Discordance Rate Among Bilateral Simultaneous and Sequential Temporal Artery Biopsies in Giant Cell Arteritis: Role of Frozen Sectioning Based on the Mayo Clinic Experience | Geriatrics | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  Flowchart of Unilateral vs Bilateral Temporal Artery Biopsy (TAB) Based on Permanent Sections
Flowchart of Unilateral vs Bilateral Temporal Artery Biopsy (TAB) Based on Permanent Sections
Figure 2.  Photomicrographs Comparing Frozen Section With Correlative Permanent Section
Photomicrographs Comparing Frozen Section With Correlative Permanent Section

Photomicrographs comparing frozen section (left panels) with correlative permanent section (right panels). A, Active temporal arteritis (toluidine blue; original magnification, ×100). B, Active temporal arteritis (hematoxylin-eosin; original magnification, ×100). C, Healed temporal arteritis (toluidine blue; original magnification, ×100). D, Healed temporal arteritis (Verhoeff–Van Gieson to highlight the medial loss and disruption of the internal elastic membrane; original magnification, ×100).

Table 1.  Frozen vs Permanent Section Temporal Artery Biopsy Resultsa
Frozen vs Permanent Section Temporal Artery Biopsy Resultsa
Table 2.  Patient Demographic Characteristics and Clinical Results Based on Permanent Section Temporal Artery Biopsy Results
Patient Demographic Characteristics and Clinical Results Based on Permanent Section Temporal Artery Biopsy Results
Table 3.  Bilateral Temporal Artery Biopsy (TAB) Discordance Rates in Prior Studies and the Current Study
Bilateral Temporal Artery Biopsy (TAB) Discordance Rates in Prior Studies and the Current Study
1.
Taylor-Gjevre  R, Vo  M, Shukla  D, Resch  L.  Temporal artery biopsy for giant cell arteritis.   J Rheumatol. 2005;32(7):1279-1282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Davies  CG, May  DJ.  The role of temporal artery biopsies in giant cell arteritis.   Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;93(1):4-5. doi:10.1308/003588411X12851639107476PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Hall  S, Hunder  GG.  Is temporal artery biopsy prudent?   Mayo Clin Proc. 1984;59(11):793-796. doi:10.1016/S0025-6196(12)65593-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Chung  SH, Morcos  MB, Ng  B.  Determinants of positive temporal artery biopsies in the Veterans Health Administration National Database Cohort.   Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020;72(5):699-704.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Schallhorn  J, Haug  SJ, Yoon  MK, Porco  T, Seiff  SR, McCulley  TJ.  A national survey of practice patterns: temporal artery biopsy.   Ophthalmology. 2013;120(9):1930-1934. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.052PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Danesh-Meyer  HV, Savino  PJ, Eagle  RC  Jr, Kubis  KC, Sergott  RC.  Low diagnostic yield with second biopsies in suspected giant cell arteritis.   J Neuroophthalmol. 2000;20(3):213-215. doi:10.1097/00041327-200020030-00011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Pless  M, Rizzo  JF  III, Lamkin  JC, Lessell  S.  Concordance of bilateral temporal artery biopsy in giant cell arteritis.   J Neuroophthalmol. 2000;20(3):216-218. doi:10.1097/00041327-200020030-00012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Ponge  T, Barrier  JH, Grolleau  JY, Ponge  A, Vlasak  AM, Cottin  S.  The efficacy of selective unilateral temporal artery biopsy versus bilateral biopsies for diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.   J Rheumatol. 1988;15(6):997-1000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Sorensen  S, Lorenzen  I.  Giant-cell arteritis, temporal arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica. a retrospective study of 63 patients.   Acta Med Scand. 1977;201(3):207-213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Baldursson  O, Steinsson  K, Björnsson  J, Lie  JT.  Giant cell arteritis in Iceland. an epidemiologic and histopathologic analysis.   Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37(7):1007-1012. doi:10.1002/art.1780370705PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Boyev  LR, Miller  NR, Green  WR.  Efficacy of unilateral versus bilateral temporal artery biopsies for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.   Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(2):211-215. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00101-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Durling  B, Toren  A, Patel  V, Gilberg  S, Weis  E, Jordan  D.  Incidence of discordant temporal artery biopsy in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.   Can J Ophthalmol. 2014;49(2):157-161. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.12.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Breuer  GS, Nesher  G, Nesher  R.  Rate of discordant findings in bilateral temporal artery biopsy to diagnose giant cell arteritis.   J Rheumatol. 2009;36(4):794-796. doi:10.3899/jrheum.080792PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Ferreiro  JA, Myers  JL, Bostwick  DG.  Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in surgical pathology: review of a 1-year experience with 24,880 cases at Mayo Clinic Rochester.   Mayo Clin Proc. 1995;70(12):1137-1141. doi:10.4065/70.12.1137PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Wilson  LB.  A method for the rapid preparation of fresh tissues for the microscope.   JAMA. 1905;XLV(23):1737. doi:10.1001/jama.1905.52510230037003cGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Gal  AA.  The centennial anniversary of the frozen section technique at the Mayo Clinic.   Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(12):1532-1535.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Unni  KK.  Practice of frozen section pathology at the Mayo Clinic.   Int Pathol. 1996;37:1-2.Google Scholar
18.
Woolner  L. Surgical pathology at the Mayo Clinic. In: Rosai  J, ed.  Guiding the Surgeon’s Hand: The History of American Surgical Pathology. American Registry of Pathology; 1997:145-179.
19.
