Top

Published in:

01-12-2021 | Research article

Optical tissue measurements of invasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ for surgical guidance

Authors: Lisanne L. de Boer, Esther Kho, Koen K. Van de Vijver, Marie-Jeanne T. F. D. Vranken Peeters, Frederieke van Duijnhoven, Benno H. W. Hendriks, Henricus J. C. M. Sterenborg, Theo J. M. Ruers

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Although the incidence of positive resection margins in breast-conserving surgery has decreased, both incomplete resection and unnecessary large resections still occur. This is especially the case in the surgical treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS), an optical technology based on light tissue interactions, can potentially characterize tissue during surgery thereby guiding the surgeon intraoperatively. DRS has shown to be able to discriminate pure healthy breast tissue from pure invasive carcinoma (IC) but limited research has been done on (1) the actual optical characteristics of DCIS and (2) the ability of DRS to characterize measurements that are a mixture of tissue types.

Methods

In this study, DRS spectra were acquired from 107 breast specimens from 107 patients with proven IC and/or DCIS (1488 measurement locations). With a generalized estimating equation model, the differences between the DRS spectra of locations with DCIS and IC and only healthy tissue were compared to see if there were significant differences between these spectra. Subsequently, different classification models were developed to be able to predict if the DRS spectrum of a measurement location represented a measurement location with “healthy” or “malignant” tissue. In the development and testing of the models, different definitions for “healthy” and “malignant” were used. This allowed varying the level of homogeneity in the train and test data.

Results

It was found that the optical characteristics of IC and DCIS were similar. Regarding the classification of tissue with a mixture of tissue types, it was found that using mixed measurement locations in the development of the classification models did not tremendously improve the accuracy of the classification of other measurement locations with a mixture of tissue types. The evaluated classification models were able to classify measurement locations with > 5% malignant cells with a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.41 or 0.40. Some models showed better sensitivity whereas others had better specificity.

Conclusion

The results suggest that DRS has the potential to detect malignant tissue, including DCIS, in healthy breast tissue and could thus be helpful for surgical guidance.

Available only for authorised users

Shulman AM, Mirrielees JA, Leverson G, Landercasper J, Greenberg C, Wilke LG. Reexcision surgery for breast cancer: an analysis of the American society of breast surgeons (ASBrS) MasterySM database following the SSO-ASTRO “No Ink on Tumor” Guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(1):52–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5516-5.CrossRef

Patten CR, Walsh K, Sarantou T, Hadzikadic-Gusic L, Forster MR, Robinson M, et al. Changes in margin re-excision rates: experience incorporating the “no ink on tumor” guideline into practice. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116(8):1040–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24770.CrossRefPubMed

Murphy BL, Boughey JC, Keeney MG, Glasgow AE, Jennifer MHA, Racz JM, et al. Factors associated with positive margins in women undergoing breast conservation surgery. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018;93(4):429–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.11.023.CrossRefPubMed

Laws A, Brar MS, Bouchard-Fortier A, Leong B, Quan ML. Does intra-operative margin assessment improve margin status and re-excision rates? A population-based analysis of outcomes in breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118(7):1205–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25248.CrossRefPubMed

Toss MS, Pinder SE, Green AR, Thomas J, Morgan DAL, Robertson JFR, et al. Breast conservation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): what defines optimal margins? Histopathology. 2017;70(5):681–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13116.CrossRefPubMed

Van Deurzen CH. Predictors of surgical margin following breast-conserving surgery: a large population-based cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:S627–S33.CrossRef

Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Margins in breast cancer: how much is enough? Cancer. 2018;124(7):1335–41.

Shaikh T, Li T, Murphy CT, Zaorsky NG, Bleicher RJ, Sigurdson ER, et al. Importance of surgical margin status in ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Breast Cancer. 2016;16(4):312–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2016.02.002.CrossRefPubMed

