Advertisement

Intraoperative Pathological Examination of Breast Lesions

  • Ekrem Yavuz
  • Sitki Tuzlali
Chapter

Abstract

The most important parameter for local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) to treat breast cancer is surgical margin negativity. Hence, intraoperative assessment of the surgical margins (IASM) of the breast excisions is usually requested. There are still some clinical settings in which the pathologist will also perform intraoperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) examination. Depending on the pathologist’s experience and conditions, the method is typically either frozen section (FS) or cytology in addition to gross examination, although some molecular techniques have recently been developed for intraoperative pathological examination (IPE).

Keywords

Intraoperative pathological examination Surgical margins Frozen section Sentinel lymph nodes 

References

  1. 1.
    Fessia L, Ghiringhello B, Arisio R, Botta G, Aimone V. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in breast cancer detection: a review 4436 biopsies and comparison with cytodiagnosis. Pathol Res Pract. 1984;179:61–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufman Z, Lew S, Griffel B, Dinbar A. Frozen-section diagnosis in surgical pathology. A prospective analysis of 526 frozen sections. Cancer. 1986;57:377–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Rosa G, Boschi R, Boscaino A, Petrella G, Vetrani A, Palombini R, et al. Intraoperative cytology in breast cancer diagnosis: comparison between cytologic and frozen section techniques. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993;9:623–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Veneti S, Ioannidou-Mouzaka L, Toufexi H, Xenitides J, Anastasiadis P. Imprint cytology. A rapid, reliable method of diagnosing breast malignancy. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:649–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spivack B, Khanna MM, Tafra L, Juillard G, Giuliano AE. Margin status and local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. Arch Surg. 1994;138:1371–4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graham RA, Homer MJ, Katz J, Rothschild J, Safaii H, Supran S. The pancake phenomenon contributes to inaccuracy of margin assessment in patients with breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2002;184:89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barthelmes L, Al Awa A, Crawford DJ. Effects of cavity margin shavings to ensure completeness of excision on local recurrence rates following breast conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:644–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cao D, Lin C, Woo SH, Vang R, Tsangaris TN, Argani P. Separate cavity margin sampling at the time of initial breast lumpectomy significantly reduces the need for reexcisions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1625–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guidi AJ, Connoly JL, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. The relationship between shaved margin and inked margin status in breast excision specimens. Cancer. 1997;70:1568–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rubin P, O’Honlon D, Browell D, Callanan K, Shrimankar J, Scott D, et al. Tumour bed biopsy detects the presence of multifocal disease in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy for primary breast carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996;22:23–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riedl O, Fitzal F, Mader N, Dubsky P, Rudas M, Mittlboeck M, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis for breast-conserving therapy in 1016 patients with breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:264–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olson TP, Harter J, Munoz 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;14:2953–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Camp ER, McAuliffe PF, Gilroy JS, Morris CG, Lind DS, Mendenhall NP, et al. Minimizing local recurrence after breast conserving therapy using intraoperative shaved margins to determine pathologic tumor clearance. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:855–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bakhshandeh M, Tutuncuoglu SO, Fischer G, Masood S. Use of imprint cytology for assessment of surgical margins in lumpectomy specimens of breast cancer patients. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:656–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klimberg VS, Westbrook KC, Korourian S. Use of touch preps for diagnosis and evaluation of surgical margins in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5:220–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Valdes EK, Boolbol SK, Ali I, Feldman SM, Cohen JM. Intraperative touch preparation cytology for margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery: does it work for lobular carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2940–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    St John ER, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, Athanasiou T, Takats Z, Hadjiminas DJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265:300–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis. A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305:569–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, Beitsch PD, Brennan MB, Kelemen PR, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tew K, Irwig L, Matthews A, Crowe P, Macaskill P. Metaanalysis of sentinel lypmh node cytology in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2005;92:1068–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu LC, Lang JE, Lu Y, Roe D, Hwang SE, Ewing CA, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. A meta-analysis and single-institution experience. Cancer. 2011;117:250–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fung V, Kohlhardt S, Vergani P, Zardin GJ, Williams NR. Intraoperative prediction of the two axillary lymph node macrometastases threshold in patients with breast cancer using a one-step nucleic acid cytokeratin-19 amplification assay. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017;7:755–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shigematsu H, Ozaki S, Yasui D, Zaitsu J, Taniyama D, Saitou A, et al. Comparison of CK-IHC assay on serial frozen sections, the OSNA assay, and in combination for intraoperative evaluation of SLN metastases in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2017;25(2):191–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-017-0811-y. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, Benson AB, Bodurka DC, Burstein HJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7703–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, Clark GM, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer: College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:966–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for processing and reporting of lymph node specimens submitted for evaluation of metastatic disease. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:799–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Turner RR. Histopathologic processing of the sentinel lymph node. Semin Breast Dis. 2002;5:35–40.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weaver DL, Krag DN, Ashikaga T, Harlow SP, O’Connell M. Pathologic analysis of sentinel and nonsentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma: a multicenter study. Cancer. 2000;88:1099–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cserni G. Metastases in axillary sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer as detected by intensive histopathological work up. J Clin Pathol. 1999;52:922–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Turner RR, Ollila DW, Stern S, Giuliano AE. Optimal histopathologic examination of the sentinel lymph node for breast carcinoma staging. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:263–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang PJ, Reisner RM, Nangia R, Edge SB, Brooks JJ. Effectiveness of multiple-level sectioning in detecting axillary nodal micrometastasis in breast cancer: a retrospective study with immunohistochemical analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:687–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weaver DL, Le UP, Dupuis SL, Weaver KA, Harlow SP, Ashikaga T, et al. Metastasis detection in sentinel lymph nodes: comparison of a limited widely spaced (NSABP Protocol B-32) and a comprehensive narrowly spaced paraffin block sectioning strategy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:1583–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kollias J, Gil PG, Chatterton B, Raymond W, Collins PJ. Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: recommendations for surgeons, pathologists, nuclear physicians and radiologists in Australia and New Zeeland. Aust N Z J Surg. 2000;70:132–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cserni G, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, Bellocq JP, Bianchi S, Boecker W, et al. Discrepansies in current practice of pathological evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Results of a questionnaire-based survey by the European Working Group for Breast Screening Pathology. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57:695–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Green FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz AG, Balch CM, Haller DG, et al. AJCC Cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ekrem Yavuz
    • 1
  • Sitki Tuzlali
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Istanbul University, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Department of PathologyIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Tuzlali Private Pathology LaboratoryIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations