Predictive Factors Associated with Positive Frozen Section Margins in patient with Early Breast Cancer Underwent Breast Conservative Surgery
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: For early breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservative surgery (BCS), negative margins are the most important factor for local control of disease. To achieve oncologic and cosmetic outcomes, we used intraoperative frozen section analysis (IEFSA) to assess the surgical resection margins. IEFSA ensures all margins are clear from tumor and thus prevents re-operation. Objective: To establish predictive factors associated with positive frozen section margins in patients with early breast cancers underwent BCS. This will identify a group of patients who are likely to benefit from IEFSA. Method: A cohort of 225 patients, who underwent BCS with IEFSA between August, 2014 and August, 2019 was retrospectively reviewed. The outer surfaces of shaved lumpectomy margins were evaluated. A negative margin was defined as no ink on the tumor for invasive carcinoma. The presence or absence of tumor cells at surgical margins was confirmed by using permanent section analyses. The incidence of positive IEFSA was reviewed. The association between rate of positive margin and tumor characteristics was assessed by using univariate and multivariate analyses. Result: 60 patients were positive IEFSA (26.7%). Of which 60, 56 received re-excision at least one time to achieve clear margins and 3 were converted to total mastectomy. Posterior margin was found frequently positive IEFSA (35%) and followed by medial and inferior margins. In comparison with permanent section, we found that the sensitivity of IEFSA was 87.7% and specificity of IEFSA was 98.1%. The predictive factors significantly associated with positive IEFSA in univariate and multivariate analyses were tumor size more than 2 cm, tumor calcification found on imaging study, DCIS component and Ki67 >20%. Conclusion: The IEFSA used during BCS is useful to confirm clear surgical margins and preventing re-operation, especially in patient with large tumor size, calcification, DCIS component and high Ki67 index.
Article Details
References
2. Jorns M, Visscher D, Sabel M, Bresel M, Healy P, Daignaut S, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis of margins in breast conserving surgery significantly de-creases reoperative rates: one-year experience at an ambulatory surgical center. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;138(5):657–69.
3. Osako T, Nishimura R, Nishiyama Y, Okumura Y, Tashima R, Nakano M, et al. Efficacy of intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis of lumpectomy margins during breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20(6):1093-101.
4. Luu HH, Otis CN, Reed WP Jr, Garb JL, Frank JL. The unsatisfactory margin in breast cancer surgery. Am J Surg. 1999;178(5):362-6.
5. Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA, Sun P, Lickley HL, McCready DR, et al. The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J. 2006;12(4):331-7.
6. Camp ER, Priscilla F, Jeffrey S, Christopher G, D Scott L, Nancy P, et al. Minimizing local recurrence after breast conserving therapy using intraoperative shaved margins to determine pathologic tumor clearance. J Am Coll Surg. 2005; 201(6):855–861.
7. Fukamachi K, Ishida T, Usami S, Takeda M, Watanabe M, Sasano H, et al. Total-circumference intraoperative frozen section analysis reduces margin-positive rate in breast-conservation surgery. Jpn J ClinOncol. 2010; 40(6):513–520.
8. Ko S, Chun YK, Kang SS, Hur MH. The usefulness of intraoperative circumferential frozen-section analysis of lumpectomy margin in breast conserving surgery. J Breast Cancer 2017;20(2);176-182.
9. Miller AR, Brandao G, Prihoda TJ, Hill C, Cruz AB Jr, Yeh IT. Positive margins following surgical resection of breast carcinoma: analysis of pathologic correlates. J Surg Oncol. 2004;86(3):134-40.
10. Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184(5):383-93.
11. Cendán JC, Coco D, Copeland EM 3rd. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-bed margins. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(2):194-8.
12. Olson TP, Harter J, Muñoz A, Mahvi DM, Breslin T. Frozen section analysis for intraoperative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgery results in low rates of re-excision and local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(10):2953-60.
13. Weber WP, Engelberger S, Viehl CT, Zanetti-Dallenbach R, Kuster S, Dirnhofer S, et al. Accuracy of frozen section analysis versus specimen radiography during breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable lesions. World J Surg. 2008;32(12):2599-606.
14. Borger J, Kemperman H, Hart A, Peterse H, van Dongen J, Bartelink H. Risk factors in breast-conservation therapy. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12(4):653-60.
15. Horiguchi J, Iino Y, Takei H, Maemura M, Yokoe T, Niibe H, et al. Surgical margin and breast recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. Oncol Rep. 1999;6(1):135-8.
16. Obedian E, Haffty BG. Negative margin status improves local control in conservatively managed breast cancer patients. Cancer J Sci Am. 2000;6(1):28-33.
17. Peterson ME, Schultz DJ, Reynolds C, Solin LJ. Outcomes in breast cancer patients relative to margin status after treatment with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43(5):1029-35.
18. Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, Recht A, Connolly J, Gelman R, et al. Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(8):1668-75.
19. Tartter PI, Kaplan J, Bleiweiss I, Gajdos C, Kong A, Ahmed S, et al. Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2000;179(2):81-5.
20. Ikeda T, Enomoto K, Wada K, Takeshima K, Yoneyama K, Furukawa J, et al. Frozen-section-guided breast-conserving surgery: implications of diagnosis by frozen section as a guide to determining the extent of resection. Surg Today. 1997;27(3):207-12.