scholarly journals 1131P Intraoperative assessment of negative resection margins in breast-conserving surgery using optical coherence elastography

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. S923-S924
Author(s):  
E.V. Gubarkova ◽  
A.A. Plekhanov ◽  
M.A. Sirotkina ◽  
D.A. Vorontsov ◽  
A.A. Sovetsky ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 117822342199345
Author(s):  
Caroline Koopmansch ◽  
Jean-Christophe Noël ◽  
Calliope Maris ◽  
Philippe Simon ◽  
Marième Sy ◽  
...  

Background: The challenge of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to remove the entire tumour with free margins and avoid secondary excision that may adversely affect the cosmetic outcome. Consequently, intraoperative evaluation of surgical margins is critical. The aims of this study were multiple. First, to analyse our methodology of intraoperative examination of the resection margins and to evaluate radiological and pathological methods in the assessment of the surgical margins. Second, to evaluate the factors associated with positive margins in our patient population. M&m: The data on the resection margin status of 290 patients who underwent BCS for invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) between 2009 and 2016 were reviewed. Results: In the cohort of BCS with invasive carcinoma, the negative predictive value was 97.4% for intraoperative assessment by radiography and 81.8% for intraoperative assessment by pathology. The re-operation rate among cases without intraoperative assessment was 23.6% compared to 7.3% among cases with intraoperative assessment ( P = .003). Margin status was significantly associated with tumour size, histological subtype (invasive lobular carcinoma), and multifocality. In the population of BCS with DCIS, margin status was significantly associated with preoperative localisation and intraoperative margin assessment ( P = .03). Conclusion: There is no statistical difference between pathological and radiological intraoperative assessment. Tumour size, lobular subtype, and multifocality were found to be significantly associated with positive margins in cases with invasive carcinoma, whereas absence of intraoperative margin assessment was significantly associated with positive margins in cases with DCIS. Therefore, intraoperative margin assessment improves the likelihood of complete excision of the lesion.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Shin Lee ◽  
Hee Jeong Kim ◽  
Il Yong Chung ◽  
Jisun Kim ◽  
Sae Byul Lee ◽  
...  

AbstractWe used 3D printed-breast surgical guides (3DP-BSG) to designate the original tumor area from the pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST). Targeting the original tumor area in such patients using conventional localization techniques is difficult. For precise BCS, a method that marks the tumor area found on MRI directly to the breast is needed. In this prospective study, patients were enrolled for BCS after receiving NST. Partial resection was performed using a prone/supine MRI-based 3DP-BSG. Frozen biopsies were analyzed to confirm clear tumor margins. The tumor characteristics, pathologic results, resection margins, and the distance between the tumor and margin were analyzed. Thirty-nine patients were enrolled with 3DP-BSG for BCS. The median nearest distance between the tumor and the resection margin was 3.9 cm (range 1.2–7.8 cm). Frozen sections showed positive margins in 4/39 (10.3%) patients. Three had invasive cancers, and one had carcinoma in situ; all underwent additional resection. Final pathology revealed clear margins. After 3-year surveillance, 3/39 patients had recurrent breast cancer. With 3DP-BSG for BCS in breast cancer patients receiving NST, the original tumor area can be identified and marked directly on the breast, which is useful for surgery. Trial Registration: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) Identifier Number: KCT0002272. First registration number and date: No. 1 (27/04/2016).


2010 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. S30-S31
Author(s):  
Z. Hamdoon ◽  
W. Jerjes ◽  
T. Upile ◽  
G. McKenzie ◽  
A. Jay ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 490-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna S. Englhard ◽  
Tom Betz ◽  
Veronika Volgger ◽  
Eva Lankenau ◽  
Georg J. Ledderose ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 1169-1175
Author(s):  
E.-S. Lee ◽  
W. Han ◽  
H.-C. Shin ◽  
M. Takada ◽  
H.S. Ryu ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document