| Literature DB >> 30225621 |
David M McClatchy1,2, Rebecca A Zuurbier3,4, Wendy A Wells5,4, Keith D Paulsen6,3,4, Brian W Pogue6,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Roughly 23% of breast conserving surgery (BCS) patients undergo a second re-excision procedure due to pathologically positive surgical margins. We investigated the feasibility and potential value of micro-Computed Tomography (micro-CT) as a surgical margin guidance tool during BCS.Entities:
Keywords: Breast conserving surgery; Intraoperative; Micro-computed tomography; Surgical margin assessment
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30225621 PMCID: PMC6245085 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-018-4951-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat ISSN: 0167-6806 Impact factor: 4.872
Pathological diagnoses of 32 BCS specimens
| N | Margin status | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pathologically positive | Pathologically negative “Close” | Pathologically negative “Distant” > 2 mm | ||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Ductal carcinoma | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Lobular carcinoma | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Mucinous | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Ductal and lobular | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| DCIS | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Pleomorphic LCIS | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| FCD | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| CSL | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Fibroadenoma | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| NAC pCR | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
| |
DCIS Ductal carcinoma in situ, LCIS lobular carcinoma in-situ, FCD fibrocystic disease, CSL complex sclerosing lesion, NAC pCR neoadjuvant chemotherapy complete pathologic response
Fig. 1a Specimen mammography showing a centrally located IDC + DCIS lesion. b Reconstructed micro-CT slice similarly shows a centrally located lesion. c Orthogonal micro-CT slices 12.1 mm apart reveal a close (≤ 2 mm) anterior margin (orange arrow) and a pathologically positive deep margin (red arrow), which agreed with the final pathologic diagnosis. Micro-CT scale bar is 1 cm. d 3D volume rendering of the specimen, with the adipose tissue thresholded to be transparent, shows the architecture of the lesion and its spiculations (see video in Additional File 2)
Fig. 2a Single-projection specimen mammogram revealing a peripherally located IDC + DCIS lesion (orange arrow). b Reconstructed micro-CT slices (1.35 mm apart) similarly depict the peripherally located mass. Notable metal reconstruction artifacts occur because of the localization wire. c Orthogonal micro-CT slices (4.2 mm apart) suggest a close peripheral margin, and also indicate a close deep margin, which would not be evident in the single-projection specimen mammogram. Micro-CT scale bar is 1 cm. d 3D volume rendering of the specimen, with the adipose tissue thresholded to be transparent, revealed a micro-calcification cluster, a large smooth calcification, tumor location metal clip, and calcified vasculature (white arrows) in the presentation (see video in Additional File 3)
Fig. 4a Table summarizing the frequency of pathologically positive, close, and distant lesion involvement for each specific margin. b Bar graph of fraction of lesions ≤ 2 mm for each margin, showing a significant increase in close anterior-posterior margins compared to the orthogonal margins. (16/64 ≤ 2 mm, 15/128 > 2 mm, p < 0.02). ICA invasive breast cancer
Fig. 3a Single-projection specimen mammogram showing a diffuse ILc with poor contrast due to diffuse overlapping structures. b Orthogonal reconstructed micro-CT slices resolve the glandular-fat interface in 3D. Pathology confirmed the specimen to have a pathologically positive margin, although it was not detected by micro-CT analysis. c Single-projection specimen mammogram showing a centrally located IDC + DCIS lesion. d Orthogonal reconstructed micro-CT slices indicate a centrally, but also superficially, located lesion. Pathology confirmed the lesion to be 2.5 mm from the superficial margin, illustrating that micro-CT was unable to resolve the tumor-connective tissue interface. Micro-CT scale bar is 1 cm
Comparison of micro-CT reading to pathologic evaluation
| All specimens ( | Only malignant ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pathologically positive | Pathologically negative | Total | Pathologically positive | Pathologically negative | Total | |
| Positive reading | 3 | 9 | 12 | 2 | 8 | 10 |
| Negative reading | 2 | 18 | 20 | 2 | 16 | 18 |
| Total | 5 | 27 | 32 | 4 | 24 | 28 |
| Sensitivity | 60% (15%–95%) | Sensitivity | 50% (7%–93%) | |||
| Specificity | 67% (46%–84%) | Specificity | 67% (45%–84%) | |||
| Accuracy | 66% (47%–81%) | Accuracy | 64% (47%–81%) | |||
| PPV | 25% (12%–45%) | PPV | 20% (4%–44%) | |||
| NPV | 90% (75%–96%) | NPV | 89% (74%–96%) | |||
PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, Parenthesis 95% confidence intervals