BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the method of breast cancer margin assessment may be associated with different rates of positive margins and residual carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 178 breast cancer specimens were divided into 2 groups (A and B) based on the margin assessment method used. Rates of positive margins, re-excision, and residual carcinoma at re-excision were compared and analyzed statistically. RESULTS: At least 1 margin was positive in 64.7% in group A and in 65.2% in group B. At directed re-excision 54% in group A and 51% in group B had residual carcinoma. The lateral margin was positive in 44% in group A compared with 26% in group B (P = .06). The posterior margin was positive in 19% in group A and in 51% in group B (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Two different breast cancer specimen margin assessment methods had comparable rates of positive margins and residual carcinoma at re-excision. Different patterns of specific margin positivity suggest that the method of margin assessment may alter results.
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the method of breast cancer margin assessment may be associated with different rates of positive margins and residual carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 178 breast cancer specimens were divided into 2 groups (A and B) based on the margin assessment method used. Rates of positive margins, re-excision, and residual carcinoma at re-excision were compared and analyzed statistically. RESULTS: At least 1 margin was positive in 64.7% in group A and in 65.2% in group B. At directed re-excision 54% in group A and 51% in group B had residual carcinoma. The lateral margin was positive in 44% in group A compared with 26% in group B (P = .06). The posterior margin was positive in 19% in group A and in 51% in group B (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Two different breast cancer specimen margin assessment methods had comparable rates of positive margins and residual carcinoma at re-excision. Different patterns of specific margin positivity suggest that the method of margin assessment may alter results.
Authors: J Quincy Brown; Torre M Bydlon; Lisa M Richards; Bing Yu; Stephanie A Kennedy; Joseph Geradts; Lee G Wilke; Marlee Junker; Jennifer Gallagher; William Barry; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 4.544
Authors: Tracy-Ann Moo; Lydia Choi; Candice Culpepper; Cristina Olcese; Alexandra Heerdt; Lisa Sclafani; Tari A King; Anne S Reiner; Sujata Patil; Edi Brogi; Monica Morrow; Kimberly J Van Zee Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Lee G Wilke; J Quincy Brown; Torre M Bydlon; Stephanie A Kennedy; Lisa M Richards; Marlee K Junker; Jennifer Gallagher; William T Barry; Joseph Geradts; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Henry L Fu; Jenna L Mueller; Melodi P Javid; Jeffrey K Mito; David G Kirsch; Nimmi Ramanujam; J Quincy Brown Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Torre M Bydlon; William T Barry; Stephanie A Kennedy; J Quincy Brown; Jennifer E Gallagher; Lee G Wilke; Joseph Geradts; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-10 Impact factor: 3.240