Dahlin  DC.  Seventy-five years’ experience with frozen sections at the Mayo Clinic.   Mayo Clin Proc. 1980;55(11):721-723.PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Klein  RG, Campbell  RJ, Hunder  GG, Carney  JA.  Skip lesions in temporal arteritis.   Mayo Clin Proc. 1976;51(8):504-510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Nordborg  E, Nordborg  C, Bengtsson  BA.  Giant cell arteritis.   Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1992;4(1):23-30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Zhou  L, Luneau  K, Weyand  CM, Biousse  V, Newman  NJ, Grossniklaus  HE.  Clinicopathologic correlations in giant cell arteritis: a retrospective study of 107 cases.   Ophthalmology. 2009;116(8):1574-1580. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.02.027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Font  RL, Prabhakaran  VC.  Histological parameters helpful in recognising steroid-treated temporal arteritis: an analysis of 35 cases.   Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(2):204-209. doi:10.1136/bjo.2006.101725PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Sultan  H, Smith  SV, Lee  AG, Chévez-Barrios  P.  Pathologic markers determining prognosis in patients with treated or healing giant cell arteritis.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;193:45-53. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2018.05.031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
McDonnell  PJ, Moore  GW, Miller  NR, Hutchins  GM, Green  WR.  Temporal arteritis. a clinicopathologic study.   Ophthalmology. 1986;93(4):518-530. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(86)33706-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Le Pendu  C, Meignin  V, Gonzalez-Chiappe  S, Hij  A, Galateau-Sallé  F, Mahr  A.  Poor predictive value of isolated adventitial and periadventitial infiltrates in temporal artery biopsies for diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.   J Rheumatol. 2017;44(7):1039-1043. doi:10.3899/jrheum.170061PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Cavazza  A, Muratore  F, Boiardi  L,  et al.  Inflamed temporal artery: histologic findings in 354 biopsies, with clinical correlations.   Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(10):1360-1370. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000244PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Jia  L, Couce  M, Barnholtz-Sloan  JS, Cohen  ML.  Is all inflammation within temporal artery biopsies temporal arteritis?   Hum Pathol. 2016;57:17-21. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2016.07.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Maleszewski  JJ, Younge  BR, Fritzlen  JT,  et al.  Clinical and pathological evolution of giant cell arteritis: a prospective study of follow-up temporal artery biopsies in 40 treated patients.   Mod Pathol. 2017;30(6):788-796. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2017.10PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Hall  S, Persellin  S, Lie  JT, O’Brien  PC, Kurland  LT, Hunder  GG.  The therapeutic impact of temporal artery biopsy.   Lancet. 1983;2(8361):1217-1220. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(83)91269-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Hedges  TR  III, Gieger  GL, Albert  DM.  The clinical value of negative temporal artery biopsy specimens.   Arch Ophthalmol. 1983;101(8):1251-1254. doi:10.1001/archopht.1983.01040020253019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Grossniklaus  H, Brown  H, Glasgow  B, Murray  T, Shetlar  D, Wilson  D.  Ophthalmic Pathology and Intraocular Tumors. Revised Edition. American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2005.
33.
Spencer  WH.  Ophthalmic Pathology: An Atlas and Textbook. Saunders; 1985.
34.
Chévez-Barrios  P.  Frozen section diagnosis and indications in ophthalmic pathology.   Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(12):1626-1634.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Niederkohr  RD, Levin  LA.  A Bayesian analysis of the true sensitivity of a temporal artery biopsy.   Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(2):675-680. doi:10.1167/iovs.06-1106PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Bhatti  MT, Goldstein  MH.  Facial nerve injury following superficial temporal artery biopsy.   Dermatol Surg. 2001;27(1):15-17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Murchison  AP, Bilyk  JR.  Brow ptosis after temporal artery biopsy: incidence and associations.   Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12):2637-2642. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.07.020PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Hayreh  SS, Podhajsky  PA, Raman  R, Zimmerman  B.  Giant cell arteritis: validity and reliability of various diagnostic criteria.   Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123(3):285-296. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(14)70123-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    February 18, 2021

    Discordance Rate Among Bilateral Simultaneous and Sequential Temporal Artery Biopsies in Giant Cell Arteritis: Role of Frozen Sectioning Based on the Mayo Clinic Experience

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine & Science, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 2Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine & Science, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 3Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
    • 4Department of Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine & Science, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 5Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine & Science, Rochester, Minnesota
    • 6Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine & Science, Rochester, Minnesota
    JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021;139(4):406-413. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.6896
    Key Points

    Question  What is the role of frozen sectioning in the determination to perform a contralateral temporal artery biopsy (TAB)?

