Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare standard specimen mammography (SSM) with remote intraoperative specimen mammography (ISM) assessment in breast conserving-surgery (BCS) based on operative times, intraoperative additional excision (IAE) and re-intervention rates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively compared 129 consecutive patients (136 lesions) who had BCS with SSM at our centre between 11/2011 and 02/2013 with 138 consecutive patients (144 lesions) who underwent BCS with ISM between 08/2014 and 02/2015.SSM or ISM were performed to confirm the target lesions within the excised specimen and margin adequacy. The utility of SMM and ISM was evaluated considering pathology as gold-standard, using χ(2) or Fisher's exact tests for comparison of categorical variables, and non-parametric Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. RESULTS: The two groups did not statistically differ for age (p = 0.20), lesion size (p = 0.29) and morphology (p = 0.82) or tumor histology type (p = 0.65). Intraoperative time was significantly longer (p < 0.00001) for SSM (132 ± 43 min) than for ISM (90 ± 42 min). The proportions requiring IAE did not significantly differ between SSM group (39/136 lesions (40%)) and ISM group (52/144 lesions (57%)) (p = 0.19), overall and in stratified analysis by mammographic features. Re-intervention rates were not statistically different between the two groups [SSM:19/136 (14%), ISM:13/144 (9%); p = 0.27]. CONCLUSION: The introduction of ISM in BCS significantly reduced surgical time but did not change IAE and re-intervention rates, highlighting facilitated communication between surgeons and radiologists. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Compared to standard mammography imaging, the use of ISM significantly reduced surgical time.