BACKGROUND: The benefits of taking shaved cavity margins (SCM) at the time of lumpectomy are unclear. We sought to determine if taking SCM decreases re-excision rates by increasing the total breast tissue volume excised. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent lumpectomy from 2004 to 2006. Patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 had lumpectomy alone, group 2 had lumpectomy plus select (1-3) SCM, and group 3 had lumpectomy plus complete (≥4) SCM. Pathologic findings and surgical outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: 773 cancers treated by lumpectomy were included in this study; 197 were in group 1, 130 were in group 2, and 446 were in group 3. The mean total volume of breast tissue excised in group 1 (106.6 cm(3)) was significantly larger than the volume excised in groups 2 (79.3 cm(3)) and 3 (76.3 cm(3)). Rates of re-excision and successful breast-conservation therapy (BCT) were not significantly different between groups. Despite a lower total volume of breast tissue excised in groups 2 and 3, there was no significant increase in locoregional recurrence rates (LRR) at median follow-up of 54 months. CONCLUSIONS: Taking additional SCM during lumpectomy resulted in a significantly lower overall volume of breast tissue excised, with no increase in LRR. Contrary to prior studies, we found that SCM did not decrease re-excision rates or impact the success of BCT. Therefore, the main advantage of taking SCM appears to be that less breast tissue is excised, which could potentially improve cosmetic outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The benefits of taking shaved cavity margins (SCM) at the time of lumpectomy are unclear. We sought to determine if taking SCM decreases re-excision rates by increasing the total breast tissue volume excised. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective review of breast cancerpatients who underwent lumpectomy from 2004 to 2006. Patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 had lumpectomy alone, group 2 had lumpectomy plus select (1-3) SCM, and group 3 had lumpectomy plus complete (≥4) SCM. Pathologic findings and surgical outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: 773 cancers treated by lumpectomy were included in this study; 197 were in group 1, 130 were in group 2, and 446 were in group 3. The mean total volume of breast tissue excised in group 1 (106.6 cm(3)) was significantly larger than the volume excised in groups 2 (79.3 cm(3)) and 3 (76.3 cm(3)). Rates of re-excision and successful breast-conservation therapy (BCT) were not significantly different between groups. Despite a lower total volume of breast tissue excised in groups 2 and 3, there was no significant increase in locoregional recurrence rates (LRR) at median follow-up of 54 months. CONCLUSIONS: Taking additional SCM during lumpectomy resulted in a significantly lower overall volume of breast tissue excised, with no increase in LRR. Contrary to prior studies, we found that SCM did not decrease re-excision rates or impact the success of BCT. Therefore, the main advantage of taking SCM appears to be that less breast tissue is excised, which could potentially improve cosmetic outcomes.
Authors: Barbara L Smith; Michele A Gadd; Conor R Lanahan; Upahvan Rai; Rong Tang; Travis Rice-Stitt; Andrea L Merrill; David B Strasfeld; Jorge M Ferrer; Elena F Brachtel; Michelle C Specht Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Ian M Thompson; Brian Reid; Peter Nelson; David F Ransohoff; H Gilbert Welch; Shelley Hwang; Donald A Berry; Kenneth W Kinzler; William C Black; Mina Bissell; Howard Parnes; Sudhir Srivastava Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jessica H Maxwell; Lester D R Thompson; Margaret S Brandwein-Gensler; Bernhard G Weiss; Martin Canis; Bibianna Purgina; Arpan V Prabhu; Chi Lai; Yongli Shuai; William R Carroll; Anthony Morlandt; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Seungwon Kim; Jonas T Johnson; Robert L Ferris; Raja Seethala; Simion I Chiosea Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Elena F Brachtel; Nicole B Johnson; Amelia E Huck; Travis L Rice-Stitt; Mark G Vangel; Barbara L Smith; Guillermo J Tearney; Dongkyun Kang Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: Bridget N Kelly; Olga Kantor; Rong Tang; Suzanne B Coopey; Barbara L Smith; Conor R Lanahan; Jenna E Korotkin; Michelle C Specht Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Freya Schnabel; Susan K Boolbol; Mark Gittleman; Tami Karni; Lorraine Tafra; Sheldon Feldman; Alice Police; Neil B Friedman; Scott Karlan; Dennis Holmes; Shawna C Willey; Moshe Carmon; Kristen Fernandez; Stephanie Akbari; Jay Harness; Lisa Guerra; Thomas Frazier; Karen Lane; Rache M Simmons; Alison Estabrook; Tanir Allweis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Terence T W Wong; Ruiying Zhang; Pengfei Hai; Chi Zhang; Miguel A Pleitez; Rebecca L Aft; Deborah V Novack; Lihong V Wang Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 14.136