    Findings  In this cohort study including 795 patients, frozen section TAB had a sensitivity of 83.2% and specificity of 99.4% for detecting vascular inflammation consistent with active giant cell arteritis. The discordance rate of bilateral TABs was 5% to 5.5%.

    Meaning  A negative frozen section result obtained after a unilateral TAB guides the surgeon to perform a contralateral biopsy in the same sitting, whereas a positive frozen section result can reliably indicate giant cell arteritis without the need for a contralateral biopsy.

    Abstract

    Importance  Frozen section temporal artery biopsy (TAB) may prevent a contralateral biopsy from being performed.

    Objective  To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of TAB frozen vs permanent section pathology results for giant cell arteritis (GCA) and determine the discordance rate of bilateral TABs.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  In this retrospective cohort study, medical records were reviewed from 795 patients 40 years or older who underwent TAB from January 1, 2010, to December 1, 2018, treated at a single tertiary care center with the ability to perform both frozen and permanent histologic sections. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to December 2020.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Sensitivity and specificity of frozen section TAB for detecting GCA, and discordance rates of bilateral permanent section TAB.

    Results  Of the 795 included participants, 329 (41.4%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 72 (10) years. From the 795 patients with 1162 TABs, 119 patients (15.0%) and 138 TABs had positive findings on permanent section. Of these 119 patients, 103 (86.6%) also had positive results on the frozen section, with 4 false-positives (0.6%) and 20 false-negatives (16.8%). Frozen section had a specificity of 99.4% (95% CI, 98.5-99.8), sensitivity of 83.2% (95% CI, 75.2-89.4), positive predictive value of 96.1% (95% CI, 90.4-98.9), negative predictive value of 96.6% (95% CI, 94.9-97.8), positive likelihood ratio of 140.6 (95% CI, 72.7-374.8), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.17 (95% CI, 0.11-0.25). Simultaneous bilateral TABs were performed in 60 patients (7.5%) with a 5% discordance rate on permanent section. In comparison, bilateral frozen section–guided sequential TABs were performed in 307 patients (38.6%) with 5.5% discordance based on permanent section. In multivariate models, there was a greater odds of positive findings with age (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07; P = .008), vision loss (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.25-5.75; P = .01), diplopia (OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.00-10.29; P = .04), headache (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.25-4.53; P = .01), weight loss (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.26-4.43; P = .007), and anorexia (OR, 5.65; 95% CI, 2.70-11.89; P < .001).

    Conclusions and Relevance  These results support the hypothesis that negative findings from frozen sections should not be solely relied on to refute the diagnosis of GCA, whereas positive findings from frozen sections can be reliably used to defer a contralateral biopsy pending the permanent section results.

    Introduction

    Temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is the criterion-standard diagnostic test for giant cell arteritis (GCA), but determining the pretest probability of a positive result relies on clinical and paraclinical manifestations.1-3 Bilateral simultaneous TABs have been advocated by some to improve the sensitivity of detecting GCA.4,5 Studies have shown a very wide range of discordance rates (3% to 45%) in patients undergoing bilateral TABs.3,6-13 In clinical practice, this has resulted in 2 general strategies for performing a TAB in patients with a high clinical index of suspicion for GCA. The first strategy is to perform a second TAB on the contralateral side at some point after the first TAB is found to be negative for GCA, which has the potential to be detrimental in patients with comorbid conditions, such as diabetes. This strategy may result in unnecessary interval glucocorticoid treatment if the second TAB has negative findings. The second strategy is to perform bilateral TABs at the same time (ie, simultaneous). The disadvantage of this strategy is an unnecessary second procedure if the first TAB is found to be positive for GCA on review of the permanent histology slides.

    Unique to our institution, TAB specimens are examined initially with a procedural frozen section at the time of the biopsy followed by, within a few days, the final pathology confirmation based on evaluation of formalin-fixed tissue permanent section.14 Therefore, a frozen section–guided sequential TAB is commonly performed, with the results of the first biopsy obtained within minutes, which determines the need for evaluation of the contralateral side. If the first side is positive for GCA, the contralateral side is not biopsied. However, if the frozen section diagnosis is negative for the initial side, then the contralateral artery is immediately biopsied. In both cases, the permanent section still provides the final biopsy result, while the frozen section helps guide the decision to perform a contralateral biopsy in conjunction with clinical judgment.

