Background/Aim: An accurate evaluation of resection margin (RM) is critical in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) as negative RM status is critical for successful local control. We compared gross and microscopic methods for RM evaluation and analyzed their concordances. Patients and Methods: Gross evaluation (GE), frozen section analysis (FSA), and permanent section diagnosis (PSD) were compared for specimens from 725 breast cancer patients. Results: The RM was grossly involved in 74 cases (10.2%). The sensitivity and specificity of GE were 22.9% and 96.1%, respectively. FSA revealed positive RM in 290 cases (40.0%), with high sensitivity (86.7%) and specificity (83.1%). With PSD, 240 cases (33.1%) showed RM involvement. Discordant results between gross and microscopic methods were observed in 104 cases (14.3%). Conclusion: Our observations of the low sensitivity of GE, high discordance rate between gross and microscopic methods, and high sensitivity and specificity of FSA support the necessity of intraoperative FSA for assessing RM status during BCS.
|Number of pages||8|
|Publication status||Published - 2022 Sept|
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This work was supported by the Chungnam National University Hospital Research Fund, 2021.
© 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research. All rights reserved.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Cancer Research