BACKGROUND: Intraoperative specimen radiographs performed during breast conservation surgery for cancer reduces the need for re-excision for positive margins. We studied 2D versus 3D image-guided cavity margin excision and compared it to final pathology and need for additional surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 657 breast-conserving operations performed for cancer from 2013 to 2018. Procedures were performed by four surgeons at a single tertiary institution with access intraoperatively to 2D and 3D radiographs. Data collected included demographics, intraoperative margin assessment, final pathology, and re-excision rates. RESULTS: A total of 466 patients had 2D and 191 had 3D specimen imaging. The 2D group had a lower mean age and a higher body mass index and proportion of minority patients than the 3D group (P < 0.01). In the 3D group, there was a higher percentage of patients with mammographically denser breasts (P < 0.06); 58% of patients in the 3D group had additional imaging-directed cavity margins excised versus 32% of patients in the 2D group (P < 0.01). In the 2D group, 44 patients (9%) had positive final margins versus 8 patients (4%) in the 3D group (P = 0.02). No difference was found on total volume of excision (P = 0.56). The re-excision rate for the 2D group was 11% versus 5% for the 3D group (P = 0.02; adjusted odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Re-excision rates using both modalities are low. A lower re-excision rate is independently associated with 3D tomosynthesis. This allows surgeons to excise additional margins at the index operation, decreasing reoperations and anxiety/costs for patients.
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative specimen radiographs performed during breast conservation surgery for cancer reduces the need for re-excision for positive margins. We studied 2D versus 3D image-guided cavity margin excision and compared it to final pathology and need for additional surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 657 breast-conserving operations performed for cancer from 2013 to 2018. Procedures were performed by four surgeons at a single tertiary institution with access intraoperatively to 2D and 3D radiographs. Data collected included demographics, intraoperative margin assessment, final pathology, and re-excision rates. RESULTS: A total of 466 patients had 2D and 191 had 3D specimen imaging. The 2D group had a lower mean age and a higher body mass index and proportion of minority patients than the 3D group (P < 0.01). In the 3D group, there was a higher percentage of patients with mammographically denser breasts (P < 0.06); 58% of patients in the 3D group had additional imaging-directed cavity margins excised versus 32% of patients in the 2D group (P < 0.01). In the 2D group, 44 patients (9%) had positive final margins versus 8 patients (4%) in the 3D group (P = 0.02). No difference was found on total volume of excision (P = 0.56). The re-excision rate for the 2D group was 11% versus 5% for the 3D group (P = 0.02; adjusted odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Re-excision rates using both modalities are low. A lower re-excision rate is independently associated with 3D tomosynthesis. This allows surgeons to excise additional margins at the index operation, decreasing reoperations and anxiety/costs for patients.
Authors: Arturo Pardo; Samuel S Streeter; Benjamin W Maloney; Jose A Gutierrez-Gutierrez; David M McClatchy; Wendy A Wells; Keith D Paulsen; Jose M Lopez-Higuera; Brian W Pogue; Olga M Conde Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 11.037
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