    Frozen section diagnosis is a technique used to provide intraoperative diagnosis during surgical procedures, although this technique is not uniformly used in the workup of GCA. The procedure was first described in 1895, but the 1905 landmark publication by Louis B. Wilson, MD, at Mayo Clinic15 is credited with heralding in the “new era in intraoperative diagnosis.”16 Dr Wilson’s standardized frozen section technique facilitated intraoperative diagnoses for surgeons within 5 minutes. A modified version is still used today at Mayo Clinic.17-19 Our institution’s history and experience with the frozen section technique has influenced our unique practice of evaluating TABs. It has been suggested that frozen sections might not have a role in the evaluation of a patient with GCA due to high false-negative results.12,20,21 Because this impression is not based on any large-scale study, we set out to systematically assess the sensitivity and specificity of frozen section TAB pathology results to determine its role in the evaluation of a patient with suspected GCA. In addition, we determined the discordance rate of bilateral simultaneous and frozen section guided sequential TABs.

    Methods
    Cohort Selection

    The Mayo Clinic institutional review board approved this retrospective medical record review of patients 40 years or older who underwent TABs from January 1, 2010, to December 1, 2018, using both frozen section and permanent section techniques. Informed consent was waived given minimal risk to included participants. Participants were not included in the study if they previously withdrew consent to participate in research studies.

    A total of 795 patients with 1162 TABs (428 patients with unilateral biopsies and 367 with bilateral biopsies) were analyzed (Figure 1). To capture all patients, a clinical data repository (Advanced Cohort Explorer) was used that contains patient demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and laboratory, clinical, and pathology notes using the search terms temporal artery biopsy and giant cell arteritis. We used the Advanced Cohort Explorer to identify patients meeting the inclusion criteria of age (40 years or older), TAB procedure, and time frame (January 1, 2010, to December 1, 2018). We then abstracted the clinical medical records for the following parameters: demographic characteristics, inflammatory markers, symptoms, steroid treatment preceding biopsy (dose and duration), TAB specimen length, and frozen section and permanent section pathology reports for both the right and left side if bilateral TABs were performed. Rereview of the slide material from frozen and permanent sections was performed in select cases by either J. J. M. or D. R. S.

    Histologic Methodology

    For frozen sections, the temporal artery segment is bisected in cross-section, and using a freezing microtome, multiple 10-μm cross-sections are cut sequentially for histologic evaluation. A metachromatic dye (toluidine blue) is used to stain the specimen, which is placed on a glass slide and then evaluated by a board-certified surgical pathologist with experience in the frozen section technique. Between 2 to 3 levels of the specimen are examined. Results of the frozen section evaluation are typically available 15 minutes after specimen arrival in the laboratory. Following frozen section, the remaining artery is fixed in 10% buffered formalin and processed according to standard clinical procedures. Multiple cross-sections of the artery are placed on glass slides and stained following this sequence: a 4-μm hematoxylin-eosin–stained slide, a 4-μm Verhoeff–Van Gieson slide, and then 4 other hematoxylin-eosin–stained slides. This technique ensures that arteries are examined at 20 to 125 different levels (depending on the length of artery provided), and all biopsies were performed in this manner.

    Pathologic Definitions

    A positive result (either on frozen or permanent section) is substantiated by active arteritis characterized by medial inflammation with or without giant cells, disruption/duplication of the internal elastic membrane, intimal fibroplasia, and medial attenuation (Figure 2). With the toluidine blue dye, a metachromatic stain, the elastic layer is highlighted by its magenta color and easily identified on the frozen section slides. Only TABs with active arteritis were considered positive for the purpose of our study. Healed arteritis, defined by the presence medial scarring (eg, fibrosis with or without thinning) with or without the supporting findings of intimal fibroplasia and disruption and duplication of the internal elastic membrane, was not considered to be a positive TAB. Some authors consider the presence of histiocytes in the elastic lamina even in the absence of fibrosis or thinning of the media, demonstrated by immunostains, as evidence of healed arteritis.22-24 McDonnell et al25 found healed arteritis to have the greatest interobserver variability (up to 50%) in their study on the histopathologic diagnosis of GCA. Adventitial or intimal inflammation only were not considered diagnostic of GCA and triggered examination of multiple extra levels to evaluate for inflammation extending into the vascular wall. If a confirmed diagnosis of GCA was not achieved, these cases were not included in this study, although some cases might have been reported with a descriptive diagnosis.26-28 A negative result reflects the evaluation of multiple cross-sections and levels through the artery specimen without medial inflammation or medial scarring.

    Procedural Definitions

    TABs were either performed in the minor procedure room in clinic or operating room of a hospital. We considered bilateral TABs to be simultaneous if the procedure was performed at the same time, without obtaining the results of the frozen section before performing the contralateral side. Bilateral frozen section–guided sequential cases were performed based on the results of the frozen section, meaning that if the initial side was negative on frozen section then the contralateral side was biopsied in the same sitting.

