Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

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

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIG. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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;347:1233–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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;332:907–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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;98:697–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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;347:1227–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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;78:1921–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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;100:1823–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Obedian E, Haffty BG. Negative margin status improves local control in conservatively managed breast cancer patients. Cancer J Sci Am 2000;6:28–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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;76:159–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weng EY, Juillard GJF, Parker RG, Chang HR, Gornbein JA. Outcomes and factors impacting local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 2000;88:1643–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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;9:256–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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;71:22–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002;184:383–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Agresti A, Coull BJ. “Approximate” is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 1998;52:119–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ihaka R., Gentleman R. R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 1996;5:299–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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. 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;3:273–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;4:644–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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;64:533–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weinberg E, Cox C, Dupont E, et al. Local recurrence in lumpectomy patients after imprint cytology margin evaluation. Am J Surg 2004; 188:349–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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;69:277–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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;43:73–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Leavitt SH, Aeppli DM, Nierengarten ME. The importance of local control in the conservative treatment of breast cancer. Acta Oncol 1995;34:839–44

    Google Scholar 

  24. Horst KC, Smitt MC, Goffinet DR, Carlson RW. Predictors of local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. Clin Breast Cancer 2005;5:425–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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;126:490–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ku NN, Cox CE. Cytology of lumpectomy specimens. Acta Cytol 1992;35:417–21

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sauter ER, et al. Is frozen section analysis of reexcision lumpectomy margins worthwhile? Cancer 1994;73:2607–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Creager AJ, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of lumpectomy margins by imprint cytology with histologic correlation: a community hospital experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:846–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cendán JC, Coco D, Copeland EM, III. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-be margins. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201:194–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the Herman and Gwen Shapiro Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center for their support of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to TM. Breslin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olson, T.P., Harter, J., Muñoz, A. et al. Frozen Section Analysis for Intraoperative Margin Assessment During Breast-Conserving Surgery Results in Low Rates of Re-excision and Local Recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 14, 2953–2960 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9437-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9437-1

Keywords

Navigation