Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Vet. Sci.

Sec. Oncology in Veterinary Medicine

Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1629994

This article is part of the Research TopicAdvancements and Challenges in Veterinary OncologyView all 11 articles

Combined cross-sectional and tangential margin evaluation of different tumor types in dogs and cats

Provisionally accepted
Simona  VincentiSimona Vincenti1*Leonore  AeschlimannLeonore Aeschlimann1Anna  BrunnerAnna Brunner1Beatriz  VidondoBeatriz Vidondo1Vincent  WavreilleVincent Wavreille2Ludmila  BicanovaLudmila Bicanova3Sara  SotoSara Soto1
  • 1Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  • 2VetSpécialistes, Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland
  • 3Anicura AOI - Animal Oncology and Imaging Center, Hüneberg, Switzerland

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction: Histological evaluation of tumors involves tumor diagnosis and assessment of surgical margins to determine whether they are free (clean) or infiltrated (dirty) by neoplastic cells. In veterinary medicine, cross-sectioning is most commonly used to trim tumors. It is simple, inexpensive, and allows to measure histologic tumor-free distances (HTFD). However, only a minimal portion of the surgical margins are assessed, potentially missing dirty margins. Tangential sectioning evaluates the entire surgical excision border, minimizing the risk of missing dirty margins, but it is more time-consuming, more expensive and HTFD cannot be measured. No study has yet compared these two trimming techniques on different tumors in cats and dogs. Consequently, the main goal of our study was to compare the two trimming techniques and evaluate their agreement. Methods: We performed both trimming methods and evaluated these parameters in 20 tumors from 13 dogs and 6 cats, on which curative-intent surgical excision was performed. Kappa statistics were calculated to measure agreement between margin evaluation with the two methods. Results: Cross-sectioning detected dirty margins in 1/20 (5%) tumors. Tangential sectioning identified 11/20 (55%) tumors with dirty surgical margins, including the one detected with the cross-sectioning method (kappa = 0.0826). Ten tumors with dirty margins with the tangential method were not detected as dirty with the cross-sectioning method. Thus, cross sectioning presented a total of 50% false-negative (dirty margins identified as clean margins). The tangential trimming needed a higher number of cassettes and time required for trimming and evaluation. Conclusion: Based on these results, despite the higher costs, we recommend using a combination of cross and tangential trimming for tumors in cats and dogs.

Keywords: tumors, Surgical margins, Biopsy trimming, Cross sectioning, Tangential sectioning, dog

Received: 16 May 2025; Accepted: 23 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Vincenti, Aeschlimann, Brunner, Vidondo, Wavreille, Bicanova and Soto. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Simona Vincenti, simona.vincenti@vetsuisse.unibe.ch

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.