|
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings.
Vol 23, No 16S (June 1 Supplement), 2005: 782
© 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology
Same day diagnosis of breast cancer: Method of validation
M. Graudenz,
D. Duarte Filho,
J. M. Zignani,
E. C. Dias,
L. P. Antunes,
A. B. Junior,
B. Weber and
M. Caleffi
Inst de Patologia, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; Hosp Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil
782
Background: Microwave-assisted tissue processing is a rapid method of histological analysis, with an acceptable quality and great impact on the timeliness of diagnostic surgical pathology. Few data exist comparing pathological diagnosis accuracy and quality of microwave-processed biopsy tissue with that processed by conventional techniques. Methods: A prospective pilot study of 40 consecutive patients referred to core breast biopsy guided by ultrasound due to abnormal breast mammography/ultrasound/clinical findings was conducted. Inclusion criteria were BIRADS US classification III, breast tissue biopsy and informed consent. Exclusions: Patients with microcalcifications only at mammogram. Half of the biopsy fragments was processed routinely overnight (CO), while the other half was processed by the rapid microwave technique (MW). The H&E slides were compared for diagnosis accuracy and quality of preparation in a blinded fashion. Hormonal receptor (HR) expression in cancer biopsies was also analysed. Results: The mean age was 47y-o±11, mean tumor size 1.49cm±1.12 and mean number of biopsy fragments in the MW group (3.65±3 cm) versus CO group (3.81±1.33 cm). 26 cases were BI-RADS III; 9 IV and 8 V. No difference was found between the mean sizes of biopsy fragments in the MW group (3.65±3 cm) versus CO group (3.81±1.33 cm). No biopsy complications were observed in either group. Final pathological diagnoses were 15 invasive breast cancers, 27 benign/normal conditions and 1 atypical suspicious case. The diagnosis correlation between CO and MW was excellent (Pearson’s R=1,0); 8 MW-processed specimens (5MW and 3CO) were judged as suboptimal but none was unsatisfactory for evaluation. In the remaining cases, the material obtained by the 2 techniques was considered of identical quality. There was one false negative case, confirmed later as cancer in the setorectomy speciemen) diagnosed as normal/benign in both Methods: Correlation rate of HR detection by immunohistochemistry was weak (Pearson’s R=0,529) favoring CO Method: Conclusions: The H&E quality of rapidly processed sections was comparable to those obtained with CO processing. MW processing and H&E staining is appropriate for a quick and safe pathology diagnosis method for breast cancer.
No significant financial relationships to disclose.
|
