Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McCahill LE, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. J Am Med Assoc. 2012;307(5):467–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Butler-Henderson K, et al. Intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conserving therapy: a systematic review. Breast. 2014;23(2):112–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tengher-Barna, I, et al. Cavity margins examination in breast-conserving therapy. Diagn Histopathol. 2011;17(5):232–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boppart SA, et al. In vivo cellular optical coherence tomography imaging. Nat Med. 1998;4(7):861–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Huang D, et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science. 1991;254(5035):1178–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ralston TS, et al. Interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy. Nat Phys. 2007;3(2):129–34.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nguyen FT, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of breast tumor margins with optical coherence tomography. Cancer Res. 2009;69(22):8790–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hewes JC, et al. Importance of routine cavity sampling in breast conservation surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96(1):47–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Molina MA, et al. Breast specimen orientation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(2):285–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ralston TS, et al. Cross-validation of interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy and optical coherence tomography. Opt Lett. 2010;35(10):1683–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Carlsen JF, et al. Strain elastography ultrasound: an overview with emphasis on breast cancer diagnosis. Diagnostics. 2013;3(1):117–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  28. Huang SY, et al. The characterization of breast anatomical metrics using dedicated breast CT. Med Phys. 2011;38(4):2180–91.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  32. Hooley RJ, LM Scoutt, Philpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography: state of the art. Radiology. 2013;268(3):642–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was funded by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (R44CA165436). We acknowledge Dr. Daniel McCormick for technical contributions and Drs. Robert Buras, Melissa Camp, Mehran Habibi, Clarissa Hammer, Julie Lange, and Wen Liang for study participation and recruiting. This study was funded by the US National Cancer Institute and sponsored by Diagnostic Photonics, Inc. AMZ and AJC are employees of Diagnostic Photonics, Inc. SAB and PSC are co-founders of Diagnostic Photonics, Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Photonics, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA

    Adam M. Zysk PhD, Andrew J. Cittadine MS, P. Scott Carney PhD & Stephen A. Boppart MD, PhD

  2. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Kai Chen MD, Edward Gabrielson MD, Evelyn A. May Gonzalez MD, Joseph K. Canner MHS, Eric B. Schneider PhD, Kimiko Tsuchiya MHS & Lisa K. Jacobs MD

  3. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

    Kai Chen MD

  4. Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, MD, USA

    Lorraine Tafra MD & Kristen Sawyer MS

  5. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Stephen A. Boppart MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Adam M. Zysk PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Chen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward Gabrielson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lorraine Tafra MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Evelyn A. May Gonzalez MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joseph K. Canner MHS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eric B. Schneider PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andrew J. Cittadine MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. P. Scott Carney PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Stephen A. Boppart MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Kimiko Tsuchiya MHS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Kristen Sawyer MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Lisa K. Jacobs MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa K. Jacobs MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zysk, A.M., Chen, K., Gabrielson, E. et al. 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. Ann Surg Oncol 22, 3356–3362 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4665-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4665-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation