Histopathology of breast cancer after magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound and radiofrequency ablation

AIMS: Magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablation and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are being researched as possible substitutes for surgery in breast cancer patients. The histopathological appearance of ablated tissue has not been studied in great detail. This study aimed to compare histopathological features of breast cancer after MR-HIFU ablation and RFA. METHODS AND RESULTS: MR-HIFU ablation and RFA were performed in- and ex-vivo. Tumours in six mastectomy specimens were partially ablated with RFA or MR-HIFU. In-vivo MR-HIFU ablation was performed 3-6 days before excision; RFA was performed in the operation room. Tissue was fixed in formalin and processed to haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and cytokeratin-8 (CK-8)-stained slides. Morphology and cell viability were assessed. Ex-vivo ablation resulted in clear morphological changes after RFA versus subtle differences after MR-HIFU. CK-8 staining was decreased or absent. H&E tended to underestimate the size of thermal damage. In-vivo MR-HIFU resulted in necrotic-like changes. Surprisingly, some ablated lesions were CK-8-positive. Histopathology after in-vivo RFA resembled ex-vivo RFA, with hyper-eosinophilic stroma and elongated nuclei. Lesion borders were sharp after MR-HIFU and indistinct after RFA. CONCLUSION: Histopathological differences between MR-HIFU-ablated tissue and RF-ablated tissue were demonstrated. CK-8 was more reliable for cell viability assessment than H&E when used directly after ablation, while H&E was more reliable in ablated tissue left in situ for a few days. Our results contribute to improved understanding of histopathological features in breast cancer lesions treated with minimally invasive ablative techniques

Eligibility of patients for minimally invasive breast cancer therapy based on MRI analysis of tumor proximity to skin and pectoral muscle

There is growing interest in minimally invasive breast cancer therapy. Eligibility of patients is, however, dependent on several factors related to the tumor and treatment technology. The aim of this study is to assess the proportion of patients eligible for minimally invasive breast cancer therapy for different safety and treatment margins based on breast tumor location. Patients with invasive ductal cancer were selected from the MARGINS cohort. Semiautomatic segmentation of tumor, skin, and pectoral muscle was performed in Magnetic Resonance images. Shortest distances of tumors to critical organs (ie, skin and pectoral muscle) were calculated. Proportions of eligible patients were determined for different safety and treatment margins. Three-hundred-forty-eight patients with 351 tumors were included. If a 10 mm safety margin to skin and pectoral muscle is required without treatment margin, 72.3% of patients would be eligible for minimally invasive treatment. This proportion decreases to 45.9% for an additional treatment margin of 5 mm. Shortest distances between tumors and critical organs are larger in older patients and in patients with less aggressive tumor subtypes. If a 10 mm safety margin to skin and pectoral muscle is required, more than two-thirds of patients would be eligible for minimally invasive breast cancer therapy