    Statistical Analyses

    Overall sensitivity and specificity were estimated for frozen sections. Within each of the positive permanent and negative permanent cases, the probability of a mismatch between the frozen and permanent result were investigated using logistic regression analysis. Univariate results are provided as well as multivariate models adjusting for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), platelet count, jaw claudication, and scalp tenderness. In each case, the probability of a mismatch was the outcome of interest. P values were all 2-sided, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons in the results. Significance was set at P < .05. All analysis was completed using R version 3.6.2 (The R Foundation).

    Results

    Of the 795 included participants, 329 (41.4%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 72 (10) years. From the 795 patients with 1162 TABs, 119 patients (15.0%) and 138 TABs had positive findings on permanent section. Of these 119 patients, 103 (86.6%) also had positive results on the frozen section, with 4 false-positives (0.6%) and 20 false-negatives (16.8%) (Table 1). Frozen section had a specificity of 99.4% (95% CI, 98.5-99.8), sensitivity of 83.2% (95% CI, 75.2-89.4), positive predictive value of 96.1% (95% CI, 90.4-98.9), and a negative predictive value of 96.6% (95% CI, 94.9-97.8). Frozen section TAB had a positive likelihood ratio of 140.6 (95% CI, 72.7-374.8) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.17 (95% CI, 0.11-0.25), indicating that a patient with a positive frozen section has a greater likelihood of having a positive permanent section, whereas a patient with a negative frozen section has decreased likelihood of having a positive permanent section.

    Of the 119 patients with positive permanent section TAB, 77 (64.7%) were women, and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 73 (68-79.5) years (Table 2). The median (IQR) arterial length was 2.95 (2.50-3.45) cm, median (IQR) ESR was 56 (37-100) mm/h, median (IQR) CRP was 5.4 (2.1-10.0) mg/dL (to convert to milligrams per liter, multiply by 10), and median (IQR) platelet count was 341.5 (267.8-412.3) ×103/μL. A total of 61 patients (51.3%) with positive permanent section TABs had jaw claudication, the only statistically significant symptomatic manifestation of GCA. Glucocorticoids were administered prior to TAB in 78 patients (68.3%), with a median (interquartile range) duration of 4 (2-8) days, which was previously shown not to be a significant confounder given the persistence of the histopathological changes in GCA despite immunosuppressant therapy (Table 2).29

    In univariate regression analyses, all clinical symptoms except headache were associated with greater statistical odds of a positive permanent section TAB. The presence of anorexia (odds ratio [OR], 7.11; 95% CI, 4.19-12.07; P < .001) and jaw claudication (OR, 5.28; 95% CI, 3.49-8.02; P < .001) were associated with the greatest odds of a positive section TAB. Initiating glucocorticoids prior to the TAB (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.32-3.10; P = .001), but not chronic glucocorticoids use prior to biopsy, was associated with a positive section TAB. Age, ESR, and CRP were associated with increased odds of a positive section TAB but were less strongly associated with odds of a positive section TAB than diplopia, jaw claudication, weight loss, and anorexia. In a multivariate analysis adjusting for ESR, CRP, platelets, presence of jaw claudication, or scalp tenderness, we found that there was a greater odds of a positive permanent section TAB with age (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07; P = .008), vision loss (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.25-5.75; P = .01), diplopia (OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.00-10.29; P = .04), headache (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.25-4.53; P = .01), weight loss (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.26-4.43; P = .007), and anorexia (OR, 5.65; 95% CI, 2.70-11.89; P < .001). Table 2 details the results of univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses and corresponding ORs for each of the variables of interest.

    A total of 367 patients (46.2%) underwent bilateral TABs. A total of 60 patients (7.5%) underwent simultaneous TABs with a 5% discordance rate between the 2 sides, and 307 patients (38.6%) underwent frozen section–guided sequential TABs with a 5.5% discordance rate. Among the 27 bilateral TABs that were positive for GCA on permanent section, 4 were simultaneous and 23 were sequential. There were 7 patients whose bilateral TAB specimens were only positive on permanent section on one side, while the other side was normal (Table 3).3,6-11,13 In total, there were 49 patients with bilateral TABs that had an abnormal permanent section result on either one or both sides; of these, 22 patients had no evidence of active inflammation, including 1 patient with adventitial inflammation reported on only one side on permanent TAB, and 21 patients with healed arteritis, including 12 in which only one side was positive for healed arteritis while the contralateral side was normal (57.1% discordant) and 9 bilaterally positive for healed arteritis.

    Discussion

    We systematically evaluated the utility of frozen section for TAB and found it has a sensitivity of 83.2% and specificity of 99.4% for detecting active inflammation consistent with GCA. Based on these results, a negative frozen section result should not be relied on solely to indicate that TAB is negative for GCA. However, if the frozen section is positive (positive predictive value of 96.1%), the surgeon can confidently defer performing a contralateral TAB and wait for the permanent section results, which are the most reliable.1,30 Based on the calculated sensitivity of 83.2%, 83 of 100 patients with positive frozen sections would be saved from getting a contralateral TAB if bilateral simultaneous section is planned. It is important to point out that our study was not designed to look at the overall sensitivity of diagnosing GCA with frozen section but rather comparing head-to-head frozen section with permanent section.

