TABLE 3.
Characteristics of frozen section analysis studies
| Study | Year | Country | Carcinoma type | BCS | Age range (y) | n | Intraoperative reexcision ratea |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cabioglu et al.14 | 2007 | USA | IC, DCIS | Wide local excision, segmental mastectom |
27–95 | 110 | 20.0 % (22) | |
| Camp et al.15 (personal communication) | 2005 | USA | IC, DCIS | Lumpectomy | 26–78 | 189 | 27.0 % (51) | |
| Cendan et al.43 | 2005 | USA | DCIS, LCIS, ILC, IDC, MC | BCS | 48–71 | 97 | 44.0 % (43) | |
| Chen et al.44 | 2005 | Taiwan | PT | Local and wide excision | 11–73 | 113 | ||
| Dener et al.45 | 2009 | Turkey | IC | Lumpectomy | 18–94 | 186 | 16.0 % (30) | |
| Fukamachi et al.19 | 2010 | Japan | IDC, DCIS, ILC, MC, AC | Wide excision, quadrantectomy |
32–87 | 122 | 27.0 % (33) | |
| Ikeda et al.46 | 1997 | Japan | DCIS, IC | Quadrantectomy | 33–66 | 54 | 37 % (20) | |
| Loibl et al.16 | 2006 | Germany | ILC, IDC | Lumpectomy | 25–78 | 240 | – | |
| Munhoz et al.20 | 2009 | Brazil | DCIS, ILC, IDC | Lumpectomy | 23–71 | 218 | 28.8 % (63) | |
| Olson et al.47 | 2007 | USA | IC, DCIS | Lumpectomy | 27–89 | 290 | 24.0 % (70) | |
| Park et al.48 | 2011 | Korea | ILC, IDC, MC, TC, PC, medullary | BCS | 20–78 | 705 | – | |
| Riedl et al.21 | 2009 | Austria | DCIS, ILC, IDC | Lumpectomy | 24–92* | 1,016 | – | |
| Rusby et al.18 | 2008 | UK | DCIS, ILC, IDC, MC, TC, PC | Partial mastectom | 40–59 | 115 | 33.0 % (38) | |
| Weber et al.49 | 1997 | USA | DCIS | Lumpectomy | – | 140 | 15 % (21) | |
| Weber et al.50 | 2008 | Switzerland | IC, DCIS, ADH | Lumpectomy | 34–86 | 80 | – | |
| Results | 163c | 27 % (±9 %)d | ||||||
| Reexcision rate finalb | Sensitivity | Specificity | Time (min) | False-positive cases |
False-negative cases | LOE | Study type | |
| 8.8 % (10) | 91.7 % | 77.8 % | – | – | 1 | Retrospective cohort | ||
| 5.8 % (11) | – | – | 13 | – | – | 1 | Retrospective cohort | |
| 19.6 % (19)c | 58.1 % | 100.0 % | 13 | None | 22: DCIS (20), LCIS (2) | 1 | Retrospective cohort | |
| 41.6 % (47) | – | – | – | – | 2 | Retrospective cohort | ||
| 0 % (0) | 100.0 % | 100.0 % | None | None | 1 | Retrospective cohort | ||
| 9.8 % (12) | 78.6 % | 100.0 % | 53# | None | – | 1 | Retrospective cohort | |
| 0 % (0) | 94% | 90% | 4: Atypical | 1 | 1 | Retrospective cohort | ||
| 13.3 % (32) | – | – | – | – | 1 | Retrospective cohort RCT-GEPARDUO | ||
| 5.5 % (12) | – | – | – | 12: IDC (7), IDC plus DCIS (2), DCIS (2). Younger age and larger tumors. |
1 | Retrospective cohort | ||
| 5.5 % (16) | 73.1 % | 99.6 % | 27 | 17 | 1 | Retrospective cohort | ||
| 13.5 % (95) | – | – | – | 28: Focal intraductal carcinoma | 1 | Retrospective cohort | ||
| 9 % (91) | – | – | 30 | – | 91: IDC (88), ILC (3); Small lessions, microcalcifications, neoadjuvant therapy |
1 | Retrospective cohort | |
| 7 % (8) | 83.0 % | 97.0 % | 8: Atypia, sclerosing adenosis (3); in situ or IC (4) |
9: Sampling error, small volume of tissue |
1 | Retrospective cohort, prospective database | ||
| 0 % (1) | 91 % | 100% | None | 3: DCIS (2), LCIS (1) |
1 | Retrospective cohort | ||
| 12.5 % (10) | 80.0 % | 87.5 % | – | – | 1 | Retrospective cohort | ||
| 10 % (±6 %)d | 83 % (±13 %)d | 95 % (±8 %)d | 27.25c | |||||
BCS breast conservation surgery, LOE level of evidence (SORT), IC invasive carcinoma, MC mucinous carcinoma, AC apocrine carcinoma, TC tubular carcinoma, PC papillary carcinoma, DCIS ductal carcinoma-in-situ, LCIS lobular carcinoma-in-situ, IDC invasive ductal carcinoma, ILC invasive lobular carcinoma, PT phyllodes tumors, ADH atypical ductal hyperplasia
a
During first BCS
b
After first BCS
c
Sample median
d
Pooled estimates
*
Personal communication