Enhanced touch preps improve the ease of interpretation of intraoperative breast cancer margins

American Surgeon

Volumn 73, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 973-976

  Blair, Sarah L ^a,e   Wang Rodriguez, Jessica ^b   Cortes Mateos, Maria Jose ^c   Messmer, Davorka ^c   Sandoval, Sergio ^d   Messmer, Bradley ^c   Trogler, William ^e   Kummel, Andrew ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIBODY; E CADHERIN ANTIBODY; EOSIN; HEMATOXYLIN; MUCIN 1; MUCIN 1 ANTIBODY; PARAFFIN; POLYLYSINE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; UVOMORULIN; CADHERIN; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY MUC 1; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY MUC-1;

ARTICLE; BREAST; BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER CELL; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RELIABILITY; STAIN; STAINING; TOUCH; BREAST TUMOR; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CYTOLOGY; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; SEGMENTAL MASTECTOMY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD;

ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CADHERINS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; PARAFFIN EMBEDDING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 38449120842     PISSN: 00031348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Heimann R, Powers C, Halpem HJ, et al. Breast preservation in stage I and II carcinoma of the breast. The University of Chicago experience. Cancer 1996;78:1722-30.
2. Slotman BJ, Meyer OW, Njo KH, et al. Importance of timing of radiotherapy in breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 1994;30:206-12.
3. van Dongen JA, Bartelink H, Fentiman IS, et al. Factors influencing local relapse and survival and results of salvage treatment after breast-conserving therapy in operable breast cancer: EORTC trial 10801, breast conservation compared with mastectomy in TNM stage I and II breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1992;28A:801-5.
4. DiBiase SJ, Komarnicky LT, Schwartz GF, et al. The number of positive margins influences the outcome of women treated with breast preservation for early stage breast carcinoma. Cancer 1998;82:2212-20.
5. Mansfield CM, Komarnicky LT, Schwartz GF, et al. Ten-year results in 1070 patients with stages I and II breast cancer treated by conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 1995;75:2328-36.
6. Meric F, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, et al. Positive surgical margins and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence predict disease-specific survival after breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 2003;97:926-33.
7. Mullenix PS, Cuadrado DG, Steele SR, et al. Secondary operations are frequently required to complete the surgical phase of therapy in the era of breast conservation and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Am J Surg 2004;187:643-6.
8. Chagpar A, Yen T, Sahin A, et al. Intraoperative margin assessment reduces reexcision rates in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg 2003;186:371-7.
9. Balch G, Mithani S, Simpson J, et al. Accuracy of intraoperative gross examination of surgical margin status in women undergoing partial mastectomy for breast malignancy. Am Surg 2005;71:22-7.
10. Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002;184:383-93.
11. Klimberg VS, Harms S, Korourian S. Assessing margin status. Surg Oncol 1999;8:77-84.
12. Gendler SJ. MUC1, the renaissance molecule. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2001;6:339-53.
13. Goldstein NS. Does the level of E-cadherin expression correlate with the primary breast carcinoma infiltration pattern and type of systemic metastases? Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:425-34.
14. Muttalib M, Tai CC, Briant-Evans T, et al. Intraoperative assessment of excision margins using breast imprint and scrape cytology. Breast 2005;14:42-50.
15. Creager AJ, Shaw JA, Young PR, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of lumpectomy margins by imprint cytology with histologic correlation: A community hospital experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:846-8.
16. Wolberg WH, Street WN, Mangasarian OL. Importance of nuclear morphology in breast cancer prognosis. Clin Cancer Res 1999;5:3542-8.
17. Rao JY, Apple SK, Hemstreet GP, et al. Single cell multiple biomarker analysis in archival breast fine-needle aspiration specimens: Quantitative fluorescence image analysis of DNA content, p53, and G-actin as breast cancer biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998;7:1027-33.
18. Zhang W, Yang YC, Zhang BN, et al. Biomarker analysis on breast ductal lavage cells in women with and without breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2006;119:359-64.