    A prior retrospective and prospective examination of TAB specimens performed at our institution concluded that a contralateral TAB should be performed when the frozen section from the initial side is negative, based on isolated foci of arteritis (skip lesions) found in 17 of 60 patients (28%).20 Although prior studies have systematically evaluated the histopathologic reasoning behind bilateral TABs, only clinical opinion has reviewed the value of frozen sections in the literature.7,20,21,31 In fact, Chévez-Barrios stated, “I recommend, as do others in the literature, that the diagnosis of temporal arteritis be made on permanent sections.… [A] negative frozen section may necessitate cutting numerous sections until arteritis is identified or the specimen is exhausted, which is a time-consuming and expensive procedure.”6,20,32-34 Although we do not entirely disagree, this was not based on a systematic review, and our study supports a role of frozen section when deciding if a unilateral or bilateral simultaneous TAB should be performed.

    Among our cohort of 60 patients who underwent bilateral simultaneous TABs, there was a 5% discordance rate. Of the 307 patients who underwent bilateral frozen section–guided sequential TABs—with the contralateral side performed immediately after the first side was found to be negative on frozen section—the discordance rate was 5.5%. These results are on the lower side of the range that has been reported in the literature, which have referred to positive cases (Table 3).3,6-13

    Hall and Hunder3 calculated that 14% of patients with GCA undergoing bilateral sequential TABs were diagnosed only because the contralateral side was biopsied and indicated a discordance rate of 29% of 41 total cases. Boyev et al11 reported a 3.3% discordance rate based on 300 bilateral simultaneous and 72 sequential TABs in 186 patients. Breuer et al13 reviewed 51 TAB-positive GCA cases (of 132 total bilateral simultaneous TABs), of which only 13 were unilaterally positive (discordance rate of 25.4%). They inferred that up to 12.7% of the patients (one-half of the discordance rate) could have been misdiagnosed as TAB-negative cases had a unilateral TAB been performed (Table 3).

    Niederkohr and Levin35 used bayesian analysis to explain that discordance rates from bilateral TABs should not be used to estimate their increased sensitivity (over unilateral TABs), based on the assumption that there is a 50% chance that the positive side of a discordant pair would be randomly chosen in a unilateral TAB. However, determining which side to sample in a unilateral TAB is usually based on clinical presentation (ie, side of visual loss, temporal artery tenderness, decrease pulse, or nodularity).36 Pretest probability of the disease therefore varies with the side chosen and influences the discordance rate.

    At our institution, if there is a high pretest probability of GCA, bilateral simultaneous TABs are planned, but frozen section for the first side is submitted and the results are obtained immediately prior to deciding whether to proceed to the contralateral side. If the frozen section is positive on the first TAB, a contralateral TAB is deferred, given the very low false-positive rate (0.6%). However, if the frozen section does not align with the permanent section result, in particular if the frozen section is positive but permanent section is negative, the patient returns for a TAB on the contralateral side if the GCA suspicion remains high. Based on our study, this would occur in less than 1% of patients. This frozen section–guided sequential TAB strategy has the advantage of saving some patients from an unnecessary second TAB (and its associated risks) as well as saving time by avoiding a second procedure visit. At our institution, this method can additionally reduce the overall cost of care, but we recognize that this is not generalizable to other institutions.36,37

    We found that older age, higher baseline inflammatory markers, and presence of vision loss, diplopia, headache, weight loss, and anorexia were associated with higher odds of GCA. These results are consistent with the findings of previous reports.38 The association of increased odds of GCA positivity in patients treated with glucocorticoids prior to the TAB is likely due to the higher index of clinical suspicion, necessitating earlier therapeutic intervention.

    Limitations

    This study had limitations. This is a single-center retrospective analysis. We did not rereview all of the TABs but rather relied on the original pathology reports for most of these cases. We recognize the uniqueness of our institution to use frozen sections, where the additional 15 minutes for the frozen section result is ultimately considered to be a time-saving and cost-saving procedure compared with bringing the patient back for a subsequent procedure visit to conduct a contralateral biopsy. We understand that this may not be feasible at other institutions that are not set up for both rapid and accurate frozen sectioning, where this procedure could instead be cost prohibitive. The pathology laboratory at our institution is well equipped for frozen section as it is available at all times, allowing for very rapid TAB processing turnaround. This is in part because fewer sections are examined with frozen vs permanent sections (2 to 3 levels vs 20 to 125 levels, respectively), suggesting inherently decreased sensitivity with frozen sections. Our frozen section procedure and experience (evaluate multiple and use toluidine blue staining that highlights the elastic layer) may not be similar to other institutions and may lead to variable results to our results. Additionally, we acknowledge that there is controversy regarding the clinical interpretation of healed arteritis. At our institution, healed arteritis is interpreted in the context of patient clinical characteristics and radiographic findings, which may differ from other institutions and may impact the results of this study.

