Intraoperative assessment of the breast: Guidelines and potential pitfalls

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 129, Issue 12, 2005, Pages 1565-1574

  Laucirica, Rodolfo ^a,b  

^a BEN TAUB GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY DISORDER; ARTIFACT; BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION; FROZEN SECTION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MASTECTOMY; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PATHOLOGIST; PEROPERATIVE CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; SENTINEL LYMPH NODE; SURGICAL APPROACH;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; FROZEN SECTIONS; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINES;

EID: 28844468859     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Connolly JL, Rechner RE, Rage DL, Silverberg SC. Recommendations of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, part I: immediate management of mammographically detected breast lesions. Hum Pathol: 1993;24:689-690.
2. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL. Processing and evaluation of breast excision specimens: a clinically oriented approach. Am J Clin Pathol. 1992;98:125-137.
3. Schnitt SJ, Wang HH. Histologic sampling of grossly benign breast biopsies: how much is enough? Am J Surg Pathol. 1989;13:505-512.
4. Treseler PA, Tauchi PS. Pathologic analysis of the sentinel lymph node. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80:1695-1719.
5. College of American Pathologists. Cancer protocols and checklists. Available at: http://www.cap.org/apps/cap.portal.Accessed December 15, 2000.
6. Ku NN. Pathologic examination of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 1999;8:469-479.
7. Van Diest PJ, Torrenga H, Borgstein PJ, et al. Reliability of intraoperative frozen section and imprint cytological investigation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Histopathology. 1999;35:14-18.
8. Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer: College of American Pathologists consensus statement 2000. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:966-978.
9. Holaday WJ, Assor D. Ten thousand consecutive frozen sections: a retrospective study focusing on accuracy and quality control. Am J Clin Pathol. 1974;61:769-777.
10. Nakazawa H, Rosen P, Lane N, Lattes R. Frozen section experience in 3000 cases: accuracy, limitations, and value in residency training. Am J Clin Pathol. 1968;49:41-51.
11. Rogers C, Klatt EC, Chandrasoma P. Accuracy of frozen-section diagnosis in a teaching hospital. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1987;111:514-517.
12. Rosen PP. Electrocautery inducted artifacts in breast biopsy specimens: an iatrogenic source of diagnostic difficulty [letter]. Ann Surg. 1986;204:612-613.
13. Damiani S, Koerner FC, Dickersin GR, Cook MG, Eusebi V. Granular cell tumour of the breast. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1992;420:219-226.
14. Lee KC, Chan JK, Gwi E. Tubular adenosis of the breast: a distinctive benign lesion mimicking invasive carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:46-54.
15. Moffat CJC, Finder SE, Dixon AR, Elston CW, Blamey RW, Ellis IO. Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a clinicopathological review of 32 cases. Histopathology. 1995;27:205-218.