Indian Journal of Surgery

, Volume 80, Issue 6, pp 554–558 | Cite as

Comparative Study Between Intraoperative Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology/Imprint Cytology and Frozen Section in Determination of Tumour Margin

  • Rajat Mondal
  • Sananda KoleyEmail author
  • Pranab Kumar Biswas
Original Article


Our study was done to compare the results of frozen section (FS) with intraoperative fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), imprint cytology (IC) and permanent paraffin embedded histopathological sections in determining tumour margin and to find out an alternative, rapid, simple and cost-effective method in determining the tumour margin in a setup where frozen section facility is not available. Intraoperative FNAC and imprint cytology were collected from 42 patients with malignant neoplasm. Frozen section was also done on the tissue collected from those patients. These findings were also compared with permanent paraffin embedded histopathological sections. Sensitivities of both imprint cytology and frozen section study were similar and specificity was 100% for FNAC, IC and FS study. Thus, we can use FNAC and imprint cytology together to determine tumour margin over much expensive and laborious frozen section study and also where frozen section facilities are not available.


FNAC Imprint cytology Frozen section Tumour margin 



Fine needle aspiration cytology


Touch imprint cytology


Frozen section


Positive predictive value


Negative predictive value


Intraoperative touch preparation cytology


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Source of Support in the Form of Grants, Equipments

Departmental fund of the institution supplied by the Government of West Bengal.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Haeri H, Djamali M (2002) Comparison of the cytology technique and the frozen section results in intraoperative consultation of the breast lesions. Acta Medica Iranica 40:203–206Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ranchod M (2010) Intraoperative Consultation in Surgical Pathology. Weiss, L, Ranchod, M (eds). Cambridge University Press, p3Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olson SM, Hussaini M, Lewis JS Jr. (2011) Frozen section analysis of margins for head and neck tumor resections: reduction of sampling errors with a third histologic level. Mod Pathol 24:665–670Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scholl P, Byers RM, Batsakis JG, Wolf P, Santini H (1986) Microscopic cut through of cancer in the surgical treatment of squamous carcinoma of the tongue. Prognostic and therapeutic implications. Am J Surg 152:354–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaufman Z et al (1986) Frozen-section diagnosis in surgical pathology. A prospective analysis of 526 frozen sections. Cancer 57:377–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ku NN, Cox CE, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HM, Nicosia SV (1991) Cytology of lumpectomy specimens. Acta Cytol 35:417–421Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D'Andrea V, Redler A, Calò P et al (2000) Thyroid nodules: comparison of preoperative and intraoperative needle aspirate and definite histological study. Chir Ital 52(2):147–153Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DiMusto JC (1970) Reliability of frozen sections in gynaecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 35:235Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Olson TP, Harter J, Munoz A, Mahvi DM, Breslin T (2007) Frozen section analysis for intraoperative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgery results in low rates of re-excision and local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 14:2953–2960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coffey D, Kaplan AL, Ramzy I (2005) Intraoperative consultation in gynecologic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 129:1544–1557Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tribe CR (1965) Cytological diagnosis of breast tumors by the imprint method. J Clin Pathol 18:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esbona K, Li Z, Wilke LG (2012) Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 19(10):3236–3245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Creager AJ, Shaw JA, Young PR, Geisinger KR (2002) Intraoperative evaluation of lumpectomy margins by imprint cytology with histologic correlation: a community hospital experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med 126:846–848Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Valdes EK, Boolbol SK, Ali I et al (2007) Intraoperative touch preparation cytology for margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery: does it work for lobular carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol 14:2940–2945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klimberg VS, Westbrook KC, Korourian S (1998) Use of touch preps for diagnosis and evaluation of surgical margins in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 5:220–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinberg E, Cox C, Dupont E et al (2004) Local recurrence in lumpectomy patients after imprint cytology margin evaluation. Am J Surg 188:349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buley ID, Roskell DE (2000) Fine needle aspiration cytology in tumour diagnosis: uses and limitations. Clin Oncol 12:166–171Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rekhi B, Gorad BD, Kakade AC, Chinoy RF (2007) Scope of FNAC in the diagnosis of soft tissue tumors-a study from a tertiary cancer referral centre in India. CytoJournal 4:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krishnamurthy SC, Soni M, Jagannath KS, DeSouza LJ (1993) Intraoperative fine needle aspiration cytology of pancreas: a study of 97 cases. Indian J Gastroenterol 12(1):14–15Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saez A, Catala I, Brossa R, Funes A, Jaurrieta E, Ferrer JE (1995) Intraoperative fine needle aspiration cytology of pancreatic lesions. A study of 90 cases. Acta Cytol 39(3):485–488Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyIQ City Medical CollegeDurgapurIndia
  2. 2.Department of PathologyMedical College and HospitalKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations