Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2007

01-10-2007 | Breast Oncology

Frozen Section Analysis for Intraoperative Margin Assessment During Breast-Conserving Surgery Results in Low Rates of Re-excision and Local Recurrence

Authors: T. P. Olson, J. Harter, A. Muñoz, D. M. Mahvi, TM. Breslin

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Negative surgical margins minimize the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. Intraoperative frozen section analysis (FSA) is one method for margin evaluation. We retrospectively analyzed records of patients who received breast-conserving therapy with intraoperative FSA of the lumpectomy cavity to assess re-excision rates and local control.

Methods

Records were retrospectively reviewed for individuals who underwent breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive carcinoma between 1993 and 2003. Inclusion criteria were a minimum of 2 years follow-up and intact tumor at the time of operation. The major outcome measure was local recurrence. The Kaplan-Meier test was used to evaluate local recurrence rates between groups.

Results

290 subjects with an average age of 57.2 years (range 27–89) underwent 292 lumpectomies with FSA. 11.3% had DCIS, 73.3% had infiltrating ductal, 5.8% had infiltrating lobular, and 9.6% exhibited other forms of invasive carcinoma. 70 subjects underwent additional resection at the time of breast surgery, 16 underwent subsequent re-excision, and 17 underwent subsequent mastectomy. At a median follow-up of 53.4 months (range 5.8–137.8), there were six local recurrences (2.74%) in patients who had breast-conserving procedures and two local recurrences in patients who underwent mastectomy. There were no statistically significant associations among local recurrence rate, tumor size, nodal status, or overall stage. Local recurrences were higher in patients with DCIS compared with invasive carcinoma, and tumors >2cm.