    Conclusions

    Our study has shown that frozen section TAB has a very good sensitivity and excellent specificity for GCA and therefore supports the role of frozen section in performing TAB. However, more studies with a comparative analysis of laboratory results, clinical symptoms, and patient demographic characteristics between positive and negative frozen and permanent TAB results are needed to confirm our findings.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: December 3, 2020.

    Published Online: February 18, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.6896

    Corresponding Author: M. Tariq Bhatti, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine & Science, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (bhatti.muhammad@mayo.edu).

    Author Contributions: Drs Cohen and Bhatti had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Study concept and design: Cohen, Chen, Neth, Fillmore, Bhatti.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Cohen, Chen, Neth, Sabbagh, Hodge, Warrington, Maleszewski, Salomao, Bhatti.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Cohen, Neth, Sabbagh, Salomao.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Cohen, Chen, Hodge, Warrington, Fillmore, Maleszewski, Salomao, Bhatti.

    Statistical analysis: Cohen, Hodge.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Neth, Sabbagh, Fillmore, Bhatti.

    Study supervision: Warrington, Fillmore, Maleszewski, Bhatti.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Warrington has received grants from Eli Lilly and Company and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals as well as personal fees from Genentech-Roche and Sanofi. No other disclosures were reported.

    Meeting Presentation: These data were presented as a poster at the 46th annual North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society Meeting; March 7-12, 2020; Amelia Island, Florida.

