Melanie C Smitt1, Kate Horst. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, 875 Blake Wilbur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. melanies94028@yahoo.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of preoperative diagnosis in obtaining negative lumpectomy margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred and thirty five patients who underwent breast conserving therapy for stage I/II cancer from 1971 to 1996 were included in this IRB-approved retrospective analysis. Three hundred and ninety five patients had a defined inked margin status after initial excision. The following factors were evaluated for correlation with margins at initial excision: age (< or >45), grade (3/1 or 2), family history (present/absent), histology (lobular/other), estrogen receptor (ER) status, presence of extensive intraductal carcinoma (EIC), presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and biopsy type (excisional/preoperative). RESULTS: Biopsy type (P < 0.0001), EIC (P = 0.002), ER status (P = 0.02), lobular histology (P = 0.02) and age (P = 0.02) were significantly correlated with initial margin status among the entire group. For patients who underwent preoperative diagnostic biopsy, 52% (35/67) had negative initial margins as compared to 29% (94/328) for excisional biopsy. Among patients who underwent preoperative biopsy, only lobular histology (P = 0.04) and LVI (P = 0.04) were related to initial margin status. The rate of re-excision was 34% for patients diagnosed preoperatively versus 61% with excisional biopsy (P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients with negative final margin status was similar with either core/needle or excisional biopsy (79 and 78%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative diagnosis is the most significant predictor of initial margin status in patients undergoing breast conservation. Patients with lobular histology may require improved preoperative and/or intraoperative assessment to increase the rate of negative margins at initial excision.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of preoperative diagnosis in obtaining negative lumpectomy margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred and thirty five patients who underwent breast conserving therapy for stage I/II cancer from 1971 to 1996 were included in this IRB-approved retrospective analysis. Three hundred and ninety five patients had a defined inked margin status after initial excision. The following factors were evaluated for correlation with margins at initial excision: age (< or >45), grade (3/1 or 2), family history (present/absent), histology (lobular/other), estrogen receptor (ER) status, presence of extensive intraductal carcinoma (EIC), presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and biopsy type (excisional/preoperative). RESULTS: Biopsy type (P < 0.0001), EIC (P = 0.002), ER status (P = 0.02), lobular histology (P = 0.02) and age (P = 0.02) were significantly correlated with initial margin status among the entire group. For patients who underwent preoperative diagnostic biopsy, 52% (35/67) had negative initial margins as compared to 29% (94/328) for excisional biopsy. Among patients who underwent preoperative biopsy, only lobular histology (P = 0.04) and LVI (P = 0.04) were related to initial margin status. The rate of re-excision was 34% for patients diagnosed preoperatively versus 61% with excisional biopsy (P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients with negative final margin status was similar with either core/needle or excisional biopsy (79 and 78%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative diagnosis is the most significant predictor of initial margin status in patients undergoing breast conservation. Patients with lobular histology may require improved preoperative and/or intraoperative assessment to increase the rate of negative margins at initial excision.
Authors: Gina R Shirah; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Meredith A Heberer; Lauren I Wikholm; Jonathan J Goodman; Marcia E Bouton; Ian K Komenaka Journal: Surg Today Date: 2015-05-24 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: David T Martin; Sergio Sandoval; Casey N Ta; Manuel E Ruidiaz; Maria Jose Cortes-Mateos; Davorka Messmer; Andrew C Kummel; Sarah L Blair; Jessica Wang-Rodriguez Journal: Acta Cytol Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 2.319
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
Authors: Mansher Singh; Gayatri Singh; Kevin T Hogan; Kristen A Atkins; Anneke T Schroen Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 2.754