Conclusions

Intraoperative FSA allows resection of suspicious or positive margins at the time of lumpectomy and results in low rates of local recurrence and re-excision. The low local recurrence rate reported here is comparable to those reported with other margin assessment techniques.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1233–41PubMedCrossRef Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1233–41PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowen KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995;332:907–11PubMedCrossRef Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowen KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995;332:907–11PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Poggi MM, Danforth DN, Sciuto LC, et al. Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy. Cancer 2003;98:697–702PubMedCrossRef Poggi MM, Danforth DN, Sciuto LC, et al. Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy. Cancer 2003;98:697–702PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1227–31PubMedCrossRef Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1227–31PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gage I, Schnitt SJ, Nixon AJ, et al. Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 1996;78:1921–8PubMedCrossRef Gage I, Schnitt SJ, Nixon AJ, et al. Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 1996;78:1921–8PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Leong C, Boyanges J, Jayasinghe UW, et al. Effect of margins on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast conserving therapy for lymph node-negative breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;100:1823–32PubMedCrossRef Leong C, Boyanges J, Jayasinghe UW, et al. Effect of margins on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast conserving therapy for lymph node-negative breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;100:1823–32PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Obedian E, Haffty BG. Negative margin status improves local control in conservatively managed breast cancer patients. Cancer J Sci Am 2000;6:28–33PubMed Obedian E, Haffty BG. Negative margin status improves local control in conservatively managed breast cancer patients. Cancer J Sci Am 2000;6:28–33PubMed
8.
go back to reference Schnitt SJ, Abner A, Gelman R, et al. The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 1994;74:1746–51PubMedCrossRef Schnitt SJ, Abner A, Gelman R, et al. The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 1994;74:1746–51PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ, Jeffrey S, Carlson RW, Stockdale FE, Goffinet DR. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long term results of breast conservation. Cancer 1995;76:159–267CrossRef Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ, Jeffrey S, Carlson RW, Stockdale FE, Goffinet DR. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long term results of breast conservation. Cancer 1995;76:159–267CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Weng EY, Juillard GJF, Parker RG, Chang HR, Gornbein JA. Outcomes and factors impacting local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 2000;88:1643–9PubMedCrossRef Weng EY, Juillard GJF, Parker RG, Chang HR, Gornbein JA. Outcomes and factors impacting local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 2000;88:1643–9PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mizra NQ, Vlastos G, Meric F, et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence among patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:256–65CrossRef Mizra NQ, Vlastos G, Meric F, et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence among patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:256–65CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Balch GC, Mithani SK, Simpson JF, Kelley MC. Accuracy of intraoperative gross examination of surgical margin status in women undergoing partial mastectomy for breast malignancy. Am Surg 2005;71:22–8PubMed Balch GC, Mithani SK, Simpson JF, Kelley MC. Accuracy of intraoperative gross examination of surgical margin status in women undergoing partial mastectomy for breast malignancy. Am Surg 2005;71:22–8PubMed
13.
go back to reference Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002;184:383–93PubMedCrossRef Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002;184:383–93PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Agresti A, Coull BJ. “Approximate” is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 1998;52:119–26CrossRef Agresti A, Coull BJ. “Approximate” is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 1998;52:119–26CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ihaka R., Gentleman R. R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 1996;5:299–314CrossRef Ihaka R., Gentleman R. R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 1996;5:299–314CrossRef
16.
go back to reference R Development Core Team (2005). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-00-3, URL http://www.R-project.org R Development Core Team (2005). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-00-3, URL http://​www.​R-project.​org
17.
go back to reference Weber S, Storm FK, Stitt J, Mahvi DM. The role of frozen section analysis of margins during breast conserving surgery. Cancer J Sci Am 1997;3:273–7PubMed Weber S, Storm FK, Stitt J, Mahvi DM. The role of frozen section analysis of margins during breast conserving surgery. Cancer J Sci Am 1997;3:273–7PubMed
18.
go back to reference Cox CE, Hyacinthe M, Gonzales RJ, et al. Cytologic evaluation of lumpectomy margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:644–9PubMedCrossRef Cox CE, Hyacinthe M, Gonzales RJ, et al. Cytologic evaluation of lumpectomy margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:644–9PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cox CE, Pendas S, Ku NN, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HS, Nicosia SV. Local recurrence of breast cancer after cytological evaluation of lumpectomy margins. Am Surg 1998;64:533–7PubMed Cox CE, Pendas S, Ku NN, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HS, Nicosia SV. Local recurrence of breast cancer after cytological evaluation of lumpectomy margins. Am Surg 1998;64:533–7PubMed
20.
go back to reference Weinberg E, Cox C, Dupont E, et al. Local recurrence in lumpectomy patients after imprint cytology margin evaluation. Am J Surg 2004; 188:349–54PubMedCrossRef Weinberg E, Cox C, Dupont E, et al. Local recurrence in lumpectomy patients after imprint cytology margin evaluation. Am J Surg 2004; 188:349–54PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Rapiti E, Fioretta G, Vlastos G, et al. Breast-conserving surgery has equivalent effect as mastectomy on stage I breast cancer prognosis only when followed by radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2003;69:277–84PubMedCrossRef Rapiti E, Fioretta G, Vlastos G, et al. Breast-conserving surgery has equivalent effect as mastectomy on stage I breast cancer prognosis only when followed by radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2003;69:277–84PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Dalberg K, Mattson A, Rutqvist LE, Johansson U, Riddex L, Sandelin K. Breast conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer: risk factors for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997;43:73–86PubMedCrossRef Dalberg K, Mattson A, Rutqvist LE, Johansson U, Riddex L, Sandelin K. Breast conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer: risk factors for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997;43:73–86PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Leavitt SH, Aeppli DM, Nierengarten ME. The importance of local control in the conservative treatment of breast cancer. Acta Oncol 1995;34:839–44 Leavitt SH, Aeppli DM, Nierengarten ME. The importance of local control in the conservative treatment of breast cancer. Acta Oncol 1995;34:839–44
24.
go back to reference Horst KC, Smitt MC, Goffinet DR, Carlson RW. Predictors of local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. Clin Breast Cancer 2005;5:425–38PubMedCrossRef Horst KC, Smitt MC, Goffinet DR, Carlson RW. Predictors of local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. Clin Breast Cancer 2005;5:425–38PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Cox CE, Ku NN, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HM, Nicosia SV, Wangensteen S. Touch preparation cytology of breast lumpectomy margins with histologic correlation. Arch Surg 1991;126:490–3PubMed Cox CE, Ku NN, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HM, Nicosia SV, Wangensteen S. Touch preparation cytology of breast lumpectomy margins with histologic correlation. Arch Surg 1991;126:490–3PubMed
26.
go back to reference Ku NN, Cox CE. Cytology of lumpectomy specimens. Acta Cytol 1992;35:417–21 Ku NN, Cox CE. Cytology of lumpectomy specimens. Acta Cytol 1992;35:417–21
27.
go back to reference Sauter ER, et al. Is frozen section analysis of reexcision lumpectomy margins worthwhile? Cancer 1994;73:2607–12PubMedCrossRef Sauter ER, et al. Is frozen section analysis of reexcision lumpectomy margins worthwhile? Cancer 1994;73:2607–12PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Creager AJ, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of lumpectomy margins by imprint cytology with histologic correlation: a community hospital experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:846–8PubMed Creager AJ, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of lumpectomy margins by imprint cytology with histologic correlation: a community hospital experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:846–8PubMed
29.
go back to reference Cendán JC, Coco D, Copeland EM, III. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-be margins. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201:194–8PubMedCrossRef Cendán JC, Coco D, Copeland EM, III. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-be margins. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201:194–8PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Frozen Section Analysis for Intraoperative Margin Assessment During Breast-Conserving Surgery Results in Low Rates of Re-excision and Local Recurrence
Authors
T. P. Olson
J. Harter
A. Muñoz
D. M. Mahvi
TM. Breslin
Publication date
01-10-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2007
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9437-1

Other articles of this Issue 10/2007

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2007 Go to the issue