    References
    1.
    Taylor-Gjevre  R, Vo  M, Shukla  D, Resch  L.  Temporal artery biopsy for giant cell arteritis.   J Rheumatol. 2005;32(7):1279-1282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    2.
    Davies  CG, May  DJ.  The role of temporal artery biopsies in giant cell arteritis.   Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;93(1):4-5. doi:10.1308/003588411X12851639107476PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Hall  S, Hunder  GG.  Is temporal artery biopsy prudent?   Mayo Clin Proc. 1984;59(11):793-796. doi:10.1016/S0025-6196(12)65593-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Chung  SH, Morcos  MB, Ng  B.  Determinants of positive temporal artery biopsies in the Veterans Health Administration National Database Cohort.   Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020;72(5):699-704.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Schallhorn  J, Haug  SJ, Yoon  MK, Porco  T, Seiff  SR, McCulley  TJ.  A national survey of practice patterns: temporal artery biopsy.   Ophthalmology. 2013;120(9):1930-1934. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.052PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Danesh-Meyer  HV, Savino  PJ, Eagle  RC  Jr, Kubis  KC, Sergott  RC.  Low diagnostic yield with second biopsies in suspected giant cell arteritis.   J Neuroophthalmol. 2000;20(3):213-215. doi:10.1097/00041327-200020030-00011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Pless  M, Rizzo  JF  III, Lamkin  JC, Lessell  S.  Concordance of bilateral temporal artery biopsy in giant cell arteritis.   J Neuroophthalmol. 2000;20(3):216-218. doi:10.1097/00041327-200020030-00012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Ponge  T, Barrier  JH, Grolleau  JY, Ponge  A, Vlasak  AM, Cottin  S.  The efficacy of selective unilateral temporal artery biopsy versus bilateral biopsies for diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.   J Rheumatol. 1988;15(6):997-1000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    9.
    Sorensen  S, Lorenzen  I.  Giant-cell arteritis, temporal arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica. a retrospective study of 63 patients.   Acta Med Scand. 1977;201(3):207-213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    10.
    Baldursson  O, Steinsson  K, Björnsson  J, Lie  JT.  Giant cell arteritis in Iceland. an epidemiologic and histopathologic analysis.   Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37(7):1007-1012. doi:10.1002/art.1780370705PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Boyev  LR, Miller  NR, Green  WR.  Efficacy of unilateral versus bilateral temporal artery biopsies for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.   Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(2):211-215. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00101-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Durling  B, Toren  A, Patel  V, Gilberg  S, Weis  E, Jordan  D.  Incidence of discordant temporal artery biopsy in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.   Can J Ophthalmol. 2014;49(2):157-161. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.12.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Breuer  GS, Nesher  G, Nesher  R.  Rate of discordant findings in bilateral temporal artery biopsy to diagnose giant cell arteritis.   J Rheumatol. 2009;36(4):794-796. doi:10.3899/jrheum.080792PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Ferreiro  JA, Myers  JL, Bostwick  DG.  Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in surgical pathology: review of a 1-year experience with 24,880 cases at Mayo Clinic Rochester.   Mayo Clin Proc. 1995;70(12):1137-1141. doi:10.4065/70.12.1137PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Wilson  LB.  A method for the rapid preparation of fresh tissues for the microscope.   JAMA. 1905;XLV(23):1737. doi:10.1001/jama.1905.52510230037003cGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Gal  AA.  The centennial anniversary of the frozen section technique at the Mayo Clinic.   Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(12):1532-1535.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Unni  KK.  Practice of frozen section pathology at the Mayo Clinic.   Int Pathol. 1996;37:1-2.Google Scholar
    18.
    Woolner  L. Surgical pathology at the Mayo Clinic. In: Rosai  J, ed.  Guiding the Surgeon’s Hand: The History of American Surgical Pathology. American Registry of Pathology; 1997:145-179.
    19.
    Dahlin  DC.  Seventy-five years’ experience with frozen sections at the Mayo Clinic.   Mayo Clin Proc. 1980;55(11):721-723.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    20.
    Klein  RG, Campbell  RJ, Hunder  GG, Carney  JA.  Skip lesions in temporal arteritis.   Mayo Clin Proc. 1976;51(8):504-510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    21.
    Nordborg  E, Nordborg  C, Bengtsson  BA.  Giant cell arteritis.   Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1992;4(1):23-30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    22.
    Zhou  L, Luneau  K, Weyand  CM, Biousse  V, Newman  NJ, Grossniklaus  HE.  Clinicopathologic correlations in giant cell arteritis: a retrospective study of 107 cases.   Ophthalmology. 2009;116(8):1574-1580. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.02.027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Font  RL, Prabhakaran  VC.  Histological parameters helpful in recognising steroid-treated temporal arteritis: an analysis of 35 cases.   Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(2):204-209. doi:10.1136/bjo.2006.101725PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Sultan  H, Smith  SV, Lee  AG, Chévez-Barrios  P.  Pathologic markers determining prognosis in patients with treated or healing giant cell arteritis.   Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;193:45-53. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2018.05.031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    McDonnell  PJ, Moore  GW, Miller  NR, Hutchins  GM, Green  WR.  Temporal arteritis. a clinicopathologic study.   Ophthalmology. 1986;93(4):518-530. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(86)33706-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Le Pendu  C, Meignin  V, Gonzalez-Chiappe  S, Hij  A, Galateau-Sallé  F, Mahr  A.  Poor predictive value of isolated adventitial and periadventitial infiltrates in temporal artery biopsies for diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.   J Rheumatol. 2017;44(7):1039-1043. doi:10.3899/jrheum.170061PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Cavazza  A, Muratore  F, Boiardi  L,  et al.  Inflamed temporal artery: histologic findings in 354 biopsies, with clinical correlations.   Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(10):1360-1370. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000244PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Jia  L, Couce  M, Barnholtz-Sloan  JS, Cohen  ML.  Is all inflammation within temporal artery biopsies temporal arteritis?   Hum Pathol. 2016;57:17-21. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2016.07.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Maleszewski  JJ, Younge  BR, Fritzlen  JT,  et al.  Clinical and pathological evolution of giant cell arteritis: a prospective study of follow-up temporal artery biopsies in 40 treated patients.   Mod Pathol. 2017;30(6):788-796. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2017.10PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Hall  S, Persellin  S, Lie  JT, O’Brien  PC, Kurland  LT, Hunder  GG.  The therapeutic impact of temporal artery biopsy.   Lancet. 1983;2(8361):1217-1220. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(83)91269-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Hedges  TR  III, Gieger  GL, Albert  DM.  The clinical value of negative temporal artery biopsy specimens.   Arch Ophthalmol. 1983;101(8):1251-1254. doi:10.1001/archopht.1983.01040020253019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Grossniklaus  H, Brown  H, Glasgow  B, Murray  T, Shetlar  D, Wilson  D.  Ophthalmic Pathology and Intraocular Tumors. Revised Edition. American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2005.
    33.
    Spencer  WH.  Ophthalmic Pathology: An Atlas and Textbook. Saunders; 1985.
    34.
    Chévez-Barrios  P.  Frozen section diagnosis and indications in ophthalmic pathology.   Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(12):1626-1634.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Niederkohr  RD, Levin  LA.  A Bayesian analysis of the true sensitivity of a temporal artery biopsy.   Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(2):675-680. doi:10.1167/iovs.06-1106PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Bhatti  MT, Goldstein  MH.  Facial nerve injury following superficial temporal artery biopsy.   Dermatol Surg. 2001;27(1):15-17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    37.
    Murchison  AP, Bilyk  JR.  Brow ptosis after temporal artery biopsy: incidence and associations.   Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12):2637-2642. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.07.020PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Hayreh  SS, Podhajsky  PA, Raman  R, Zimmerman  B.  Giant cell arteritis: validity and reliability of various diagnostic criteria.   Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123(3):285-296. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(14)70123-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×