Achieving negative surgical margins is critical to minimizing the risk of tumor recurrence in patients undergoing breast conservation surgery (BCS) for a breast malignancy. Our objective was to perform a systematic review comparing reexcision rates, sensitivity and specificity of the intraoperative use of the margin assessment techniques of imprint cytology (IC) and frozen section analysis (FSA), against permanent histopathologic section (PS).
The databases PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Plus were searched for literature published from 1997 to 2011. Original investigations of patients who underwent BCS for breast cancer that evaluated margin assessment with PS and/or IC or FSA were included. Of 182 titles identified, 41 patient cohorts from 37 articles met inclusion criteria: PS (n = 19), IC (n = 7) and FSA (n = 15). Studies were summarized qualitatively using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist for cohort studies and the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) numerical scale for diagnostic studies.
The final reexcision rates after primary BCS were 35 % for PS, 11 % for IC (p = 0.001 vs. PS) and 10 % for FSA (p < 0.0001 vs. PS). For IC, reexcision rates decreased from 26 to 4 % (p = 0.18) and for FSA, reexcision rates decreased from 27 to 6 % (p < 0.0001). The pooled sensitivity of IC and FSA were 72 and 83 %. The pooled specificity of IC and FSA were 97 and 95 %. The average length of each technique was 13 min for IC and 27 min for FSA.
Patients who underwent BCS with intraoperative IC or FSA to assess negative surgical margins had significantly fewer secondary surgical procedures for excision of their breast malignancies.
"Frozen section analysis is performed with freezing and sectioning the surgical specimen with subsequent fixation and staining in order to have an extemporaneous assessment of margins; it takes about 30 minutes. Although this technique is extensively used by many surgeons to avoid the need of a postponed reexcision, some pitfalls have been reported, such as the occurrence of artifacts due to the freezing and thawing of adipose tissue in the specimen . A different intraoperative method for margins evaluation is imprint cytology (“touch prep”), which consists of pressing each of the 6 faces of the specimen on 6 different slides so that any malignant cell on an involved margin is theoretically present on the cytology of the respective slide, because of the tendency of tumor cells to adhere on glass compared to adipocytes [61, 62]. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the treatment of choice for early breast cancer. The adequacy of surgical margins (SM) is a crucial issue for adjusting the volume of excision and for avoiding local recurrences, although the precise definition of an adequate margins width remains controversial. Moreover, other factors such as the biological behaviour of the tumor and subsequent proper systemic therapies may influence the local recurrence rate (LRR). However, a successful BCS requires preoperative localization techniques or margin assessment techniques. Carbon marking, wire-guided, biopsy clips, radio-guided, ultrasound-guided, frozen section analysis, imprint cytology, and cavity shave margins are commonly used, but from the literature review, no single technique proved to be better among the various ones. Thus, an association of two or more methods could result in a decrease in rates of involved margins. Each institute should adopt its most congenial techniques, based on the senologic equipe experience, skills, and technologies.
International Journal of Surgical Oncology 08/2013; 2013(3):793819. DOI:10.1155/2013/793819
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Conservative breast cancer surgery is facing a new problem: the potential tumour involvement of resection margins. This eventuality has been closely and negatively associated with disease-free survival. Various factors may influence the likelihood of margins being affected, mostly related to the characteristics of the tumour, patient or surgical technique. In the last decade, many studies have attempted to find predictive factors for margin involvement. However, it is currently the new techniques used in the study of margins and tumour localisation that are significantly reducing reoperations in conservative breast cancer surgery.
Cirugía Española 04/2013; 91(7). DOI:10.1016/j.ciresp.2013.02.003 · 0.74 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In breast conserving surgery, the tumor should be removed with a clean margin, a rim of healthy tissue surrounding. Failure to achieve clean margins in the initial surgery results in a re-excision procedure. Re-excision rates are reported as being 11-46% for invasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Re-excisions can have negative consequences such as increased postoperative infections, negative impact on cosmesis, patient anxiety and increased medical costs. Therefore, the surgical margin of invasive and intraductal (DCIS) breast tissue is a subject of intense discussion. Different options for intraoperative assessment are available, but all in all, they are unsatisfying. Frozen section margin examination is possible but is time consuming and restricted to the assessment of invasive carcinoma. In the case of DCIS, there is no procedure for intraoperative margin assessment. Thus, a solution for efficient intraoperative surgical margin assessment is needed. For this purpose, an innovative, real-time, intraoperative margin-assessment device (MarginProbe(®), Dune Medical Devices, Caesarea, Israel) was designed, and recent published clinical data reported a reduction of re-excisions by more than 50%.
Expert Review of Medical Devices 05/2013; 10(3):301-15. DOI:10.1586/erd.13.5 · 1.68 Impact Factor
Amélie Boutin, Michaël Chassé, Michèle Shemilt, François Lauzier, Lynne Moore, Ryan Zarychanski, Donald Griesdale, Philippe Desjardins, Jacques Lacroix, Dean Fergusson, Alexis F Turgeon
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.