Diagnostic Accuracy of Imprint Cytology in Determining Margin Positivity in Patients Undergoing Breast Conservation

Authors

  • Rizwana R Author
  • Sadaf Afridi Author
  • Warda Ali Author
  • Ishrat Alam Author
  • M. Furqan Ullah Babar Author
  • Mah Muneer Khan Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51985/

Keywords:

Biopsy, Breast Conservation, Breast Neoplasms, Diagnostic Accuracy, Histopathology, Intraoperative Care, Lumpectomy

Abstract

 Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of imprint cytology in identifying margin positivity in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer, using histopathology as the gold standard.

 

Study Design and Setting: This cross-sectional validation study was conducted in the Department of Surgery at Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar

 

Methodology: A total of 154 women aged 30–80 years diagnosed with malignant breast lumps and undergoing breastconserving surgery were enrolled using non-probability convenience sampling. Imprint cytology was performed intraoperatively by pressing clean glass slides against the resected margins of the lumpectomy specimen. Slides were air-dried, stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and examined microscopically. Final margin status was determined by histopathological examination, which served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy of imprint cytology were calculated.

 

Results: The mean age of participants was 51.15 ± 11.87 years. Imprint cytology demonstrated a sensitivity of 40.8%, specificity of 78.3%, PPV of 61.7%, NPV of 60.7%, and overall diagnostic accuracy of 61.0% in detecting margin positivity. The chi-square test showed a statistically significant association between imprint cytology and histopathology findings (p = 0.010).

 

Conclusions: Imprint cytology provides a rapid and economical method for intraoperative margin assessment during breastconserving surgery, particularly useful in resource-limited settings. However, its diagnostic reliability is operator-dependent and requires standardization for broader clinical application. 

References

1. Biswas SK, Banerjee S, Baker GW, Kuo CY, Chowdhury I.

The Mammary Gland: Basic Structure and Molecular Signaling

during Development. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Mar 31;23(7):3883.

doi: 10.3390/ijms23073883. PMID: 35409243; PMCID:

PMC8998991.

2. Natale G, Stouthandel MEJ, Van Hoof T, Bocci G. The

Lymphatic System in Breast Cancer: Anatomical and Molecular

Approaches. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Nov 19;57(11):1272.

doi: 10.3390/medicina57111272. PMID: 34833492; PMCID:

PMC8624129.

3. Wilkinson L, Gathani T. Understanding breast cancer as a

global health concern. Br J Radiol. 2022 Feb 1;95(1130):

20211033. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20211033. Epub 2021 Dec 14.

PMID: 34905391; PMCID: PMC8822551.

4. Shetty MK. Imaging of the Symptomatic Breast. Breast &

Gynecological Diseases: Role of Imaging in the Management:

Springer; 2021. p. 27-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-

69476-0_2

5. Grover S, Avasthi A, Majid A. Clinical Practice Guidelines

for mental health and well-being in patients with chronic

medical illnesses. Indian J Psychiatry. 2024 Jan;66(Suppl

2):S338-S352. PMID: 38445289; PMCID: PMC10911329

6. Steyerova P, Burgetova A. Current imaging techniques and

impact on diagnosis and survival—a narrative review. Annals

of Breast Surgery. 2022 Sep 30;6. doi: 10.21037/abs-21-22

7. Subhy Alsheikhly A, Ahmed Subhy Alsheikhly M. A

Comprehensive Review of Breast Cancer and the Latest

Advancement in Diagnosis and Treatment [Internet]. Oncology.

IntechOpen; 2025. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/

intechopen.1008946

8. M Rassam, B Davoudi, A Comprehensive Overview of Breast

Cancer Surgery Strategies: Advances, Options, and

Considerations,EJCMPR. 2024; 3(2):629-643 https://doi.org

/EJCMPR/ 20240611

9. Bundred JR, Michael S, Stuart B, Cutress RI, Beckmann K,

Holleczek B, Dahlstrom JE, Gath J, Dodwell D, Bundred NJ.

Margin status and survival outcomes after breast cancer

conservation surgery: prospectively registered systematic

review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022 Sep 21;378:e070346.

doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070346. PMID: 36130770; PMCID:

PMC9490551.

10. Ahuja S, Yadav P, Fattahi-Darghlou M, Zaheer S. Comparison

of Intraoperative Imprint Cytology versus Frozen Section for

Sentinel Lymph Node Evaluation in Breast Cancer. A study

along with Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of literature.

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024 Apr 1;25(4):1113-1119. doi:

10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.4.1113. PMID: 38679970; PMCID:

PMC11162742.

11. Uno Y, Akiyama N, Yuzawa S, Kitada M, Takei H. The value

and practical utility of intraoperative touch imprint cytology

of sentinel lymph node(s) in patients with breast cancer: A

retrospective cytology-histology correlation study. Cytojournal.

2020 May 12;17:11. doi: 10.25259/Cytojournal_80_2019.

PMID: 32547631; PMCID: PMC7294180.

12. Tamanuki T, Namura M, Aoyagi T, Shimizu S, Suwa T,

Matsuzaki H. Effect of Intraoperative Imprint Cytology

Followed by Frozen Section on Margin Assessment in BreastConserving Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Mar;28(3):1338-

1346. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08955-z. Epub 2020 Aug 19.

PMID: 32815080.

13. Tamanuki T, Namura M, Aoyagi T, Shimizu S, Suwa T,

Matsuzaki H. Effect of Intraoperative Imprint Cytology

Followed by Frozen Section on Margin Assessment in BreastConserving Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Mar;28(3):1338-

1346. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08955-z. Epub 2020 Aug 19.

PMID: 32815080.

14. Ashraf Aem, Mustafa Ez, Fattouh Mk, Manal Me. Margin

Assessment in Breast Conservative Surgery and Concordance

between Frozen and Paraffin Section Results: A Retrospective

Study. The Medical Journal of Cairo University.

2022;90(12):2481-7. DOI: 10.21608/mjcu. 2022. 295323

15. Hashmi AA, Naz S, Ahmed O, Yaqeen SR, Afzal A, Asghar

IA, Irfan M, Faridi N. Diagnostic Accuracy of Intraoperative

Touch Imprint Cytology for the Diagnosis of Axillary Sentinel

Lymph Node Metastasis of Breast Cancer: Comparison With

Intraoperative Frozen Section Evaluation. Cureus. 2021 Jan

28;13(1):e12960. doi: 10.7759/cureus.12960. PMID:

33659115; PMCID: PMC7920232.

16. Vinod K, Aroul T, Vaithi KAR. Diagnostic Utility of Imprint

Cytology for Assessment of Breast Lumps. Journal of Datta

Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University.

2022;17(3):709-12. DOI: 10.4103/jdmimsu.jdmimsu_189_20

17. Lofterød T, Frydenberg H, Flote V, Eggen AE, McTiernan A,

Mortensen ES, Akslen LA, Reitan JB, Wilsgaard T, Thune I.

Exploring the effects of lifestyle on breast cancer risk, age at

diagnosis, and survival: the EBBA-Life study. Breast Cancer

Res Treat. 2020 Jul;182(1):215-227. doi: 10.1007/s10549-

020-05679-2. Epub 2020 May 20. PMID: 32436147; PMCID:

PMC7275030.

18. Wei S. Hormone receptors in breast cancer: An update on the

uncommon subtypes. Pathol Res Pract. 2023 Oct;250:154791.

doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2023.154791. Epub 2023 Sep 3. PMID:

37672851.

19. Devi RS, Kumar A, Singh A, Durgapal P, Kishore S. Ravi

Hari Phulware; Department of Pathology and Laboratory

Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh,

Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Cytology. 2024 Nov 1;41:S39.

DOI: 10.4103/joc.joc_145_24

20. Maloney BW, McClatchy DM, Pogue BW, Paulsen KD, Wells

WA, Barth RJ. Review of methods for intraoperative margin

detection for breast conserving surgery. J Biomed Opt. 2018

Oct;23(10):1-19. doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.10.100901. PMID:

30369108; PMCID: PMC6210801.

21. Tamhane AN, Shukla S, Acharya S, Acharya N, Hiwale K,

Bhake A. Intraoperative Surgical Margin Clearance -

Correlation of Touch Imprint Cytology, Frozen Section

Diagnosis, and Histopathological Diagnosis. Int J Appl Basic

Med Res. 2020 Jan-Mar;10(1):12-16. doi: 10.4103/ijabmr.

IJABMR_325_18. Epub 2020 Jan 3. PMID: 32002379;

PMCID: PMC6967348.

Downloads

Published

2025-10-14

Issue

Section

Original Articles

Similar Articles

11-20 of 28

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.