Ko Un Park1,2, Henry M Kuerer1, Gaiane M Rauch3, Jessica W T Leung3, Aysegul A Sahin4, Wei Wei5,6, Yisheng Li5, Dalliah M Black7. 1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Taussig Cancer Institute, The Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, USA. 7. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. dmblack@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative margin assessment for breast cancer patients undergoing segmental mastectomy (SM) enables identification of positive margins, with immediate excision of additional tissue to obtain negative margins. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the ability of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to detect positive margins compared with an institution's standard extensive processing (SEP). METHODS: SM specimens underwent intraoperative SEP with two-dimensional (2D) imaging of the intact and sliced specimen, with review by a breast radiologist and gross assessment by a breast pathologist. Findings guided the surgeon to excise additional tissue. DBT images of intact specimens were prospectively obtained and retrospectively reviewed by a breast radiologist. A positive margin was defined as tumor at ink. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients underwent 99 SMs. With SEP, 14 (14%) SM specimens had 19 positive margins. SEP did not detect 3 of the 19 positive margins, for a sensitivity of 84%, specificity of 78%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 11%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99%. Moreover, DBT did not detect 5 of the 19 positive margins, for a sensitivity of 74% (p > 0.05), specificity of 91% (p < 0.05), PPV of 21.5%, and NPV of 99%. With SEP guidance to excise additional tissue, six cases had final positive margins, with SEP not identifying three of these cases and DBT not identifying two. Pathology from the second surgery of these patients showed either no additional malignancy or only focal ductal carcinoma in situ. CONCLUSIONS: DBT is an accurate method for detecting positive margins in breast cancer patients undergoing SM, performing similar to institutional labor-intensive, intraoperative standard processing.
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative margin assessment for breast cancerpatients undergoing segmental mastectomy (SM) enables identification of positive margins, with immediate excision of additional tissue to obtain negative margins. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the ability of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to detect positive margins compared with an institution's standard extensive processing (SEP). METHODS: SM specimens underwent intraoperative SEP with two-dimensional (2D) imaging of the intact and sliced specimen, with review by a breast radiologist and gross assessment by a breast pathologist. Findings guided the surgeon to excise additional tissue. DBT images of intact specimens were prospectively obtained and retrospectively reviewed by a breast radiologist. A positive margin was defined as tumor at ink. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients underwent 99 SMs. With SEP, 14 (14%) SM specimens had 19 positive margins. SEP did not detect 3 of the 19 positive margins, for a sensitivity of 84%, specificity of 78%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 11%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99%. Moreover, DBT did not detect 5 of the 19 positive margins, for a sensitivity of 74% (p > 0.05), specificity of 91% (p < 0.05), PPV of 21.5%, and NPV of 99%. With SEP guidance to excise additional tissue, six cases had final positive margins, with SEP not identifying three of these cases and DBT not identifying two. Pathology from the second surgery of these patients showed either no additional malignancy or only focal ductal carcinoma in situ. CONCLUSIONS: DBT is an accurate method for detecting positive margins in breast cancerpatients undergoing SM, performing similar to institutional labor-intensive, intraoperative standard processing.
Authors: Samuel S Streeter; Benjamin W Maloney; Rebecca A Zuurbier; Wendy A Wells; Richard J Barth; Keith D Paulsen; Brian W Pogue Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: Swati A Kulkarni; Kirti Kulkarni; David Schacht; Sonya Bhole; Ingrid Reiser; Hiroyuki Abe; Jean Bao; Kevin Bethke; Nora Hansen; Nora Jaskowiak; Seema A Khan; Jennifer Tseng; Buxin Chen; Jennifer Pincus; Jeffrey Mueller; Lauren Schulte; Bazil LaBomascus; Zheng Zhang; Dan Xia; Xiaochuan Pan; Christian Wietholt; Dimple Modgil; David Lester; Li Lan; Bidur Bohara; Xiao Han Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-07-31 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Benedikt Schaefgen; Annika Funk; H-P Sinn; Thomas Bruckner; Christina Gomez; Aba Harcos; Anne Stieber; Annabelle Haller; Juliane Nees; Riku Togawa; André Pfob; André Hennigs; Johanna Hederer; Fabian Riedel; Sarah Fastner; Christof Sohn; Jörg Heil; Michael Golatta Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 4.872