LAUSR

Objective We intend to provide an informative and up-to-date summary on the topic of intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conserving surgery (BCS). Conventional methods as well as cutting-edge technologies are analyzed for their advantages and limitations in the hope that clinicians can turn to this for reference. This review can also offer guidance for technicians in the future design of intraoperative margin assessment tools. Background Achieving negative margins during BCS is one of the vital factors for preventing local recurrence. Conducting intraoperative margin assessment can ensure negative margins to a large extent and possibly relieve patients of the anguish of re-interventions. In recent years, innovative methods for margin assessment during BCS are advancing rapidly. And there is a lack of summary regarding the development of intraoperative margin assessment in BCS. Methods A PubMed search with keywords "intraoperative margin assessment" and "breast conserving surgery" was conducted. Relevant publications were screened manually for its title, abstract and even full text to determine its true relevance. Publications on neo-adjuvant therapy and intraoperative radiotherapy were excluded. References from the searched articles and other supplementary articles were also looked into. Conclusions Conventional methods for margin assessment yields stable outcome but its use is limited because of the demand on pathology staff and the trade-off between time and precision. Conventional imaging techniques pass the workload to radiologists at the cost of a significantly low duration of time. Involving artificial intelligence for image-based assessment is a further improvement. However, conventional imaging is inherently flawed in that occult lesions can't show on the image and the showing ones are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Unconventional techniques which base their judgment on cellular composition are more reassuring. Nonetheless, unconventional techniques should be subjected to clinical trials before putting into practice. And studies regarding comparison between conventional methods and unconventional methods are also needed to evaluate their relative efficacy.