne Dintzis; Sara Javid; Jonathan T C Liu Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Florian Reinhardt; Anna Fiedler; Felix Borgmeier; Petra Reinecke; Irene Esposito; Katalin Mattes-György; Mardjan Dabir; Verena Friebe; Natalia Krawczyk; Thomas Kaleta; Jürgen Hoffmann; Eugen Ruckhäberle; Tanja Fehm; Katrin S Roth; Svjetlana Mohrmann Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Adam K Glaser; Nicholas P Reder; Ye Chen; Erin F McCarty; Chengbo Yin; Linpeng Wei; Yu Wang; Lawrence D True; Jonathan T C Liu Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 25.671