Volders JH, Haloua MH, Krekel NMA, Meijer S, Van den Tol PM. Current status of ultrasound-guided surgery in the treatment of breast cancer. World J Clin Oncol. 2016;7(1):44–53. https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v7.i1.44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Haloua MH, Volders JH, Krekel NMA, Barbé E, Sietses C, Jóźwiak K, et al. A nationwide pathology study on surgical margins and excision volumes after breast-conserving surgery: There is still much to be gained. Breast. 2016;25:14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.11.003.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Krekel N, Zonderhuis B, Muller S, Bril H, van Slooten HJ, de Lange de Klerk E, et al. Excessive resections in breast-conserving surgery: a retrospective multicentre study. Breast J. 2011;17(6):602–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01198.x.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson ARM, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90(12):1505–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4344.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Volders JH, Negenborn VL, Haloua MH, Krekel NMA, Jóźwiak K, Meijer S, et al. Breast-specific factors determine cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction after breast-conserving therapy: results from the randomized COBALT study. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117(5):1001–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25012.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Waljee JF, Hu ES, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(20):3331–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.13.1375.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Dahlbäck C, Manjer J, Rehn M, Ringberg A. Determinants for patient satisfaction regarding aesthetic outcome and skin sensitivity after breast-conserving surgery. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):303. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1053-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW. Cosmetic assessment of breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. Breast. 1999;8(4):162–8. https://doi.org/10.1054/brst.1999.0017.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hennigs A, Hartmann B, Rauch G, Golatta M, Tabatabia PD, C., Schott S, et al. Long-term objective esthetics outcome after breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153(2):345–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3540-y.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hennigs A, Biehl H, Rauch G, Golatta M, Tabatabai P, Domschke C, et al. Change of patient-reported aesthetic outcome over time and identification of factors characterizing poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy: long-term results of a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(5):1744–51. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Wang HT, Barone CM, Steigelman MB, Kahlenbergh M, Rousseau D, Berger J, et al. Aesthetic outcomes in breast conservation therapy. Aesthet Surg J. 2008;28(2):165–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.2007.12.001.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hau E, Browne L, Capp A, Delaney GP, Fox C, Kearsley JH, et al. The impact of breast cosmetic and functional outcomes on quality of life: long-term results from the St. George and Wollongong randomized breast boost trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(1):115–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2508-z.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Volders JH, Negenborn VL, Haloua MH, Krekel NMA, Jóźwiak K, Meijer S, et al. Cosmetic outcome and quality of life are inextricably linked in breast-conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol. 2016;115:941–8.CrossRef

22.

Pataky RE, Baliski CR. Reoperation costs in attempted breast-conserving surgery: a decision analysis. Curr Oncol. 2016;23(5):314–21. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.2989.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Nachabé R, Hendriks BHW, Desjardins AE, van der Voort M, van der Mark MB, Sterenborg HJCM. Estimation of lipid and water concentrations in scattering media with diffuse optical spectroscopy from 900 to 1600 nm. J Biomed Opt. 2010;15(3):037015. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.3454392.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Nachabé R, Hendriks BHW, Van der Voort M, Desjardins AE, Sterenborg HJCM. Estimation of biological chromophores using diffuse optical spectroscopy; benefit of extending the UV-VIS wavelength range to include 1000 to 1600 nm. Opt Express. 2010;18(24):1432–42.CrossRef

25.

Kennedy S, Geradts J, Bydlon T, Brown JQ, Gallagher J, Junker M, et al. Optical breast cancer margin assessment: an observational study of the effects of tissue heterogeneity on optical contrast. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(6):R91. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2770.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Keller MD, Majumder SK, Kelley MC, Meszoely IM, Boulos FI, Olivares GM, et al. Autofluorescence and diffuse reflectance spectroscopy and spectral imaging for breast surgical margin analysis. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42(1):15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.20865.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Evers DJ, Nachabé R, Vranken Peeters MJ, Van der Hage JA, Oldenburg HS, Rutgers EJ, et al. Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy: towards clinical application in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;137(1):155–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2350-8.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Majumder SK, Keller MD, Boulos FI, Kelley MC, Mahadevan-Jansen A. Comparison of autofluorescence, diffuse reflectance, and Raman spectroscopy for breast tissue discrimination. J Biomed Opt. 2008;13(5):054009. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.2975962.CrossRefPubMed

29.

De Boer LL, Bydlon TM, Van Duijnhoven F, Vranken Peeters M-JTFD, Loo CE, Winter-Warnars HAO, et al. Towards the use of diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for real-time in vivo detection of breast cancer during surgery. J Transl Med. 2018;16(1):367. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-018-1747-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

