Tomofumi Osako1, Reiki Nishimura2, Yasuyuki Nishiyama2, Yasuhiro Okumura2, Rumiko Tashima2, Masahiro Nakano2, Mamiko Fujisue2, Yasuo Toyozumi3, Nobuyuki Arima3. 1. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Kumamoto City Hospital, 1-1-60 Kotoh, Higashi-ku, Kumamoto, 862-8605, Japan. tohsako630108@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Kumamoto City Hospital, 1-1-60 Kotoh, Higashi-ku, Kumamoto, 862-8605, Japan. 3. Department of Pathology, Kumamoto City Hospital, 1-1-60 Kotoh, Higashi-ku, Kumamoto, 862-8605, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative frozen section analysis of the surgical margins during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer can reliably achieve clear surgical margins and prevent re-operations. The aim of this study was to assess intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis (IEFSA) of the lumpectomy margins during BCS. METHODS: A total of 1029 patients who underwent BCS with IEFSA between June 2007 and July 2013 were available for assessment. The inner surfaces of the shaved lumpectomy margins were examined as frozen sections during BCS. The margins were defined as positive when the cancer cells were present within 5 mm from the edge of the outermost margins of the specimens. RESULTS: Out of 1029 patients, 312 patients (30.3 %) had positive margins after the initial lumpectomy and underwent additional resections during BCS. Fourteen patients (1.4 %) underwent mastectomy following the results of additional resections during the first surgery. Of 1015 patients who completed BCS, 60 patients (5.9 %) were found to have positive margins in the final pathology. One patient (0.1 %) underwent re-operation after BCS while the residual diseases of the other 59 patients were judged to be minimal. Of the 312 patients who were judged to have positive margins after the initial lumpectomy with IEFSA, 53 patients (16.9 %) were found to have negative margins in the final pathology. At a median follow-up time of 54.1 months, one patient (0.1 %) had a recurrence of breast cancer in the preserved breast. CONCLUSION: IEFSA is useful for preventing the need for re-operation and local recurrence after BCS.
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative frozen section analysis of the surgical margins during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer can reliably achieve clear surgical margins and prevent re-operations. The aim of this study was to assess intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis (IEFSA) of the lumpectomy margins during BCS. METHODS: A total of 1029 patients who underwent BCS with IEFSA between June 2007 and July 2013 were available for assessment. The inner surfaces of the shaved lumpectomy margins were examined as frozen sections during BCS. The margins were defined as positive when the cancer cells were present within 5 mm from the edge of the outermost margins of the specimens. RESULTS: Out of 1029 patients, 312 patients (30.3 %) had positive margins after the initial lumpectomy and underwent additional resections during BCS. Fourteen patients (1.4 %) underwent mastectomy following the results of additional resections during the first surgery. Of 1015 patients who completed BCS, 60 patients (5.9 %) were found to have positive margins in the final pathology. One patient (0.1 %) underwent re-operation after BCS while the residual diseases of the other 59 patients were judged to be minimal. Of the 312 patients who were judged to have positive margins after the initial lumpectomy with IEFSA, 53 patients (16.9 %) were found to have negative margins in the final pathology. At a median follow-up time of 54.1 months, one patient (0.1 %) had a recurrence of breast cancer in the preserved breast. CONCLUSION: IEFSA is useful for preventing the need for re-operation and local recurrence after BCS.
Authors: M Kokubo; M Mitsumori; S Ishikura; Y Nagata; S Fujishiro; T Inamoto; K Mise; H Kodama; K Sasai; M Hiraoka Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Bas Kreike; Augustinus A M Hart; Tony van de Velde; Jacques Borger; Hans Peterse; Emiel Rutgers; Harry Bartelink; Marc J van de Vijver Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Allyson F Jacobson; Juhi Asad; Susan K Boolbol; Michael P Osborne; Kwadwo Boachie-Adjei; Sheldon M Feldman Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.565
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: 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: 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: Connor W Barth; Jasmin M Schaefer; Vincent M Rossi; Scott C Davis; Summer L Gibbs Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Edward R St John; Julia Balog; James S McKenzie; Merja Rossi; April Covington; Laura Muirhead; Zsolt Bodai; Francesca Rosini; Abigail V M Speller; Sami Shousha; Rathi Ramakrishnan; Ara Darzi; Zoltan Takats; Daniel R Leff Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Cornelia G F van Lanschot; Hetty Mast; Jose A Hardillo; Dominiek Monserez; Ivo Ten Hove; Elisa M Barroso; Froukje L J Cals; Roeland W H Smits; Martine F van der Kamp; Cees A Meeuwis; Aniel Sewnaik; Rob Verdijk; Geert J L H van Leenders; Vincent Noordhoek Hegt; Tom C Bakker Schut; Robert J Baatenburg de Jong; Gerwin J Puppels; Senada Koljenović Journal: Head Neck Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 3.147