Local recurrence of breast cancer after cytological evaluation of lumpectomy margins

American Surgeon

Volumn 64, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 533-538

  Cox, Charles E ^a,b   Pendas, Solange ^a,b   Ku, N I N I K ^a,b   Reintgen, Douglas S ^a,b   Greenberg, Harvey S ^a,b   Nicosia, Santo V ^a,b  

^a H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FROZEN SECTION; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; RECURRENCE RISK;

BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HISTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PROGNOSIS; REOPERATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0031839009     PISSN: 00031348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Frazier TG, Wong WYR, Rose D. Implications of accurate pathologic margins in the treatment of primary breast cancer. Arch Surg 1989:124:37-8.
2. Pittinger TP, Marionnian NC, Poulter CA, Peacock JL. Importance of margin status in outcome of breast conserving surgery for carcinoma. Surgery 1994;116:606-9.
3. Renton SC, Gazet JC, Ford HT, et al. The importance of the resection margin in conservative surgery for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1996;22:17-22.
4. Rubin P, O'Hanlon D, Borwell D, et al. Tumor bed biopsy detects the presence of multifocal disease in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy for primary breast carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 1996;22:23-6.
5. Schmidt SJ, Abner A, Gelman R, et al. The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery and radiation and therapy. Cancer (Phila.) 1994;74:1746-51.
6. Smitt MC, Jeffrey S, Carlson RC, et al. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in breast conservation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1995;32:30.
7. Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zbedlick JS, et al. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long-term results of breast conservation. Cancer 1995;78:259-67.
8. Solin LJ, Fowble B, Martz K, et al. Results of re-excisional biopsy of the primary tumor in preparation for definitive irradiation of patients with early stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1986;12:721-5.
9. Spivak B, Khanna MM, Tafra L, et al. Margin status and local recurrence after breast conserving surgery. Arch Surg 1994;129:952-7.
10. Harris JR. Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, et al. The use of pathological features in selecting the extent of surgical resection necessary for breast cancer patients by primary radiation. Ann Surg 1985;201:164-9.
11. Shabaik AS, Cox CE, Clark RA, Reinigen DS. Imprint cytology of needle-localized breast lesions. Acta Cytol 1993;37:10-5.
12. Tribe C. A comparison of rapid methods including imprint diagnosis for the diagnosis of breast tumors. J Clin Pathol 1973;26:273-7.
13. Ku NNK, Nicosia SY. Role of fine needle aspiration cytology after lumpectomy. Acta Cytol 1994;38:927-32.
14. Ku NNK, Cox CE, Reinigen DS, et al. Cytology of lumpectomy specimens. Acla Cylologica 1991;417-21.
15. Ku NNK, Cox CE, Reinigen DS, el al. Local recurrence after cytological evalualion of lumpeclomy margins: A follow-up of 520 breasl cancer palienls. Lab Invest 1994;70:17a.
16. Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson IT, el al. Eighl-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing tolal maslectomy and lumpectomy with or withoul irradialion in Ihe treatmenl of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1989;320:822-8.
17. Fischer ER, Constantino J, Fisher B. Pathologie findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast project. Cancer (Phila.) 1993:71:2141-50.
18. Fisher B, Wickerham DL, Deutsch M, et al. Breast tumor recurrence following lumpectomy with and without breast irradiation: An overview of recent NSABP findings. Semin Surg Oncol 1992:8:153-160.
19. Carter D. Margins of lumpectomy for breast cancer. Human Pathology 1986;17:330-2.
20. Cox CE, Ku NN, Reinigen DS, et al. Touch preparation cytology of breast lumpectomy margins with histologie correlation. Arch Surg 1992;126:490-3.
21. DeRosa G, Boschi I, Boscaino A, et al. Intraoperative cytology in breast cancer diagnosis, comparison between cytologie and frozen section techniques. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:623-31.
22. Dixon JM, Ravi Sekar O, Walsh J, et al. Specimen oriented radiography helps define excision margins of malignant lesions detected by breast cancer screening. Br J Surg 1993:80:1001-2.
23. Klimberg VS, Westbrook KC, Korourian Sr. Use of touch preps for diagnosis and surgical margins in breast cancer. Proc Ann Cancer Symposia, Society of Surgical Oncology 1996.
24. Sauter ER, Hoffman JP, Ottery FD, et al. Is frozen section analysis of re-excision lumpectomy margins worthwhile? Cancer (Phila.) 1994;73:2607-12.
25. Suva EG, Kraemer BB. The examination of margins of resection by frozen section. Part I. Surg Pathol 1998:1:303-6.
26. Gal R. Scrape cytology assessment of margins of lumpectomy specimens in breast cancer. Acta Cytol 1988;32:838-9.
27. Shidham VB, Nandkumar DV, Grover S, Kher AV. Role of scrape cytology in rapid intraoperative diagnosis. Acta Cytologica 1984:28:477-82.
28. Kline TS, Kline IK. Breast. Guide to Clinical Aspiration Biopsy. New York: Igaku-Shoin, 1989, pp 1-7.
29. Nicosia SV, Williams IA, et al. Fine needle aspiration biopsy of palpable breast lesions. Review and statistical analysis of 1875 cases. Surg Oncol 1993;2:145-60.
30. Silverman IF. Breast. In: Bibbo M ed., Comprehensive Cytolopathology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1991, p 703-10.
31. De las Morenas A, Clips POP, Moroz K, Donnelly MM. Cytologie diagnosis of ductal versus lobular carcinoma of the breast. Acta Cytol 1994;39:865-76.
32. Veneti, Oannl ou-Mouzaka L, Toufexi H, et al. Imprint cytology: A rapid, reliable method of diagnosing breast malignancy. Acta Cytol 1996;40:649-52.
33. Cox CE, Reinigen DS, Nicosia SV, et al. Analysis of residual cancer after diagnostic breast biopsy: An argument for fine needle aspiration cylology. Ann Surg Oncol 1995;2:201-6.
34. Yealman TJ, Canlor AB, Smith TJ, et al. The tumor biology of infiltrating lobular carcinoma: Implications for managemenl. Ann Surg 1995;222:549-61.