AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of specimen ultrasound (US) for predicting resection margin status in women undergoing breast conserving therapy for US-detected cancer, having the histological findings as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 132 consecutive patients (age range, 34-87 years; mean, 51 years) underwent breast-conserving surgery for US-detected invasive breast cancer. All surgical specimens underwent US examination. The presence of lesion within the specimen and its distance from the specimen margins were assessed considering a threshold distance between the lesion and specimen margins of 10 mm. US findings were then compared with the pathological ones and specimen US. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) for predicting histological margin status were evaluated, having the histological findings as the reference standard. RESULTS: The histological examination detected invasive ductal carcinoma in 96/132 (73%) cases, invasive lobular carcinoma in 32/132 (24%), mucinous carcinoma in 4/132 (3%). The pathological margin analysis revealed 96/132 (73%) negative margins and 36 (27%) close/positive margins. US examination detected all 132 breast lesions within the surgical specimens. 110 (83%) negative margins and 22 (17%) positive margins were found on US. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, PPV and NPV of 44%, 94%, 80%, 73% and 82%, respectively, were found for specimen US. CONCLUSIONS: Specimen US represents a time and cost saving imaging tool for evaluating the presence of US detected-breast lesion within surgical specimen and for predicting the histological margin status.
AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of specimen ultrasound (US) for predicting resection margin status in women undergoing breast conserving therapy for US-detected cancer, having the histological findings as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 132 consecutive patients (age range, 34-87 years; mean, 51 years) underwent breast-conserving surgery for US-detected invasive breast cancer. All surgical specimens underwent US examination. The presence of lesion within the specimen and its distance from the specimen margins were assessed considering a threshold distance between the lesion and specimen margins of 10 mm. US findings were then compared with the pathological ones and specimen US. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) for predicting histological margin status were evaluated, having the histological findings as the reference standard. RESULTS: The histological examination detected invasive ductal carcinoma in 96/132 (73%) cases, invasive lobular carcinoma in 32/132 (24%), mucinous carcinoma in 4/132 (3%). The pathological margin analysis revealed 96/132 (73%) negative margins and 36 (27%) close/positive margins. US examination detected all 132 breast lesions within the surgical specimens. 110 (83%) negative margins and 22 (17%) positive margins were found on US. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, PPV and NPV of 44%, 94%, 80%, 73% and 82%, respectively, were found for specimen US. CONCLUSIONS: Specimen US represents a time and cost saving imaging tool for evaluating the presence of US detected-breast lesion within surgical specimen and for predicting the histological margin status.
Authors: G Ciccarelli; M R Di Virgilio; S Menna; L Garretti; A Ala; R Giani; R Bussone; G Canavese; E Berardengo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2007-04-20 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ki Yeol Lee; Bo Kyoung Seo; Ann Yi; Bo-Kyung Je; Kyu Ran Cho; Ok Hee Woo; Mi Young Kim; Sang Hoon Cha; Young-Sik Kim; Gil Soo Son; Young Soo Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Benoît Mesurolle; Mona El-Khoury; David Hori; Jean-Pierre Phancao; Salah Kary; Ellen Kao; David Fleiszer Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Rick G Pleijhuis; Maurits Graafland; Jakob de Vries; Joost Bart; Johannes S de Jong; Gooitzen M van Dam Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Benjamin W Maloney; David M McClatchy; Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen; Wendy A Wells; Richard J Barth Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.170
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: Andrew Evans; Rubina M Trimboli; Alexandra Athanasiou; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Ulrich Bick; Julia Camps Herrero; Paola Clauser; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Eva M Fallenberg; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Karen Kinkel; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Christiane K Kuhl; Ritse M Mann; Laura Martincich; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Sophia Zackrisson; Gabor Forrai; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2018-08-09
Authors: Young Duck Shin; Young Jin Choi; Dae Hoon Kim; Sung Su Park; Hanlim Choi; Dong Ju Kim; Sungmin Park; Hyo Yung Yun; Young Jin Song Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 1.817