BACKGROUND: The study's aim was to identify technical factors that are predictive of negative margins after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: This was a retrospective, cohort study of patients who underwent BCS for early-stage cancer from 2000 to 2002. Pathological and specific surgical factors were compared with margin status. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-nine cases were reviewed. The positive margin rate after the initial surgery was 26%. In univariate analysis, lobular histology, size, grade, multifocality, and the presence of EIC and LVI were associated with positive margins (P < .05). The absence of cavity margin dissection and specimen orientation labeling, the absence of a confirmed diagnosis, and smaller volumes of excision were also associated with positive margins (P < .05). In multivariate analysis, confirmed diagnosis, small tumor size, ductal histology, absence of LVI and multifocality, palpability, cavity margin dissection, and larger volumes of excision were predictors of negative margins. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that specific surgical factors are predictive of margin status. Both tumor and technical factors should be considered when planning BCS.
BACKGROUND: The study's aim was to identify technical factors that are predictive of negative margins after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: This was a retrospective, cohort study of patients who underwent BCS for early-stage cancer from 2000 to 2002. Pathological and specific surgical factors were compared with margin status. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-nine cases were reviewed. The positive margin rate after the initial surgery was 26%. In univariate analysis, lobular histology, size, grade, multifocality, and the presence of EIC and LVI were associated with positive margins (P < .05). The absence of cavity margin dissection and specimen orientation labeling, the absence of a confirmed diagnosis, and smaller volumes of excision were also associated with positive margins (P < .05). In multivariate analysis, confirmed diagnosis, small tumor size, ductal histology, absence of LVI and multifocality, palpability, cavity margin dissection, and larger volumes of excision were predictors of negative margins. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that specific surgical factors are predictive of margin status. Both tumor and technical factors should be considered when planning BCS.
Authors: Santosh N Mathapati; Ashish Goel; Sandeep Mehta; Juhi Aggarwal; R Aravindan; Vikash Nayak; Sangram K Panda; Pankaj K Pande; Kapil Kumar Journal: Indian J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-03-14
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