BACKGROUND: Most women diagnosed with breast cancer undergo breast-conservation surgery. Re-excision rates for positive margins have been reported to be greater than 50%. The purpose of our study was to determine if removing additional shaved margins from the lumpectomy cavity at the time of lumpectomy reduces re-excisions. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 125 women who had undergone lumpectomy with additional shaved margins taken from the lumpectomy cavity. Pathology reports were reviewed for tumor size and histology, lumpectomy and additional margin status, and specimen and margin volume. RESULTS: If additional margins were not taken, 66% would have required re-excision. Because of taking additional shaved margins, re-excision was eliminated in 48%. CONCLUSION: Excising additional shaved margins at the original surgery reduced reoperations by 48%. There is a balance between removing additional margins and desirable cosmesis after breast-conservation surgery. The decision to take extra margins should be based on the surgeon's judgment.
BACKGROUND: Most women diagnosed with breast cancer undergo breast-conservation surgery. Re-excision rates for positive margins have been reported to be greater than 50%. The purpose of our study was to determine if removing additional shaved margins from the lumpectomy cavity at the time of lumpectomy reduces re-excisions. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 125 women who had undergone lumpectomy with additional shaved margins taken from the lumpectomy cavity. Pathology reports were reviewed for tumor size and histology, lumpectomy and additional margin status, and specimen and margin volume. RESULTS: If additional margins were not taken, 66% would have required re-excision. Because of taking additional shaved margins, re-excision was eliminated in 48%. CONCLUSION: Excising additional shaved margins at the original surgery reduced reoperations by 48%. There is a balance between removing additional margins and desirable cosmesis after breast-conservation surgery. The decision to take extra margins should be based on the surgeon's judgment.
Authors: Roshani R Patel; Tianyu Li; Eric A Ross; Linda Sesa; Elin R Sigurdson; Richard J Bleicher Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-06-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Anees B Chagpar; Brigid K Killelea; Theodore N Tsangaris; Meghan Butler; Karen Stavris; Fangyong Li; Xiaopan Yao; Veerle Bossuyt; Malini Harigopal; Donald R Lannin; Lajos Pusztai; Nina R Horowitz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Anees B Chagpar; Nina R Horowitz; Brigid K Killelea; Theodore Tsangaris; Peter Longley; Sonia Grizzle; Michael Loftus; Fangyong Li; Meghan Butler; Karen Stavris; Xiaopan Yao; Malini Harigopal; Veerle Bossuyt; Donald R Lannin; Lajos Pusztai; Amy J Davidoff; Cary P Gross Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 12.969
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