Excision margins in breast conserving surgery (original) (raw)
Related papers
Positive or close margins in breast conserving surgery: Is re-excision always necessary?
European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO), 2012
Background: More than half of re-excision specimens after breast conserving surgery (BCS) are found to be free of residual tumor at definitive histology. The aim of this study was to identify clinicopathological factors along with intrinsic subtypes of the tumor (luminal A, luminal B, HER2-overexpressing, triple-negative) associated with residual tumor in re-excision or mastectomy specimen. Methods: Two hundred forty-eight patients with initial BCS, who underwent one or more re-excisions or mastectomy because of close or positive margins were reviewed. Results: Residual cancer was found in 50% of re-excision(s) or mastectomy specimens. Patients with multifocality (vs unifocality; OR ¼ 5.2; 95% CI, 2.6e10.4) or positive nodes (vs negative nodes; OR ¼ 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4e4.4), or positive margins (vs close margins; OR ¼ 1.7; 95% CI ¼ 1.0e2.9) were more likely to have residual tumor in re-excision or mastectomy specimen compared to others. Conclusion: Our results suggest that further surgery is often indicated in patients with node positive or multifocal cancers or positive margins after BCS since residual disease cannot be ruled out. Re-excision or mastectomy could be omitted in patients with close margins with favorable factors such unifocal tumor or node negative disease.
Surgical Resection Margins after Breast-Conserving Surgery: Senonetwork Recommendations
Tumori Journal, 2016
This paper reports findings of the “Focus on Controversial Areas” Working Party of the Italian Senonetwork, which was set up to improve the care of breast cancer patients. After reviewing articles in English on the MEDLINE system on breast conserving surgery for invasive carcinoma, the Working Party presents their recommendations for identifying risk factors for positive margins, suggests how to manage them so as to achieve the highest possible percentage of negative margins, and proposes standards for investigating resection margins and therapeutic approaches according to margin status. When margins are positive, approaches include re-excision, mastectomy, or, as second-line treatment, radiotherapy with a high boost dose. When margins are negative, boost administration and its dose depend on the risk of local recurrence, which is linked to biopathological tumor features and surgical margin width. Although margin status does not affect the choice of systemic therapy, it may delay th...
Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery
2012
Context Health care reform calls for increasing physician accountability and transparency of outcomes. Partial mastectomy is the most commonly performed procedure for invasive breast cancer and often requires reexcision. Variability in reexcision might be reflective of the quality of care. Objective To assess hospital and surgeon-specific variation in reexcision rates following partial mastectomy. Design, Setting, and Patients An observational study of breast surgery performed between 2003 and 2008 intended to evaluate variability in breast cancer surgical care outcomes and evaluate potential quality measures of breast cancer surgery. Women with invasive breast cancer undergoing partial mastectomy from 4 institutions were studied (1 university hospital [University of Vermont] and 3 large health plans [Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Group Health, and Marshfield Clinic]). Data were obtained from electronic medical records and chart abstraction of surgical, pathology, radiology, and outpatient records, including detailed surgical margin status. Logistic regression including surgeon-level random effects was used to identify predictors of reexcision. Main Outcome Measure Incidence of reexcision. Results A total of 2206 women with 2220 invasive breast cancers underwent partial mastectomy and 509 patients (22.9%; 95% CI, 21.2%-24.7%) underwent reexcision (454 patients [89.2%; 95% CI, 86.5%-91.9%] had 1 reexcision, 48 [9.4%; 95% CI, 6.9%-12.0%] had 2 reexcisions, and 7 [1.4%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%] had 3 reexcisions). Among all patients undergoing initial partial mastectomy, total mastectomy was performed in 190 patients (8.5%; 95% CI, 7.2%-9.5%). Reexcision rates for margin status following initial surgery were 85.9% (95% CI, 82.0%-89.8%) for initial positive margins, 47.9% (95% CI, 42.0%-53.9%) for less than 1.0 mm margins, 20.2% (95% CI, 15.3%-25.0%) for 1.0 to 1.9 mm margins, and 6.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-9.3%) for 2.0 to 2.9 mm margins. For patients with negative margins, reexcision rates varied widely among surgeons (range, 0%-70%; P=.003) and institutions (range, 1.7%-20.9%; PϽ.001). Reexcision rates were not associated with surgeon procedure volume after adjusting for case mix (P=.92). Conclusion Substantial surgeon and institutional variation were observed in reexcision following partial mastectomy in women with invasive breast cancer.
Risk Factors for Re-Excision Following Breast-Conserving Surgery
Oncology nursing forum, 2017
To identify previously unstudied factors predicting re-excision following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and to assess the feasibility of obtaining data about breast density for predictive modeling. . Retrospective secondary data analysis. . Data were obtained from the cancer registry and electronic health records (EHRs) at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, a large, urban, private, nonprofit hospital in North Texas. . 244 patients choosing BCS from 2011-2012. . Data were subjected to univariate analyses (chi-square) followed by logistic regression. . The primary dependent variable was re-excision following BCS. Predictors of interest included lifestyle factors, time from diagnosis to surgery, surgical approach, patient age, and breast density, and controlled for covariates, such as assay results. . Three factors predicted re-excision with 87% accuracy. Women younger than 60 years whose surgery included placement of a wire for localization of tissue to be removed and who under...
The Breast Journal, 2006
One of the most important factors associated with local recurrence after lumpectomy in breast cancer patients is the status of the surgical margin. Standard surgical practice is to obtain clear margins even if this requires a second surgical procedure. It is assumed that reexcision to achieve clear margins when positive margins are present at initial excision is as effective as complete tumor removal at a single procedure; however, the efficacy of reexcision in this context has not been well studied. A retrospective search of the Henrietta Banting Breast Centre database from 1987 to 1997 identified 1430 patients who underwent lumpectomy for invasive breast cancer: 1225 patients (group A) had negative margins at the initial surgery and 152 patients (group B) underwent one or more reexcisions to achieve negative margins. Fifty-three patients had positive margins at final surgery, but no reexcision was done (group C). Logistic regression was used to identify factors that were predictive of a positive margin; predictors of local recurrence in women whose tumors were completely resected were determined using Cox's proportional hazards model. Patients in groups A, B, and C differed with respect to mean age at diagnosis (58 years, 51 versus, and 56 years, respectively, p < 0.0001), mean tumor size (19 mm, 16 mm, and 26 mm, respectively, p < 0.0001), node positivity (30%, 22%, and 41%, respectively, p = 0.004), and the presence of a ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) component (60%, 64%, and 79%, respectively, p = 0.007). The mean follow-up period was similar for the three groups (8 years, 8 years, and 9 years, respectively, p = 0.17). Young age was the only variable predictive of positive margins. Among patients undergoing complete tumor excision, there was a suggestion of a higher 10 year local recurrence rate in reexcision group B, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (11.6% versus 16.6%, p = 0.11). Cox's multivariate regression analyses identified older age, smaller tumor size, receiving radiation therapy, and tamoxifen use as significantly decreasing the rate of local recurrence in patients with negative margins at initial surgery or after reexcision. Our data confirm the results of previous studies indicating that young age is an independent predictor of positive margins after lumpectomy for invasive breast cancer. The only independent predictor of local recurrence in our study cohort was large tumor size. There was a trend toward a higher local recurrence rate if more than one procedure was required to secure clear margins, although this effect was not independent of other factors. Reexcision to clear involved margins is an important surgical intervention for both younger and older women.
The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery: discussion of an open issue
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2009
Hypothesis The best therapeutic approach to the involved or proximal surgical margins has not been defined yet; surgical margins status can influence the local relapse of disease in breast carcinoma, but the impact on overall survival has not been clearly demonstrated. Purpose of this work is to find in the available literature further evidence to guide the therapeutic behaviour in patients with close margins by invasive carcinoma. Design Review of the currently available literature on the evaluation of surgical margins in breast conserving surgery; influence of margin involvement by invasive component or intraductal component. Patients or other participants Literature research by PubMed on the topics of breast carcinoma, conservative surgery and margin definition and status; therapeutic approach to involved margins. Main outcome measure We reviewed the available literature focusing our attention to the definition of clear surgical margins and to the value of the close proximity of margins in relation to the local control of disease and the best therapeutic management of different situations. Results Further evidence is needed on large numbers of patients to understand how to evaluate surgical margins in invasive breast carcinoma. Conclusions There is no consensus on the definition of “clear surgical margins”, and the ideal approach to the close proximity of margins has not been defined. It is not sure whether a new surgical procedure is really needed in every case of close proximity of tumor cells to the margins. Radiation therapy could be a good option in the management of these cases, but further evidence is needed to establish the real impact of clear surgical margins on local control of disease and, furthermore, on survival.
BMC Cancer, 2009
Background: The primary goal of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to completely excise the tumor and achieve "adequate" or "negative" surgical resection margins while maintaining an acceptable level of postoperative cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, precise determination of the adequacy of BCS has long been debated. In this regard, the aim of the current paper was to describe a standardized and reproducible methodology for comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during BCS. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 204 BCS procedures performed for invasive breast cancer from August 2003 to June 2007, in which patients underwent a standard BCS resection and systematic sampling of nine standardized re-resection margins (superior, superior-medial, superior-lateral, medial, lateral, inferior, inferior-medial, inferiorlateral, and deep-posterior). Multiple variables (including patient, tumor, specimen, and follow-up variables) were evaluated. Results: 6.4% (13/204) of patients had positive BCS specimen margins (defined as tumor at inked edge of BCS specimen) and 4.4% (9/204) of patients had close margins (defined as tumor within 1 mm or less of inked edge but not at inked edge of BCS specimen). 11.8% (24/204) of patients had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease, independent of the status of the BCS specimen margins. 7.1% (13/182) of patients with negative BCS specimen margins (defined as no tumor cells seen within 1 mm or less of inked edge of BCS specimen) had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease. Thus, 54.2% (13/24) of patients with additional disease in a re-resection margin would not have been recognized by a standard BCS procedure alone (P < 0.001). The nine standardized resection margins represented only 26.8% of the volume of the BCS specimen and 32.6% of the surface area of the BCS specimen. Conclusion: Our methodology accurately assesses the adequacy of surgical resection margins for determination of which individuals may need further resection to the affected breast in order to minimize the potential risk of local recurrence while attempting to limit the volume of additional breast tissue excised, as well as to determine which individuals are not realistically amendable to BCS and instead need a completion mastectomy to successfully remove multifocal disease.
Rates of residual disease with close but negative margins in breast cancer surgery
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2015
A recent multidisciplinary consensus defined an adequate breast cancer margin as no ink on tumor. The purpose of this study was to analyze rates of residual disease at re-excision by margin width. A prospective database at a single institution was reviewed from 2000 to 2012. Institutional protocol had been to perform re-excision surgery when margins were <2 millimeters (mm). There were 2520 procedures. Re-excision surgery was performed for 12% of breast conserving therapy (BCT) procedures and 2% of mastectomies; residual disease was present in 38% and 26%, respectively. The rates of residual disease for all patients with positive, 0.1-0.9 mm, and 1.0-1.9 mm margins were 40%, 38%, and 33%, respectively. Age, race, menopause status, width of closest final margin, tumor histology, hormone receptor status, triple-negative disease and presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were not significantly associated with the presence of residual disease. The presence of multiple margins <...