TABLE 2.

Characteristics of imprint cytology studies

Study	Year	Country	Carcinoma type	BCS	Age range	n	Intraoperative reexcision ratea	Reexcision rate finalb	Sensitivity	Specificity	Time (min)	False- positive cases	False-negative cases	LOE	Study type
Barros et al.39	2004	Brazil	IC	Quadrantectomy	28–79	102	37 % (38)	0 % (0)	–	–	15–20	13: Atypical cells present	10: Focal for DCIS (6), IC (3) and presence of carcinoma at margin in a single lymphatic space (1)	2	Prospective cohort
Cox et al40	1997	USA	DCIS	Lumpectomy	30–82	104	–	0 % (1)	99 %	98 %		2	1: Focal for DCIS	1	Prospective database
D’Haulluin et al.41,c	2009	France	IDC, DCIS, ILC, LCIS	Lumpectomy	29–88	396	38.63 % (153)	12.6 % (50)	88.6 %	92.2 %	7–17	25: ILC (10.2 %), IDC histological grade 3 (5.6 %), fibricystic mastopathy lesions	9: Contact with 1 margin (4), 2 mm away from margin (5). DCIS, size ≥30 mm, histological grade of 1 or 2.	1	Retrospective cohort
Klimberg et al42	1998	USA	DCIS, ILC	Lumpectomy	22–86	428	1.4 % (6)	0 % (0)	96.4 %	100%	2–3	None	3: Focal for DCIS (2), LCIS (1). Thought to be missed by sampling error.	1	Prospective cohort
Valdes et al.17,d	2007	USA	ILC	Lumpectomy		12		33 % (4)	8.3 %	98.3 %	15	1: Atypical lobular hyperplasia	8: Focal for ILC (7) and ILC plus LCIS (1)	2	Prospective cohort
Valdes et al.17,d	2007	USA	IDC	Lumpectomy	–	61	–	23 % (14)	65.7 %	95.5 %	15	4.10 %	3.3 %, DCIS	2	Prospective cohort
Weinberg et al.10	2004	USA	DCIS, ILC, IDC	Lumpectomy	–	1,193	–	6.2 % (74)	–	–	15	–	–	1	Retrospective cohort
Results						104e	26% (±21 %)f	11 % (±4 %)f	72 % (±38 %)f	97 % (±3 %)f	13

BCS breast conservation surgery, LOE level of evidence (SORT), IC invasive carcinoma, DCIS ductal carcinoma-in-situ, LCIS lobular carcinoma-in-situ, IDC invasive ductal carcinoma, ILC Invasive lobular carcinoma

^aDuring first BCS

^bAfter first BCS

^cCross-publication

^dPublication used twice in analysis because of different study cohorts in same publication

^eSample median

^fPooled estimates