Abstract
Background:The preferred technique for intraoperative evaluation of the sentinel lymph node has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity and accuracy of intraoperative evaluation of the sentinel lymph node by touch preparation cytology and frozen section.
Methods:A total of 117 patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer or ductal carcinoma-in-situ undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy had intraoperative evaluation of the sentinel node by touch preparation, frozen section, or both. The results of the intraoperative evaluation were compared with the final histological results of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) paraffin section and immunohistochemistry (IHC).
Results:Twenty-six (57%) of the 46 patients with nodal involvement had metastases detected during surgery. The sensitivity of touch preparation for detecting macrometastases was 78%; for detecting all H&E metastases, including micrometastases, was 57%; and for detecting all metastases, including those seen on IHC, was 40%. The sensitivity of frozen section for detecting macrometastases was 83%; for detecting all H&E metastases, including micrometastases, was 78%; and for detecting all metastases, including those seen on IHC, was 64%. Both have a low sensitivity for micrometastases seen by H&E paraffin section: 57% and 78%, respectively. Neither detected micrometastases diagnosed by IHC only.
Conclusions:Both touch preparation and frozen section seem to be accurate in detecting macrometastases, but not micrometastases. Intraoperative evaluation of the sentinel lymph node by touch preparation allows for a quick evaluation of the node without wasting significant tissue and without detecting occult microscopic metastases, which may be beneficial because the clinical importance of these has yet to be elucidated.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Henry-Tillman RS, Korourian S, Rubio IT, et al. Intraoperative touch preparation for sentinel lymph node biopsy: a 4-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9: 333–9.
Treseler PA, Tauchi PS. Pathologic analysis of the sentinel lymph node. Surg Clin North Am 2000; 80: 1695–719.
Motomura K, Inaji H, Komoike Y, et al. Intraoperative sentinel lymph node examination by imprint cytology and frozen sectioning during breast surgery. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 597–601.
Rubio IT, Korourian S, Cowan C, et al. Use of intraoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5: 689–94.
Cserni G. The potential value of intraoperative imprint cytology of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Am Surg 2001; 67: 86–91.
Turner RR, Hansen NM, Stern SL, Giuliano AE. Intraoperative examination of the sentinel lymph node for breast carcinoma staging. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112: 627–34.
Ku NNK. Pathologic examination of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Surg Oncol Clin North Am 1999; 8: 469–79.
Viale G, Bosari S, Mazzarol G, et al. Intraoperative examination of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 1999; 85: 2433–8.
Llatjos M. Intraoperative assessment of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol 2002; 96: 150–6.
Lee A. Intraoperative touch imprint of sentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma patients. Cancer Cytopathol 2002; 96: 225–31.
Weiser MR, Montgomery LL, Susnik B, et al. Is routine intraoperative frozen-section examination of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer worthwhile? Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7: 651–5.
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: 14–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Menes, T.S., Tartter, P.I., Mizrachi, H. et al. Touch Preparation or Frozen Section for Intraoperative Detection of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastases From Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 10, 1166–1170 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2003.04.023
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2003.04.023