In breast conservative surgery, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether the cauterised tissue at the inked margin represents normal / hyperplastic or neoplastic tissue. We retrospectively assessed the value of ER, PR, CK5 and CK14 IHC in clarifying the nature of cauterised tissues at the margins concerning 34 lesions of 23 patients. 27 cases belonged to lesions that could not be adequately classified on the basis of the HE stains. Two thirds of them could be classified as non-neoplastic or neoplastic and two thirds of the remaining could be favourised as neoplastic or non-neoplastic, with 3/27 cases remaining uncertain. All 4 IHC reactions were helpful in classifying the lesions in almost half of the cases. However, 3 or 4 immunostains were supportive of the classification in 19/27. The most useful stains were the keratins, generally demonstrating a matching pattern of cell labelling with CK5 and CK14. ER and PR were somewhat less useful in classifying uncertain lesions. Considering all the 27 questionable lesions, IHC with ER, PR, CK5 and CK14 clarified the lesions at the cauterised margins in 23 cases. Taken all these considerations into account, CK5, CK14, PR and ER IHC may help in distinguishing between cautery damaged neoplastic and non-neoplastic tissues. All four IHC may yield the best support for decision making, but CK5 and/or CK14 may be sufficient in their own. The essential approach is that the results must be interpreted with caution, in the context of the given patient’s disease, to avoid misinterpretations.

Breast cancer

Cautery damage

Hormone receptors

Immunohistochemistry

Keratin 5

Keratin 14

© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.