Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 3356–3362 | Cite as

Intraoperative Assessment of Final Margins with a Handheld Optical Imaging Probe During Breast-Conserving Surgery May Reduce the Reoperation Rate: Results of a Multicenter Study

  • Adam M. Zysk
  • Kai Chen
  • Edward Gabrielson
  • Lorraine Tafra
  • Evelyn A. May Gonzalez
  • Joseph K. Canner
  • Eric B. Schneider
  • Andrew J. Cittadine
  • P. Scott Carney
  • Stephen A. Boppart
  • Kimiko Tsuchiya
  • Kristen Sawyer
  • Lisa K. Jacobs
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

A multicenter, prospective, blinded study was performed to test the feasibility of using a handheld optical imaging probe for the intraoperative assessment of final surgical margins during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and to determine the potential impact on patient outcomes.

Methods

Forty-six patients with early-stage breast cancer (one with bilateral disease) undergoing BCS at two study sites, the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Anne Arundel Medical Center, were enrolled in this study. During BCS, cavity-shaved margins were obtained and the final margins were examined ex vivo in the operating room with a probe incorporating optical coherence tomography (OCT) hardware and interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy (ISAM) image processing. Images were interpreted after BCS by three physicians blinded to final pathology-reported margin status. Individual and combined interpretations were assessed. Results were compared to conventional postoperative histopathology.

Results

A total of 2,191 images were collected and interpreted from 229 shave margin specimens. Of the eight patients (17 %) with positive margins (0 mm), which included invasive and in situ diseases, the device identified all positive margins in five (63 %) of them; reoperation could potentially have been avoided in these patients. Among patients with pathologically negative margins (>0 mm), an estimated mean additional tissue volume of 10.7 ml (approximately 1 % of overall breast volume) would have been unnecessarily removed due to false positives.

Conclusions

Intraoperative optical imaging of specimen margins with a handheld probe potentially eliminates the majority of reoperations.

References

  1. 1.
    Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184(5):383–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moran MS, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):704–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCahill LE, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. J Am Med Assoc. 2012;307(5):467–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morrow M, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc. 2009;302(14):1551–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mullen R, et al. Involved anterior margins after breast conserving surgery: is re-excision required? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(4):302–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fukamachi K, et al. Total-circumference intraoperative frozen section analysis reduces margin-positive rate in breast-conservation surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40(6):513–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Osborn JB, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3204–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butler-Henderson K, et al. Intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conserving therapy: a systematic review. Breast. 2014;23(2):112–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tengher-Barna, I, et al. Cavity margins examination in breast-conserving therapy. Diagn Histopathol. 2011;17(5):232–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karni T, et al. A device for real-time, intraoperative margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2007;194(4):467–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schnabel F, et al. A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(5):1589–95.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thill M, Baumann K, Barinoff J. Intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conservative surgery: still in use? J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(1):15–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boppart SA, et al. In vivo cellular optical coherence tomography imaging. Nat Med. 1998;4(7):861–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang D, et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science. 1991;254(5035):1178–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ralston TS, et al. Interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy. Nat Phys. 2007;3(2):129–34.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen FT, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of breast tumor margins with optical coherence tomography. Cancer Res. 2009;69(22):8790–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parvez E, et al. Survey of american and canadian general surgeons’ perceptions of margin status and practice patterns for breast conserving surgery. Breast J. 2014;20(5):481–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hewes JC, et al. Importance of routine cavity sampling in breast conservation surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96(1):47–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Molina MA, et al. Breast specimen orientation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(2):285–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ralston TS, et al. Cross-validation of interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy and optical coherence tomography. Opt Lett. 2010;35(10):1683–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carlsen JF, et al. Strain elastography ultrasound: an overview with emphasis on breast cancer diagnosis. Diagnostics. 2013;3(1):117–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qvistgaard E, et al. Reproducibility and inter-reader agreement of a scoring system for ultrasound evaluation of hip osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(12):1613–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 1982;143(1):29–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    United States Food and Drug Administration Executive Summary Prepared for the June 21, 2012 Meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel (P110014) Dune Medical Devices, Inc. MarginProbe™ System.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huang SY, et al. The characterization of breast anatomical metrics using dedicated breast CT. Med Phys. 2011;38(4):2180–91.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dunne C, et al. Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(10):1615–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Allweis TM, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of a real-time, intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2008;196(4): 483–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Erickson-Bhatt SJ, et al. In vivo assessment of the surgical cavity during breast-conserving surgery with a handheld optical imaging probe. Cancer Res. in press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hooley RJ, LM Scoutt, Philpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography: state of the art. Radiology. 2013;268(3):642–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam M. Zysk
    • 1
  • Kai Chen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Edward Gabrielson
    • 2
  • Lorraine Tafra
    • 4
  • Evelyn A. May Gonzalez
    • 2
  • Joseph K. Canner
    • 2
  • Eric B. Schneider
    • 2
  • Andrew J. Cittadine
    • 1
  • P. Scott Carney
    • 1
  • Stephen A. Boppart
    • 1
    • 5
  • Kimiko Tsuchiya
    • 2
  • Kristen Sawyer
    • 4
  • Lisa K. Jacobs
    • 2
  1. 1.Diagnostic Photonics, Inc.ChicagoUSA
  2. 2.The Johns Hopkins HospitalBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Sun Yat-sen Memorial HospitalGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Anne Arundel Medical CenterAnnapolisUSA
  5. 5.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations