INTRODUCTION: Margin status is an important prognostic factor for local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in patients with breast malignancy. It is unclear whether the removal of additional tumor cavity margins reduces the reoperation rate and is cosmetically acceptable. This study compares the reoperation rates, volume of breast excised in cm(3), and number of pathology slides examined in two groups of patients who underwent BCS with or without four or five additional margins (BCS + M). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 320 patients who underwent BCS or BCS + M for stage 0-I-II breast cancer from 2004 to 2007. We classified the margins as negative (>or=1 mm), close (<1 mm), or positive based on the distance from the tumor to the margin of resection. RESULTS: Of 320 cases analyzed, 199 (62.2%) underwent BCS and 121 (37.8%) had BCS + M. Overall, patients with BCS + M had a higher negative margins rate (85.1% vs. 57.2%, P < 0.05) and a lower reoperation rate. However, when ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) were analyzed separately, only patients with IDC showed a higher negative margin rate (91% vs. 62.1%, P < 0.001) and a lower volume of breast tissue excised (205.63 vs. 392.27, P = 0.03). There was no significant increase in pathology workload in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Resection of four to five additional margins during BCS for early-stage invasive breast cancer results in a higher rate of negative microscopic margins, lower volume of breast excised, and subsequently, a lower reoperation rate. The advantages of this approach include improved patient satisfaction and decreased cost.
INTRODUCTION: Margin status is an important prognostic factor for local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in patients with breast malignancy. It is unclear whether the removal of additional tumor cavity margins reduces the reoperation rate and is cosmetically acceptable. This study compares the reoperation rates, volume of breast excised in cm(3), and number of pathology slides examined in two groups of patients who underwent BCS with or without four or five additional margins (BCS + M). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 320 patients who underwent BCS or BCS + M for stage 0-I-II breast cancer from 2004 to 2007. We classified the margins as negative (>or=1 mm), close (<1 mm), or positive based on the distance from the tumor to the margin of resection. RESULTS: Of 320 cases analyzed, 199 (62.2%) underwent BCS and 121 (37.8%) had BCS + M. Overall, patients with BCS + M had a higher negative margins rate (85.1% vs. 57.2%, P < 0.05) and a lower reoperation rate. However, when ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) were analyzed separately, only patients with IDC showed a higher negative margin rate (91% vs. 62.1%, P < 0.001) and a lower volume of breast tissue excised (205.63 vs. 392.27, P = 0.03). There was no significant increase in pathology workload in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Resection of four to five additional margins during BCS for early-stage invasive breast cancer results in a higher rate of negative microscopic margins, lower volume of breast excised, and subsequently, a lower reoperation rate. The advantages of this approach include improved patient satisfaction and decreased cost.
Authors: Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Merlijn Hutteman; Joost R van der Vorst; Cornelis J H van de Velde; John V Frangioni Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Kiranya E Tipirneni; Jason M Warram; Lindsay S Moore; Andrew C Prince; Esther de Boer; Aditi H Jani; Irene L Wapnir; Joseph C Liao; Michael Bouvet; Nicole K Behnke; Mary T Hawn; George A Poultsides; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; William R Carroll; Kurt R Zinn; Eben Rosenthal Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Minbiao Ji; Spencer Lewis; Sandra Camelo-Piragua; Shakti H Ramkissoon; Matija Snuderl; Sriram Venneti; Amanda Fisher-Hubbard; Mia Garrard; Dan Fu; Anthony C Wang; Jason A Heth; Cormac O Maher; Nader Sanai; Timothy D Johnson; Christian W Freudiger; Oren Sagher; Xiaoliang Sunney Xie; Daniel A Orringer Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 17.956
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