PURPOSE: Negative margins after lumpectomy remain a prominent issue in breast surgery. The current study was performed to evaluate patient-related variables that affect risk for positive margins in an underscreened population. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent breast-conserving operations from 2001 to 2010. Sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment variables were evaluated. One millimeter from tumor to inked margin was considered a negative margin. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify variables which affect margin status after a lumpectomy. RESULTS: Over the time period evaluated, 69 patients had positive margins (31 %) and 155 (69 %) had negative margins. Overall use of screening mammography was poor (36 %). In unadjusted analysis, patients with positive margins were less likely to have undergone screening mammography (p = 0.003) and presented with a palpable mass (p = 0.01). Histopathologic variables which predicted increased risk for positive margins included larger pathologic size, greater number of pathologically involved lymph nodes, higher pathologic stage, presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and extensive intraductal component (EIC), p < 0.05. In multivariate analysis, clinical stage, poor histologic grade, LVI, and EIC were associated with positive margins (p < 0.05). By contrast, use of preoperative chemotherapy was associated with attaining negative margins (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with positive margins after lumpectomy included poor histologic grade, LVI, and EIC. Use of preoperative chemotherapy was the strongest independent predictor of lower risk for positive margins.
PURPOSE: Negative margins after lumpectomy remain a prominent issue in breast surgery. The current study was performed to evaluate patient-related variables that affect risk for positive margins in an underscreened population. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent breast-conserving operations from 2001 to 2010. Sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment variables were evaluated. One millimeter from tumor to inked margin was considered a negative margin. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify variables which affect margin status after a lumpectomy. RESULTS: Over the time period evaluated, 69 patients had positive margins (31 %) and 155 (69 %) had negative margins. Overall use of screening mammography was poor (36 %). In unadjusted analysis, patients with positive margins were less likely to have undergone screening mammography (p = 0.003) and presented with a palpable mass (p = 0.01). Histopathologic variables which predicted increased risk for positive margins included larger pathologic size, greater number of pathologically involved lymph nodes, higher pathologic stage, presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and extensive intraductal component (EIC), p < 0.05. In multivariate analysis, clinical stage, poor histologic grade, LVI, and EIC were associated with positive margins (p < 0.05). By contrast, use of preoperative chemotherapy was associated with attaining negative margins (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with positive margins after lumpectomy included poor histologic grade, LVI, and EIC. Use of preoperative chemotherapy was the strongest independent predictor of lower risk for positive margins.
Authors: Aman U Buzdar; Vicente Valero; Nuhad K Ibrahim; Deborah Francis; Kristine R Broglio; Richard L Theriault; Lajos Pusztai; Marjorie C Green; Sonja E Singletary; Kelly K Hunt; Aysegul A Sahin; Francisco Esteva; William F Symmans; Michael S Ewer; Thomas A Buchholz; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: J Horiguchi; Y Iino; H Takei; M Maemura; T Yokoe; H Niibe; M Yamakawa; T Nakajima; T Oyama; Y Morishita Journal: Oncol Rep Date: 1999 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.906
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Florentia Peintinger; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Allison C Perry; Kelly K Hunt; Gildy V Babiera; S E Singletary; Isabelle Bedrosian; Anthony Lucci; Aman U Buzdar; Lajos Pusztai; Henry M Kuerer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: G Bonadonna; P Valagussa; C Brambilla; L Ferrari; A Moliterni; M Terenziani; M Zambetti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harry D Bear; Stewart Anderson; Roy E Smith; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Bernard Fisher; Ann M Brown; Andre Robidoux; Richard Margolese; Morton S Kahlenberg; Soonmyung Paik; Atilla Soran; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric S Meadows; Albert Whangbo; Neil McQuarrie; Nisha Gilra; Beth D Mitchell; John L Mershon Journal: Menopause Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Emil D Kurniawan; Matthew H Wong; Imogen Windle; Allison Rose; Arlene Mou; Malcolm Buchanan; John P Collins; Julie A Miller; Russell L Gruen; G Bruce Mann Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: D E Wazer; T DiPetrillo; R Schmidt-Ullrich; L Weld; T J Smith; D J Marchant; N J Robert Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1992-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gina R Shirah; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Meredith A Heberer; Lauren I Wikholm; Jonathan J Goodman; Marcia E Bouton; Ian K Komenaka Journal: Surg Today Date: 2015-05-24 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: Siun M Walsh; Sandra B Brennan; Emily C Zabor; Laura H Rosenberger; Michelle Stempel; Lizza Lebron-Zapata; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 5.344