Literature DB >> 20549566

The effect of simultaneous peripheral excision in breast conservation upon margin status.

Roshani R Patel1, Tianyu Li, Eric A Ross, Linda Sesa, Elin R Sigurdson, Richard J Bleicher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Negative margins in breast conservation therapy (BCT) decrease local recurrence risk. Excision may be performed via two techniques: either as a single lumpectomy specimen or as a central segment with simultaneously resected peripheral segments (PSs). There is little data directly comparing these methods for their effect on margin status.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing BCT for invasive breast cancer was conducted to evaluate and compare the two techniques. Presentation, pathologic characteristics, surgical technique, specimen volume, and final margin status were recorded.
RESULTS: Among 259 cancers in 257 women, 33 had positive margins. A single segment was removed in 69 patients, while 190 patients had 1-6 PSs simultaneously removed. By univariate analysis, smaller tumor size (P = .017) and greater numbers of segments removed (P = .01) lowered the risk of positive margins. In a multivariate model, smaller tumor size (P = .0024), lack of EIC (P = .049), and greater numbers of segments removed (P = .0061) lowered the risk of margin positivity. Despite this last predictor, the total resected specimen volume did not increase with the number of PSs removed (P = .4). There was no residual tumor in 49.2% of PSs despite a compromised primary segment margin.
CONCLUSIONS: Smaller tumor size, lack of EIC, and greater numbers of simultaneous PSs excised decrease the likelihood of positive margins, despite a lack of correlation between segment numbers and excised volume. These findings suggest that excision of simultaneous PSs may assist in achieving negative margins, in part, because of avoidance of pathologic artifact.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20549566      PMCID: PMC2941710          DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1123-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  42 in total

Review 1.  The pathologist's examination of the "lumpectomy"--the pathologists' view of surgical margins.

Authors:  E W Gould; P G Robinson
Journal:  Semin Surg Oncol       Date:  1992 May-Jun

2.  The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery.

Authors:  Tara L Huston; Rodolfo Pigalarga; Michael P Osborne; Eleni Tousimis
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 3.  Processing and evaluation of breast excision specimens. A clinically oriented approach.

Authors:  S J Schnitt; J L Connolly
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  Do additional shaved margins at the time of lumpectomy eliminate the need for re-excision?

Authors:  Allyson F Jacobson; Juhi Asad; Susan K Boolbol; Michael P Osborne; Kwadwo Boachie-Adjei; Sheldon M Feldman
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  The consequence of multiple re-excisions to obtain clear lumpectomy margins in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Tehillah S Menes; Paul Ian Tartter; Ira Bleiweiss; James H Godbold; Alison Estabrook; Sharon Rosenbaum Smith
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-10-03       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Magnetic resonance imaging in the planning of initial lumpectomy for invasive breast carcinoma: its effect on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conservation therapy.

Authors:  Nicholas Hwang; Dan E Schiller; Pavel Crystal; Ellen Maki; David R McCready
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Potential margin distortion in breast tissue by specimen mammography.

Authors:  Rodney Clingan; Michael Griffin; John Phillips; William Coberly; William Jennings
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2003-12

8.  Lumpectomy margins are affected by tumor size and histologic subtype but not by biopsy technique.

Authors:  Anees B Chagpar; Robert C G Martin; Lee J Hagendoorn; Celia Chao; Kelly M McMasters
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy.

Authors:  M R Bani; M P Lux; K Heusinger; E Wenkel; A Magener; R Schulz-Wendtland; M W Beckmann; P A Fasching
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-06-09       Impact factor: 4.424

10.  Intraoperative touch preparation cytology for margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery: does it work for lobular carcinoma?

Authors:  Edna K Valdes; Susan K Boolbol; Irfan Ali; Sheldon M Feldman; Jean-Marc Cohen
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-07-14       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  1 in total

1.  [Conservative treatment of breast cancer: experience of a Tunisian team].

Authors:  Kaouther Dimassi; Anissa Gharsa; Mohammed Badis Chanoufi; Ezzeddine Sfar; Dalenda Chelli
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2014-10-15
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.