Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 1045–1050 | Cite as

Intra-operative Touch Preparation Cytology; Does It Have a Role in Re-excision Lumpectomy?

  • Edna K. Valdes
  • Susan K. Boolbol
  • Jean-Marc Cohen
  • Sheldon M. Feldman



Breast carcinoma is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy in women of North America. The combination of breast conservation surgery and radiotherapy has become a standard of treatment for the majority of breast cancers. It is critical to obtain clear margins to minimize local recurrence. However, avoiding multiple re-excisions for margin clearance helps optimize cosmetic results in patients undergoing breast conservation surgery. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology (IOTPC) may decrease the need for multiple re-excisions and thereby improve cosmesis. The literature suggests that IOTPC can be useful in evaluation of margins. Klimberg et al. evaluated the touch preparation technique prospectively in 428 patients undergoing breast biopsy for undiagnosed breast masses. Margin evaluation was correct in 100% of the lesions and was used to re-excise the margins when touch prep results were positive. They reported a diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 100% for the touch prep technique.

To the best of our knowledge, there has been no published data on the role of IOTPC for evaluation of margins in re-excision cases. This report describes our experience with IOTPC for margin assessment for re-excision partial mastectomy at Beth Israel Medical Center (BIMC). The purpose of this study is to determine whether IOTPC is reliable for evaluating margins in patients undergoing re-excision for involved or close margins.


A prospective study of 30 patients, who have undergone re-excision partial mastectomy for involved or close margins after breast conservation surgery with the use of IOTPC for margin assessment at BIMC was performed. The re-excision lumpectomy specimens were oriented by the surgeon intra-operatively and were submitted fresh to pathology for cytologic assessment. The touch prep method consisted of touching the corresponding margin onto the glass slide. The principle of this technique is that if cancer cells are present they will stick to the slide, while fat cells will not. A slide was prepared for each re-excision specimen. Air-dried samples were stained immediately using the Diff-Quik method and examined under the microscope by a cytopathologist.


Thirty patients underwent re-excision lumpectomy for involved or close margins with touch preparation cytology for assessment of 68 margins. Twenty-six patients had invasive ductal carcinoma and/or ductal carcinoma in situ, three patients had invasive lobular carcinoma and the remaining one patient had a combination of invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma. There was a correlation between touch prep cytology and final pathology in 56/68 margins, which accounts for 82.4% of the cases.


Intra-operative touch preparation cytology for assessment of margins in patients undergoing re-excision lumpectomy for involved or close margins has a sensitivity of 75%, specificity of 82.8%, positive predictive value of 21.4%, and negative predictive value of 98.2%. This high negative predictive value and a single false negative margin are quite significant. Therefore, based on our experience, IOTPC can be a useful tool for intra-operative assessment of margins for patients undergoing re-excision partial mastectomy.


Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Breast Conservation Surgery Close Margin Imprint Cytology Margin Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer with breast conservation surgery. Am J Surg 2002; 184(5):383–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pierce LJ, Strawderman MH, Douglas KR, Lichter AS. Conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer using a lung density correction: The University of Michigan experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 39(4):921–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Creager AJ, Shaw JA, Young PR, Geisinger KR. Intraoperative evaluation of lumpectomy margins by imprint cytology with histologic correlation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002; 126:846–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox CE, Hyacinthe M, Gonzalez R, et al. Cytologic evaluation of lumpectomy margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 1997; 4(8):644–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klimberg VS, Westbrook KC, Korourian S. Use of touch preps for diagnosis and evaluation of surgical margins in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5(3): 220–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heimann R, Powers C, Halpern HJ, et al. Breast preservation in stage I and II carcinoma of the breast. Cancer 1996; 78(8):1722–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke DH, Le MG, Sarrazin D, et al. Analysis of local-regional relapses in patients with early breast cancers treated by excision and radiotherapy: experience of The Institut Gustave-Roussy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985; 11:137–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dibiase SJ, Komarnicky LT, Schwartz GF, Xie Y, Mansfield CM. The number of positive margins influences the outcome of women treated with breast preservation for early stage breast carcinoma. Cancer 1998; 82:2212–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klimberg VS, Harms S, Korourian S. Assessing margin status. Surg Oncol 1999; 8:77–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dongen JAV, Bartelink H, Fentiman IS, et al. Factors influencing local relapse and survival and results of salvage treatment after breast-conserving therapy in operable breast cancer: EORTC Trial 10801, breast conservation compared with mastectomy in TNM stage I and II breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28(4/5):801–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burke MF, Allison R, tripcony L. Conservative therapy of breast cancer in Queensland. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31(2):295–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fourquet A, Campana F, Zafrani B, Mosseri V, Vielh 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mansfield CM, Komarnicky LT, Schwartz GF, et al. Ten-year results in 1070 patients with stages I and II breast cancer treated by conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 1995; 75:2328–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slotman BJ, Meyer OWM, Njo KH, Karim ABMF. Importance of timing of radiotherapy in breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 1994; 30:206–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leborgne F, Leborgne JH, Ortega B, Doldan R, Zubizarreta E. Breast conservation treatment of early stage breast cancer: patterns of failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31(4):765–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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; 64:533–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saarela AO, Paloneva TK, Rissanen TJ, Kiviniemi HO. Determinants of positive histologic margins and residual tumor after lumpectomy foe early breast cancer: a prospective study with special reference to touch preparation cytology. J Surg Oncol 1997; 66:248–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borger J, Kemperman H, Hart A, Peterse H, Dongen JV, Bartelink H. Risk factors in breast-conservation therapy. J Clin Oncol 1194; 12:653–60.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carter D. Margins of “lumpectomy” for breast cancer. Human Pathol 1986; 17(4):330–2.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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; 76:259–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ku KNN, Cox CE, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HM, Nicosia SV. Cytology of lumpectomy specimens. Acta Cytologica 1991; 35(4):417–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karamlou T, Johnson NM, Chan B, Franzini D, Mahin D. Accuracy of intraoperative touch imprint cytologic analysis of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Am J Surg 2003; 185(5):425–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rubio IT, Korourian S, Cowan C, Krag DN, Colvert M, Klimberg S. Use of touch preps for intraoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5(8):689–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mullenix PS, Carter PL, Martin MJ, Steele SR, Scott CL, Walts MJ, Beitler AL. Predictive value of intraoperative touch preparation analysis of sentinel lymph nodes for axillary metastasis in breast cancer. Am J Surg 2003; 185(5):420–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Menes TS, Tartter PI, Mizrachi H, Rosenbaum-Smith S, Estabrook A. Touch preparation or frozen section for intraoperative detection of sentinel lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10(10):1166–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gal R. Scrape cytology assessment of margins of lumpectomy specimens in breast cancer. Acta Cytologica 1988; 32(6):838–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Henry-Tillman RS, Korourian S, Rubio IT, et al. Intraoperative touch preparation for sentinel lymph node biopsy: a 4-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9(4):333–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shaw EH, Eng MROS, Lond LROP. The immediate microscopic diagnosis of tumours at the time of operation. Lancet 1910; 939–42.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edna K. Valdes
    • 1
  • Susan K. Boolbol
    • 1
  • Jean-Marc Cohen
    • 2
  • Sheldon M. Feldman
    • 1
  1. 1.Louis Venet Comprehensive Breast Service, Department of SurgeryBeth Israel Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Louis Venet Comprehensive Breast Service, Department of PathologyBeth Israel Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations