Tamaki Tamanuki1, Maki Namura2, Tomoyoshi Aoyagi2, Sinichirou Shimizu3, Tomoko Suwa3, Hiroshi Matsuzaki2. 1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Funabashi Municipal Medical Center, 1-21-1 Kanasugi, Funabashi, Chiba, 273-8588, Japan. tamaki38tamaki@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Funabashi Municipal Medical Center, 1-21-1 Kanasugi, Funabashi, Chiba, 273-8588, Japan. 3. Department of Pathology, Funabashi Municipal Medical Center, Funabashi, Chiba, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intraoperative margin assessment can reduce positive margins in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. However, reports on intraoperative margin assessment have described only the use of either imprint cytology or frozen section. This study was designed to elucidate the effect of intraoperative margin assessment using imprint cytology followed by frozen section. METHODS: Overall, 522 patients were enrolled. First, the entire surgical margin was subjected to imprint cytology. Frozen section was performed only in cases with "positive" or "suspicious" imprint cytology results. An additional intraoperative excision was performed in patients with frozen section-positive lesion sites. All margins were evaluated using postoperative permanent sections after excision. RESULTS: Among 522 patients, 136 (26.1%) were imprint cytology-positive, and 386 (73.9%) were imprint cytology-negative. Among the 386 imprint cytology-negative patients not subjected to frozen section, 11 (2.1%) were permanent sections-positive (imprint cytology-false-negative). In 47 of the 136 imprint cytology-positive patients, additional intraoperative excision was unnecessary due to the frozen section-negative diagnosis. Moreover, these patients could avoid reoperation, because they were permanent section-negative. The false-positive rate of imprint cytology alone was 13.4%, but adding frozen section to imprint cytology decreased the overall false-positive rate to 2.5%. After undergoing excision, four patients still had positive margins. The overall positive margin rate in the final pathology based on permanent sections was 2.9% (15/522). CONCLUSIONS: Imprint cytology followed by frozen section led to a markedly decreased positive margin rate. This is considered the best method for intraoperative margin assessment, as it can overcome the limitations of cytology and histology performed individually.
PURPOSE: Intraoperative margin assessment can reduce positive margins in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. However, reports on intraoperative margin assessment have described only the use of either imprint cytology or frozen section. This study was designed to elucidate the effect of intraoperative margin assessment using imprint cytology followed by frozen section. METHODS: Overall, 522 patients were enrolled. First, the entire surgical margin was subjected to imprint cytology. Frozen section was performed only in cases with "positive" or "suspicious" imprint cytology results. An additional intraoperative excision was performed in patients with frozen section-positive lesion sites. All margins were evaluated using postoperative permanent sections after excision. RESULTS: Among 522 patients, 136 (26.1%) were imprint cytology-positive, and 386 (73.9%) were imprint cytology-negative. Among the 386 imprint cytology-negative patients not subjected to frozen section, 11 (2.1%) were permanent sections-positive (imprint cytology-false-negative). In 47 of the 136 imprint cytology-positive patients, additional intraoperative excision was unnecessary due to the frozen section-negative diagnosis. Moreover, these patients could avoid reoperation, because they were permanent section-negative. The false-positive rate of imprint cytology alone was 13.4%, but adding frozen section to imprint cytology decreased the overall false-positive rate to 2.5%. After undergoing excision, four patients still had positive margins. The overall positive margin rate in the final pathology based on permanent sections was 2.9% (15/522). CONCLUSIONS: Imprint cytology followed by frozen section led to a markedly decreased positive margin rate. This is considered the best method for intraoperative margin assessment, as it can overcome the limitations of cytology and histology performed individually.
Authors: Edward Robert St John; Rashed Al-Khudairi; Hutan Ashrafian; Thanos Athanasiou; Zoltan Takats; Dimitri John Hadjiminas; Ara Darzi; Daniel Richard Leff Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rafael Santana-Davila; Kiran Devisetty; Aniko Szabo; Rodney Sparapani; Carlos Arce-Lara; Elizabeth M Gore; Amy Moran; Christina D Williams; Michael J Kelley; Jeffrey Whittle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ji Young You; Hee Jung Suh; Yunju Kim; Jae Kwan Jun; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Kyounglan Ko Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.588
Authors: Ekaterina V Gubarkova; Aleksander A Sovetsky; Dmitry A Vorontsov; Pavel A Buday; Marina A Sirotkina; Anton A Plekhanov; Sergey S Kuznetsov; Aleksander L Matveyev; Lev A Matveev; Sergey V Gamayunov; Alexey Y Vorontsov; Vladimir Y Zaitsev; Natalia D Gladkova Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.562