Clinicopathological Predictors of Positive Resection Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is associated with risk of positive resection margins following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and subsequent reoperation. Prior reports grossly underestimate the risk of margin positivity with IBC containing a DCIS component (IBC + DCIS) due to patient-level rather than margin-level analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to delineate the relative risk of IBC + DCIS compared with pure IBC (without a DCIS component) on margin positivity through detailed margin-level interrogation. METHODS: A single institution, retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted in which pathology databases were evaluated to identify patients who underwent BCS over 5 years (2014-2019). Margin-level interrogation included granular detail into the extent, pathological subtype and grade of disease at each resection margin. Predictors of a positive margin were computed using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Clinicopathological details were examined from 5454 margins from 909 women. The relative risk of a positive margin with IBC + DCIS versus pure IBC was 8.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.64-11.56) applying UK Association of Breast Surgery guidelines, and 8.44 (95% CI 6.57-10.84) applying the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology guidelines. Independent predictors of margin positivity included younger patient age (0.033, 95% CI 0.006-0.060), lower specimen weight (0.045, 95% CI 0.020-0.069), multifocality (0.256, 95% CI 0.137-0.376), lymphovascular invasion (0.138, 95% CI 0.068-0.208) and comedonecrosis (0.113, 95% CI 0.040-0.185). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with pure IBC, the relative risk of a positive margin with IBC + DCIS is approximately ninefold, significantly higher than prior estimates. This margin-level methodology is believed to represent the impact of DCIS more accurately on margin positivity in IBC.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Nipple Discharge Fluid Cytology: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Nipple discharge is the third most frequent complaint of women attending rapid diagnostic breast clinics. Nipple smear cytology remains the single most used diagnostic method for investigating fluid content. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of nipple discharge fluid assessment. METHODS: The study incorporated searches for studies interrogating the diagnostic data of nipple discharge fluid cytology compared with the histopathology gold standard. Data from studies published from 1956 to 2019 were analyzed. The analysis included 8648 cytology samples of women with a presenting complaint of nipple discharge. Both hierarchical and bivariate models for diagnostic meta-analysis were used to attain overall pooled sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Of 837 studies retrieved, 45 fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The diagnostic accuracy of the meta-analysis examining nipple discharge fluid had a sensitivity of 75 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.77) and a specificity of 87 % (95 % CI, 0.86-0.87) for benign breast disease. For breast cancer, it had a sensitivity of 62 % (95 % CI, 0.53-0.71) and a specificity 71 % (95 % CI, 0.57-0.81). Furthermore, patients presenting with blood-stained discharge yielded an overall malignancy rate of 58 % (95 % CI, 0.54-0.60) with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 27 % (95 % CI, 0.17-0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled data from studies encompassing nipple discharge fluid assessment suggest that nipple smear cytology is of limited diagnostic accuracy. The authors recommend that a tailored approach to diagnosis be required given the variable sensitivities of currently available tests.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Nipple Aspirate Fluid Cytology in Asymptomatic Patients: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE: To calculate the diagnostic accuracy of nipple aspirate fluid (NAF) cytology. BACKGROUND: Evaluation of NAF cytology in asymptomatic patients conceptually offers a non-invasive method for either screening for breast cancer or else predicting or stratifying future cancer risk. METHODS: Studies were identified by performing electronic searches up to August 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted to attain an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of NAF for breast cancer detection. RESULTS: A search through 938 studies yielded a total of 19 studies. Overall, 9308 patients were examined, with cytology results from 10,147 breasts [age (years), mean ± SD = 49.73 ± 4.09 years]. Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of NAF revealed a pooled specificity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.97-0.98), and sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.62-0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of nipple smear cytology is limited by poor sensitivity. If nipple fluid assessment is to be used for diagnosis, then emerging technologies for fluid biomarker analysis must supersede the current diagnostic accuracy of NAF cytology.