Dataset Information

Accuracy of gross intraoperative margin assessment for breast cancer: experience since the SSO-ASTRO margin consensus guidelines.

ABSTRACT: Gross intraoperative assessment can be used to ensure negative margins at the time of surgery. Previous studies of this technique were conducted before the introduction of consensus guidelines defining a "positive" margin. We performed a retrospective study examining the accuracy of this technique since these guidelines were published. We identified all specimens that were grossly examined at the time of breast conserving surgery from January 2014 to July 2020. Gross and final microscopic diagnoses were compared and the performance of intraoperative examination was assessed in terms of false positive and false negative rates. Logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of clinicopathologic covariates on discordance. 327 cases were reviewed. Gross exam prompted re-excision in 166 cases (61%). The rate of false negative discordance was 8.6%. In multivariate analysis, multifocality on final pathology was associated with discordance. We consider the false negative rate acceptable for routine clinical use; however, there is an ongoing need for more accurate methods for the intraoperative assessment of margins.

SUBMITTER: Nunez A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7567822 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of gross intraoperative margin assessment for breast cancer: experience since the SSO-ASTRO margin consensus guidelines.

Nunez Alberto A Jones Veronica V Schulz-Costello Katherine K Schmolze Daniel D

Scientific reports 20201015 1

Gross intraoperative assessment can be used to ensure negative margins at the time of surgery. Previous studies of this technique were conducted before the introduction of consensus guidelines defining a "positive" margin. We performed a retrospective study examining the accuracy of this technique since these guidelines were published. We identified all specimens that were grossly examined at the time of breast conserving surgery from January 2014 to July 2020. Gross and final microscopic diagno ...[more]

PMID: 33060797

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveEvaluate the oncologic outcomes and cost analysis of transitioning to a specimen oriented intraoperative margin assessment protocol from a tumour bed sampling protocol in oral cavity (OCSCC) and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC).Study designRetrospective case series and subsequent prospective cohort study SETTING: Tertiary care academic teaching hospital SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Retrospective case series of all institutional T1-T2 OCSCC or OPSCC treated with primary surgery between January 1st 2009 - December 31st 2014. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates with log rank tests were used to compare patients based on final margin status. Cost analysis was performed for escalation of therapy due to positive final margins. Following introduction of a specimen derived margin protocol, successive prospective cohort study of T1-T4 OCSCC or OPSCC treated with primary surgery from January 1st 2017 - December 31st 2018. Analysis and comparison of both protocols included review of intraoperative margins, final pathology and treatment cost.ResultsAnalysis of our intra-operative tumour bed frozen section protocol revealed 15 of 116 (12.9%) patients had positive final pathology margins, resulting in post-operative escalation of therapy for 14/15 patients in the form of re-resection (7/14), radiation therapy (6/14) and chemoradiotherapy (1/14). One other patient with positive final margins received escalated therapy for additional negative prognostic factors. Recurrence free survival at 3 years was 88.4 and 50.7% for negative and positive final margins respectively (p = 0.048). Implementation of a specimen oriented frozen section protocol resulted in 1 of 111 patients (0.9%) having positive final pathology margins, a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.001). Utilizing our specimen oriented protocol, there was an absolute risk reduction for having a final positive margin of 12.0% and relative risk reduction of 93.0%. Estimated cost avoidance applying the specimen oriented protocol to our previous cohort was $412,052.812017 CAD.ConclusionImplementation of a specimen oriented intraoperative margin protocol provides a statistically significant decrease in final positive margins. This change in protocol leads to decreased patient morbidity by avoiding therapy escalation attributable only to positive margins, and avoids the economic costs of these treatments.

Project description:Introduction: More than 50% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) develop liver metastases during the natural course of disease. Surgical resection is currently the most potentially curative method in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The goal of surgery is to achieve a negative resection margin (RM) of at least 1 mm, which provides the best prognosis for patients. The RM can be assessed by the pathologist of the resected liver specimen (RLS) and by the surgeon intraoperatively. The aim of this research paper is to determine the degree of agreement on intraoperative assessment of the RM by the surgeon and histopathological RM assessment by the pathologist. Material and methods: This prospective non-randomized double-blind study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Oncology Institute of Vojvodina and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04634526. The study was conducted at the Oncology Institute of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia. An experienced hepatobiliary surgeon assessed RM for every specimen intra-operatively, immediately after CRLM resection. Resected CRLM lesions were analyzed by two experienced pathologists. These data were compared with pathological RM assessment as a "gold standard". RM of 1 mm or more was rated as negative RM (RM-). Disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence rate was calculated by RM status defined by surgeon and by pathologist. Results: From 01 January 2015 to 31 August 2019, 98 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 219 RLS with 245 CRLM. The surgeon registered positive RM (RM+) of <1mm in 41 (18.7%) RLS. Taking the result of the histopathological assessment (HPA) as the "gold standard", it was determined that RM was true positive in 32 (14.6%) cases. False positive RM was found in 9 (4.1%) cases. False negative RM was found in 20 (9.1%) cases. True negative RM was found in 158 (72.2%) cases. Sensitivity of surgical assessment (SA) of RM+ was 61.5% (32/52). Specificity of SA of RM+ was 94.6% (158/167). The positive predictive value (PPV) was 78.0% (32/41), while the negative predictive value (NPV) was 88.8% (158/178). The overall accuracy of the RM+ SA was 86.8% (190/219). There was no statistically significant difference in the assessment of RM+ per RLS by surgeon and pathologists (p=0.061), but it was significant when analyses per patients was performed (p=0.017). Recurrence rate for RM+ patients was 48.1% (13/27, p=0.05) for SA and 35.0% (14/40, p=0.17) for HPA. Three year DFS for RM- and RM+ was 66.5% and 27.9% (p=0.04), respectively, by SA, and 64.8% and 42.1% (p=0.106), respectively, by HPA. Conclusion: Intraoperative assessment of RM- by surgeon of RLS is clinically meaningful. There is not a statistically significant difference in the assessment of RM+ by surgeon and pathologists per RLS, but it was statically significant on a per patient basis. RM determined by surgeon has better prognostic impact on recurrence rate and 1- and 3-year DFS than standard histopathological assessment.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of gross intraoperative margin assessment for breast cancer: experience since the SSO-ASTRO margin consensus guidelines.

Publications

Accuracy of gross intraoperative margin assessment for breast cancer: experience since the SSO-ASTRO margin consensus guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets