Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of touch preps for diagnosis and evaluation of surgical margins in breast cancer

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: The best cosmetic results with conservative breast surgery are obtained at the time of initial excisional biopsy. The usefulness of the touch prep (TP) technique was evaluated for accuracy in diagnosis as well as in evaluation of margins at the time of original breast biopsy.

Methods: Four hundred twenty-eight consecutive patients with breast masses seen from January 1993 to December 1994 were evaluated prospectively using TP.

Results: Three hundred forty-five benign and 83 malignant tumors were evaluated. Tumors ranged in size from microscopic to 8 cm. Pathologic diagnosis was correct as compared to permanent section in 99.3%. The three carcinomas missed on TP were focal and in situ. Sensitivity was 96.39%, and specificity was 100%. Positive predictive value was 100%, and negative predictive value was 99.3%. For margin evaluation, the sensitivity and specificity were both estimated to be 100%.

Conclusions: TP has the advantage of being a simple, quick (2 to 3 minutes), safe (no loss of diagnostic material), and accurate method for diagnosis and estimation of tumor margins at the time of the original surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holaday WJ, Assor D. Ten thousand consecutive frozen sections: a retrospective study focusing on accuracy and quality control.Am J Clin Pathol 1974;61:769–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lessells AM, Simpson JG. A retrospective analysis of the accuracy of immediate frozen section diagnosis in surgical pathology.Br J Surg 1976;63:327–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nakazawa H, Rosen P, Lane N, Lattes R. Frozen section experience in 3,000 cases: accuracy, limitations and value in residency training.Am J Clin Pathol 1968;49:41–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosai J, Ackerman LV. The pathology of tumors. Part II: Diagnostic techniques.CA 1979;29:22–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shidham VB, Dravid NV, Grover S, Kher AV. Role of scrape cytology in rapid intraoperative diagnosis: value and limitations.Acta Cytol 1984;28:477–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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;74:1746–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Spivack B, Khanna MM, Tafra L, Juillard G, Giuliano AE. Margin status and local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery.Arch Surg 1994;129:952–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carter D. Margins of “lumpectomy” for breast cancer.Human Path 1986;17:330–2.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Shaw EH. The immediate microscopic diagnosis of tumours at the time of operation.Lancet September 4, 1910.

  10. Dudgeon LS, Patrick CV. A new method for the rapid microscopical diagnosis of tumours.Br J Surg 1927;15:250–61.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tribe CR. A comparison of rapid methods including imprint cytodiagnosis for the diagnosis of breast tumours.J Clin Path 1973;26:273–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cox CE, Ku NK, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HM, Nicosia SV, Wangensteen S. Touch preparation cytology of breast lumperctomy margins with histologic correlation.Arch Surg 1991;126:490–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ku NK, Cox CE, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HM, Nicosia SV. Cytology of lumpectomy specimens.Acta Cytol 1991;35:417–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gal R. Scrape cytology assessment of margins of lumpectomy specimens in breast cancer.Acta Cytol 1988;32:838–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Esteban JM, Zaloudek C, Silverberg SG. Intraoperative diagnosis of breast lesions: comparison of cytologic with frozen section technics.Am J Clin Pathol 1987;88:681–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Abrahams C. The “Scrimp” technique: a method for the rapid diagnosis of surgical pathology specimens.Histopathology 1978;2:255–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Silverman JF. Breast. In: Bibbo M, ed.Comprehensive Cytopathology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  18. National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer.JAMA 1991;265:391–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tinnemans JGM, Wobbes T, Holland R, Hendriks JHCL, van der Sluis RF, Lubbers E-J C, de Boer HHM. Mammographic and histopathologic correlation of nonpalpable lesions of the breast and the reliability of frozen section diagnosis.Surg Gynecol Obstet 1987;165:523–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ferreiro JA, Gisvold JJ, Bostwick DG. Accuracy of frozen-section diagnosis of mammographically directed breast biopsies: results of 1,490 consecutive cases.Am J Surg Path 1995;19:1267–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fessia L, Ghiringhello B, Arisio R, Botta G, Aimone V. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in breast cancer detection: a review of 4436 biopsies and comparison with cytodiagnosis.Pathol Res Pract 1984;179:61–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Clarke K, Le MG, Sarrazin D, Lacombe MJ, Fontaine F, Travagli JP, May-Levine F. Analysis of local-regional relapses in patients with early breast cancers treated by excision and radiotherapy: experience of the Institute Gustave-Roussy.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985;11:137–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bartelink H, Borger JH, van Dongen JA, Peters JL. The impact of tumor size and histology on local control after breast-conserving therapy.Radiother Oncol 1988;11:297–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmidt-Ullrich R, Wazer D, Tercilla O, Safaii HS, Marchant DJ, Smith TJ, Robert NJ. Tumor margin assessment as a guide to optimal conservation surgery and irradiation in early-stage breast carcinoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989;17:733–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Solin LJ, Fowble BL, Schultz DJ, Goodman RL. The significance of the pathology margins of the tumor excision on the outcome of patients treated with definitive irradiation for early-stage breast cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:279–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pezner RD, Lipsett JA, Desai K, Vora N, Terz J, Hill LR, Luk KH. To boost or not to boost: decreasing radiation therapy in conservative breast cancer treatment when ‘inked’ tumor resection margins are pathologically free of cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1988;14:873–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ryoo MC, Kagan AR, Woolin M, et al. Prognostic factors for recurrence and cosmesis in 393 patients after radiation therapy for early mammary carcinoma.Radiology 1989;172:555–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fourquet A, Campana F, Zafrani B, Messeri V, Vileh P, Durand JC, Vilcoq JR. Prognostic factors of breast recurrence in the conservative management of early breast cancer: a 25-year follow-up.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989;17:719–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hallahan DE, Michel AG, Halpern HJ, et al. Breast-conserving surgery and definitive irradiation for early-stage breast cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989;17:1211–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kurtz JN, Jacquemier J, Amalric K, et al. Why are local recurrences after breast-conserving surgery more frequent in young patients?J Clin Oncol 1990;8:591–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Anscher MS, Jones P, Prosnitz LR, et al. Local failure and margin status in early-stage breast carcinoma treated with conservation surgery and radiation therapy.Ann Surg 1993;218:22–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sakai Y, Lanslanti K. Comparison and analysis of the results of cytodiagnosis and frozen sections during operation.Acta Cytol 1969;13:359–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Helpap B, Tschubel K. The significance of imprint cytology in breast biopsy diagnosis.Acta Cytol 1978;22:133–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Suen K, Wood W, Syed A, Quenville N, Clement P. Role of imprint cytology in intraoperative diagnosis. Value and limitations.J Clin Pathol 1978;31:328–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. From the Department of Surgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Cancer Research Center, Little Rock, Arkansas

    V. Suzanne Klimberg MD & Kent C. Westbrook MD

  2. the Department Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Cancer Research Center, Little Rock, Arkansas

    V. Suzanne Klimberg MD & Soheila Korourian MD

Authors
  1. V. Suzanne Klimberg MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kent C. Westbrook MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soheila Korourian MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klimberg, V.S., Westbrook, K.C. & Korourian, S. Use of touch preps for diagnosis and evaluation of surgical margins in breast cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology 5, 220–226 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02303776

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02303776

Key Words

Search

Navigation