Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intraoperative Pathological Examination of Breast Lesions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Breast Cancer

  • 2149 Accesses

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).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Turner RR. Histopathologic processing of the sentinel lymph node. Semin Breast Dis. 2002;5:35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istanbul University, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Department of Pathology, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ekrem Yavuz & Sitki Tuzlali

  2. Tuzlali Private Pathology Laboratory, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sitki Tuzlali

Authors
  1. Ekrem Yavuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sitki Tuzlali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Internal Medicine, Medical Oncology, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Adnan Aydiner

  2. General Surgery, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Department of Surgery, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Abdullah Igci

  3. Surgical Oncology, Magee-Women’s Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Atilla Soran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yavuz, E., Tuzlali, S. (2019). Intraoperative Pathological Examination of Breast Lesions. In: Aydiner, A., Igci, A., Soran, A. (eds) Breast Cancer . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96947-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96947-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96946-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96947-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation