Literature DB >> 10421533

Patients with early stage invasive cancer with close or positive margins treated with conservative surgery and radiation have an increased risk of breast recurrence that is delayed by adjuvant systemic therapy.

G Freedman1, B Fowble, A Hanlon, N Nicolaou, D Fein, J Hoffman, E Sigurdson, M Boraas, L Goldstein.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The association between a positive resection margin and the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after conservative surgery and radiation is controversial. The width of the resection margin that minimizes the risk of IBTR is unknown. While adjuvant systemic therapy may decrease the risk of an IBTR in all patients, its impact on patients with positive or close margins is largely unknown. This study examines the interaction between margin status, margin width, and adjuvant systemic therapy on the 5- and 10-year risk of IBTR after conservative surgery and radiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A series of 1,262 patients with clinical Stage I or II breast cancer were treated by breast-conserving surgery, axillary node dissection, and radiation between March 1979 and December 1992. The median follow-up was 6.3 years (range 0.1-15.6). The median age was 55 years (range 24-89). Clinical size was T1 in 66% and T2 in 34%. Seventy-three percent of patients were node-negative. Only 5 % of patients had tumors that were EIC-positive. Forty-one percent had a single excision, and 59% had a reexcision. The final margins were negative in 77%, positive in 12%, and close (< or = 2 mm) in 11%. The median total dose to the tumor bed was 60 Gy with negative margins, 64 Gy with close margins, and 66 Gy with positive margins. Chemotherapy +/- tamoxifen was used in 28%, tamoxifen alone in 20%, and no adjuvant systemic therapy in 52%.
RESULTS: The 5-year cumulative incidence (CI) of IBTR was not significantly different between patients with negative (4%), positive (5%), or close (7%) margins. However, by 10 years, a significant difference in IBTR became apparent (negative 7%, positive 12%, close 14%, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in IBTR when a close or positive margin was involved by invasive tumor or DCIS. Reexcision diminished the IBTR rate to 7% at 10 years if the final margin was negative; however, the highest risk was observed in patients with persistently positive (13%) or close (21%) (p = 0.02) margins. The median interval to failure was 3.7 years after no adjuvant systemic therapy, 5.0 years after chemotherapy +/- tamoxifen, and 6.7 years after tamoxifen alone. This delay to IBTR was observed in patients with close or positive margins, with little impact on the time to failure in patients with negative margins. The 5-year CI of IBTR in patients with close or positive margins was 1% with adjuvant systemic therapy and 13% with no adjuvant therapy. However, by 10 years, the CI of IBTR was similar (18% vs. 14%) due to more late failures in the patients who received adjuvant systemic therapy.
CONCLUSION: A negative margin (> 2 mm) identifies patients with a very low risk of IBTR (7% at 10 years) after conservative surgery and radiation. Patients with a close margin (< or = 2 mm) are at an equal or greater risk of IBTR as with a positive margin, especially following a reexcision. A margin involved by DCIS or invasive tumor has the same increased risk of IBTR. A reexcision of an initially close or positive margin that results in a negative final margin reduces the risk of IBTR to that of an initially negative margin. A close or positive margin is associated with an increased risk of IBTR even in patients who are EIC-negative or receiving higher boost doses of radiation. The median time to IBTR is delayed; however, the CI is not significantly decreased by adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with close or positive margins-the 5 year results in these patients underestimate their ultimate risk of recurrence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10421533     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(99)00112-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  35 in total

1.  Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey.

Authors:  Alphonse Taghian; Majid Mohiuddin; Reshma Jagsi; Saveli Goldberg; Elizabeth Ceilley; Simon Powell
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  [Prognostic and predictive factors of invasive breast cancer: update 2009].

Authors:  T Decker; D Hungermann; W Böcker
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Occurrence of Residual Cancer Within Re-excisions After Subcutaneous Mastectomy of Invasive Breast Cancer and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ - A Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  Caroline Pahmeyer; Anika Schablack; Dominik Ratiu; Fabinshy Thangarajah; Sebastian Ludwig; Berthold Gruettner; Peter Mallmann; Wolfram Malter; Mathias Warm; Christian Eichler
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 4.  Recent developments in breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer patients.

Authors:  F Fitzal; O Riedl; R Jakesz
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 5.  Surgical margins in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: what is 'close'?

Authors:  Matteo Alicandri-Ciufelli; Marco Bonali; Alessia Piccinini; Laura Marra; Angelo Ghidini; Elio Maria Cunsolo; Antonino Maiorana; Livio Presutti; Pier Franco Conte
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Efficacy of intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis of lumpectomy margins during breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer.

Authors:  Tomofumi Osako; Reiki Nishimura; Yasuyuki Nishiyama; Yasuhiro Okumura; Rumiko Tashima; Masahiro Nakano; Mamiko Fujisue; Yasuo Toyozumi; Nobuyuki Arima
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 7.  Breast cancer local therapy: what is its effect on mortality?

Authors:  John R Benson; Katy A T Teo
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Prostate cancer that is within 0.1 mm of the surgical margin of a radical prostatectomy predicts greater likelihood of recurrence.

Authors:  Jason P Izard; Lawrence D True; Philip May; William J Ellis; Paul H Lange; Bruce Dalkin; Daniel W Lin; Rodney A Schmidt; Jonathan L Wright
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 6.394

9.  Radioguided occult lesion localisation versus wire-guided lumpectomy in the treatment of non-palpable breast lesions.

Authors:  Tibor Takács; Attila Paszt; Zsolt Simonka; Szabolcs Abrahám; Bernadett Borda; Aurél Ottlakán; Katalin Ormándi; Máté Lázár; András Vörös; Zsuzsanna Kahán; Gyorgy Lazar
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2012-10-14       Impact factor: 3.201

Review 10.  Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions.

Authors:  Rick G Pleijhuis; Maurits Graafland; Jakob de Vries; Joost Bart; Johannes S de Jong; Gooitzen M van Dam
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 5.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.