BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is well established that tumor-free margin is an important factor for reducing local recurrence and reoperation rates. This systematic review with meta-analysis of frozen section intraoperative margin assessment aims to evaluate the accuracy, and reoperation and survival rates, and to establish its importance in breast-conserving surgery. METHODS: A thorough review was conducted in all online publication-databases for the related literature up to March 2020. MeSH terms used: "Breast Cancer", "Segmental Mastectomy" and "Frozen Section". We included the studies that evaluated accuracy of frozen section, reoperation and survival rates. To ensure quality of the included articles, the QUADAS-2 tool (adapted) was employed. The assessment of publication bias by graphical and statistical methods was performed using the funnel plot and the Egger's test. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019125682). RESULTS: Nineteen studies were deemed suitable, with a total of 6,769 cases. The reoperation rate on average was 5.9%. Sensitivity was 0.81, with a Confidence Interval of 0.79-0.83, p = 0.0000, I2 = 95.1%, and specificity was 0.97, with a Confidence Interval of 0.97-0.98, p = 0.0000, I-2 = 90.8%, for 17 studies and 5,615 cases. Accuracy was 0.98. Twelve studies described local recurrence and the highest cumulative recurrence rate in 3 years was 7.5%. The quality of the included studies based on the QUADAS-2 tool showed a low risk of bias. There is no publication bias (p = 0.32) and the funnel plot showed symmetry. CONCLUSION: Frozen section is a reliable procedure with high accuracy, sensitivity and specificity in intraoperative margin assessment of breast-conserving surgery. Therefore, this modality of margin assessment could be useful in reducing reoperation rates.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is well established that tumor-free margin is an important factor for reducing local recurrence and reoperation rates. This systematic review with meta-analysis of frozen section intraoperative margin assessment aims to evaluate the accuracy, and reoperation and survival rates, and to establish its importance in breast-conserving surgery. METHODS: A thorough review was conducted in all online publication-databases for the related literature up to March 2020. MeSH terms used: "Breast Cancer", "Segmental Mastectomy" and "Frozen Section". We included the studies that evaluated accuracy of frozen section, reoperation and survival rates. To ensure quality of the included articles, the QUADAS-2 tool (adapted) was employed. The assessment of publication bias by graphical and statistical methods was performed using the funnel plot and the Egger's test. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019125682). RESULTS: Nineteen studies were deemed suitable, with a total of 6,769 cases. The reoperation rate on average was 5.9%. Sensitivity was 0.81, with a Confidence Interval of 0.79-0.83, p = 0.0000, I2 = 95.1%, and specificity was 0.97, with a Confidence Interval of 0.97-0.98, p = 0.0000, I-2 = 90.8%, for 17 studies and 5,615 cases. Accuracy was 0.98. Twelve studies described local recurrence and the highest cumulative recurrence rate in 3 years was 7.5%. The quality of the included studies based on the QUADAS-2 tool showed a low risk of bias. There is no publication bias (p = 0.32) and the funnel plot showed symmetry. CONCLUSION: Frozen section is a reliable procedure with high accuracy, sensitivity and specificity in intraoperative margin assessment of breast-conserving surgery. Therefore, this modality of margin assessment could be useful in reducing reoperation rates.
Authors: F Caruso; M Ferrara; G Castiglione; I Cannata; A Marziani; C Polino; M Caruso; A Girlando; G Nuciforo; G Catanuto Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Tina J Hieken; James W Jakub; Amy C Degnim; Clive S Grant; David R Farley; Kristine M Thomsen; John B Osborn; Gary L Keeney; Elizabeth B Habermann Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: J A Jacobson; D N Danforth; K H Cowan; T d'Angelo; S M Steinberg; L Pierce; M E Lippman; A S Lichter; E Glatstein; P Okunieff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-04-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Walter P Weber; Stephan Engelberger; Carsten T Viehl; Rosanna Zanetti-Dallenbach; Salome Kuster; Stephan Dirnhofer; Daniela Wruk; Daniel Oertli; Walter R Marti Journal: World J Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ken Y Foo; Kyle Newman; Qi Fang; Peijun Gong; Hina M Ismail; Devina D Lakhiani; Renate Zilkens; Benjamin F Dessauvagie; Bruce Latham; Christobel M Saunders; Lixin Chin; Brendan F Kennedy Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Samuel S Streeter; Brady Hunt; Rebecca A Zuurbier; Wendy A Wells; Keith D Paulsen; Brian W Pogue Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 4.379