Intraoperative Peripheral Frozen Margin Assessment in Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Surgical Oncology Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1002/jso.27935
Lauren Zeitlinger, George M Chavez, Machelle D Wilson, Morgan Darrow, Robert J Canter, R Lor Randall, Steven W Thorpe
{"title":"Intraoperative Peripheral Frozen Margin Assessment in Soft Tissue Sarcoma.","authors":"Lauren Zeitlinger, George M Chavez, Machelle D Wilson, Morgan Darrow, Robert J Canter, R Lor Randall, Steven W Thorpe","doi":"10.1002/jso.27935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>Intraoperative peripheral margin sampling in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is a routine practice among musculoskeletal oncologists. Practice patterns are variable, and evidence to support it is lacking. Rates of peripheral margin sampling at our institution were analyzed in addition to its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Peripheral margin sampling patterns at a tertiary sarcoma center were retrospectively evaluated. Concordance between peripheral margins and final pathology was assessed using McNemar's test and κ Coefficient. Clinical outcomes were compared, and a cost-utility analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 179 patients were included. 66% had peripheral margins sampled of which 23% had frozen margins analyzed. Ten patients had positive margins (5.5% of all patients; 8.4% in those with margins sampled) and R1 margins on the final tumor specimen were identified in 15 patients (8.4%). There were no R2 resections. Three patients underwent repeat surgical resection (20%). Three patients with R1 resections had negative peripheral margins sampled, suggesting falsely reassuring peripheral margins. Peripheral margin sampling averaged $5000/patient.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine peripheral margin sampling in STS resection is of questionable utility with added cost. Prospective studies are warranted to determine the optimal approach to surgical margin assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":17111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.27935","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objectives: Intraoperative peripheral margin sampling in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is a routine practice among musculoskeletal oncologists. Practice patterns are variable, and evidence to support it is lacking. Rates of peripheral margin sampling at our institution were analyzed in addition to its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness.

Methods: Peripheral margin sampling patterns at a tertiary sarcoma center were retrospectively evaluated. Concordance between peripheral margins and final pathology was assessed using McNemar's test and κ Coefficient. Clinical outcomes were compared, and a cost-utility analysis was performed.

Results: A total of 179 patients were included. 66% had peripheral margins sampled of which 23% had frozen margins analyzed. Ten patients had positive margins (5.5% of all patients; 8.4% in those with margins sampled) and R1 margins on the final tumor specimen were identified in 15 patients (8.4%). There were no R2 resections. Three patients underwent repeat surgical resection (20%). Three patients with R1 resections had negative peripheral margins sampled, suggesting falsely reassuring peripheral margins. Peripheral margin sampling averaged $5000/patient.

Conclusions: Routine peripheral margin sampling in STS resection is of questionable utility with added cost. Prospective studies are warranted to determine the optimal approach to surgical margin assessment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
软组织肉瘤术中外周冰冻边缘评估
背景/目的:软组织肉瘤(STS)术中周边取样是肌肉骨骼肿瘤学家的常规做法。实践模式各不相同,也缺乏证据支持。我们分析了本院的外周边缘取样率及其临床效用和成本效益:方法:对一家三级肉瘤中心的边缘取样模式进行了回顾性评估。采用 McNemar 检验和 κ 系数评估外周边缘与最终病理结果的一致性。比较了临床结果,并进行了成本效用分析:结果:共纳入 179 例患者。66%的患者进行了边缘取样,其中23%的患者进行了冷冻边缘分析。10名患者的边缘呈阳性(占所有患者的5.5%;在边缘取样的患者中占8.4%),15名患者(8.4%)在最终肿瘤标本上发现了R1边缘。没有 R2 切除。三名患者接受了重复手术切除(20%)。三位接受 R1 切除术的患者的外周边缘取样结果为阴性,这表明外周边缘取样结果是虚假的。外周边缘取样的费用平均为每名患者 5000 美元:结论:STS切除术中常规外周边缘取样的效用值得怀疑,而且会增加成本。有必要进行前瞻性研究,以确定手术边缘评估的最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
367
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Oncology offers peer-reviewed, original papers in the field of surgical oncology and broadly related surgical sciences, including reports on experimental and laboratory studies. As an international journal, the editors encourage participation from leading surgeons around the world. The JSO is the representative journal for the World Federation of Surgical Oncology Societies. Publishing 16 issues in 2 volumes each year, the journal accepts Research Articles, in-depth Reviews of timely interest, Letters to the Editor, and invited Editorials. Guest Editors from the JSO Editorial Board oversee multiple special Seminars issues each year. These Seminars include multifaceted Reviews on a particular topic or current issue in surgical oncology, which are invited from experts in the field.
期刊最新文献
About the Cover. Collagen Density Is Associated With Pathological Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients. Predictors Based on the Radiologic Characteristics for Aggressiveness of Small (< 20 mm) Nonfunctioning Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. Addressing Breast Cancer Disparities: A Comprehensive Approach to Health Equity. Letter to "Body Mass Index and Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Retrospective Cohort Study".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1