De Boer LL, Molenkamp BG, Bydlon TM, Hendriks BHW, Wesseling J, Sterenborg HJCM, et al. Fat/water ratios measured with diffuse reflectance spectroscopy to detect breast tumor boundaries. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;152(3):509–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3487-z.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Volynskaya Z, Haka AS, Bechtel KL, Fitzmaurice M, Shenk R, Wang N, et al. Diagnosing breast cancer using diffuse reflectance spectroscopy and intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy. J Biomed Opt. 2008;13(2):024012. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.2909672.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Taroni P, Paganoni AM, Ieva F, Pifferi A, Quarto G, Abbate F, et al. Non-invasive optical estimate of tissue composition to differentiate malignant from benign breast lesions: a pilot study. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):40683. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40683.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Laughney AM, Krishnaswamy V, Rizzo EJ, Schwab MC, Barth RJ Jr, Cuccia DJ, et al. Spectral discrimination of breast pathologies in situ using spatial frequency domain imaging. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(4):R61. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3455.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Brown JQ, Bydlon TM, Kennedy SA, Caldwell ML, Gallagher JE, Junker M, et al. Optical spectral surveillance of breast tissue landscapes for detection of residual disease in breast tumor margins. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069906.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Pappo I, Spector R, Schindel A, Morgenstern S, Sandbank J, Leider LT, et al. Diagnostic performance of a novel device for real-time margin assessment in lumpectomy specimens. J Surg Res. 2010;160(2):277–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.02.025.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Brouwer de Koning SG, Vranken Peeters MTFD, Jóźwiak K, Bhairosing PA, Ruers TJM. Tumor resection margin definitions in breast-conserving surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(4):e596–600.CrossRef

37.

Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, Houssami N, Chavez-MacGregor M, Harris JR, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology - American Society of Clinical Oncology Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery with Whole Breast Irradiation in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6(5):287–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2016.06.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Guiliano AE, Harris JR, Khan SA, Horton J, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology - American Society for Radiation Oncology Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery With Whole-Breast Irradiation in Stages I and II Invasive Breast Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(3):553–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.11.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Tadros AB, Smith BD, Shen Y, Lin H, Krishnamurthy S, Lucci A, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ and margins < 2 mm. Ann Surg. 2017;269(1):150–7.CrossRef

40.

Ekatah GE, Turnbull AK, Arthur LM, Thomas J, Dodds C, Dixon JM. Margin width and local recurrence after breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(11):2029–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.08.003.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Morrow M, Van Zee KJ. Margins in DCIS: does residual disease provide an answer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3423–5. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5255-7.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Fregatti P, Gipponi M, Depaoli F, Murelli F, Guenzi M, Bonzano E, et al. No ink on ductal carcinoma in situ: a single centre experience. Anticancer Res. 2019;39(1):459–66. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13134.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Van Zee KJ, Subhedar P, Olcese C, Patil S, Morrow M. Relationship between margin width and recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 2996 women treated with breast-conserving surgery for 30 years. Ann Surg. 2015;262(4):623–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001454.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Barentz MW, Van Dalen T, Gobardhan PD, Bongers V, Perre CI, Pijnappel RM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for excision of non-palpable invasive breast cancer: a hospital-based series and an overview of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135(1):209–2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2165-7.CrossRef

45.

Slijkhuis WA, Noorda EM, Van der Zaag-Loonen H, Bolster-Van Eenennaam MJ, Droogh-De Greve KE, Lastdrager WB, et al. Ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery for early-stage palpable and nonpalpable invasive breast cancer: decreased excision volume at unchanged tumor-free resection margin. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;158(3):535–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3914-9.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Ahmed M, Rubio IT, Klaase JM, Douek M. Surgical treatment of nonpalpable primary invasive and in situ breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12(11):645–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.161.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Chen BKY, Wiseberg-Firtell JA, Jois RHS, Jensen K, Audisio RA. Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of nonpalpable breast lesions (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;12(12):CD009206.

48.

St John ER, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, Athanasiou T, Takats Z, Hadjiminas DJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):300–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001897.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Optical tissue measurements of invasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ for surgical guidance
Authors: Lisanne L. de Boer
Esther Kho
Koen K. Van de Vijver
Marie-Jeanne T. F. D. Vranken Peeters
Frederieke van Duijnhoven
Benno H. W. Hendriks
Henricus J. C. M. Sterenborg
Theo J. M. Ruers
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Breast Cancer Research / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-021-01436-5

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

A matrisome RNA signature from early-pregnancy mouse mammary fibroblasts predicts distant metastasis-free breast cancer survival in humans

Implementing antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in HER2-positive breast cancer: state of the art and future directions

Eribulin, Child-Pugh score, and liver-function tests: lessons from pivotal breast cancer studies 301 and 305

Diagnostic chest X-rays and breast cancer risk among women with a hereditary predisposition to breast cancer unexplained by a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation

Correction to: IOERT versus external beam electrons for boost radiotherapy in stage I/II breast cancer: 10-year results of a phase III randomized study

Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in premenopausal women: subgroup analysis from the MONARCH 2 trial

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer