Nehmat Houssami1, Petra Macaskill, M Luke Marinovich, Monica Morrow. 1. Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), School of Public Health (A27), Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, nehmat.houssami@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is no consensus on what constitutes adequate negative margins in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). We systematically review the evidence on surgical margins in BCT for invasive breast cancer to support the development of clinical guidelines. METHODS: Study-level meta-analysis of studies reporting local recurrence (LR) data relative to final microscopic margin status and the threshold distance for negative margins. LR proportion was modeled using random-effects logistic meta-regression. RESULTS: Based on 33 studies (LR in 1,506 of 28,162), the odds of LR were associated with margin status [model 1: odds ratio (OR) 1.96 for positive/close vs negative; model 2: OR 1.74 for close vs. negative, 2.44 for positive vs. negative; (P < 0.001 both models)] but not with margin distance [model 1: >0 mm vs. 1 mm (referent) vs. 2 mm vs. 5 mm (P = 0.12); and model 2: 1 mm (referent) vs. 2 mm vs. 5 mm (P = 0.90)], adjusting for study median follow-up time. There was little to no statistical evidence that the odds of LR decreased as the distance for declaring negative margins increased, adjusting for follow-up time [model 1: 1 mm (OR 1.0, referent), 2 mm (OR 0.95), 5 mm (OR 0.65), P = 0.21 for trend; and model 2: 1 mm (OR 1.0, referent), 2 mm (OR 0.91), 5 mm (OR 0.77), P = 0.58 for trend]. Adjustment for covariates, such as use of endocrine therapy or median-year of recruitment, did not change the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis confirms that negative margins reduce the odds of LR; however, increasing the distance for defining negative margins is not significantly associated with reduced odds of LR, allowing for follow-up time. Adoption of wider relative to narrower margin widths to declare negative margins is unlikely to have a substantial additional benefit for long-term local control in BCT.
PURPOSE: There is no consensus on what constitutes adequate negative margins in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). We systematically review the evidence on surgical margins in BCT for invasive breast cancer to support the development of clinical guidelines. METHODS: Study-level meta-analysis of studies reporting local recurrence (LR) data relative to final microscopic margin status and the threshold distance for negative margins. LR proportion was modeled using random-effects logistic meta-regression. RESULTS: Based on 33 studies (LR in 1,506 of 28,162), the odds of LR were associated with margin status [model 1: odds ratio (OR) 1.96 for positive/close vs negative; model 2: OR 1.74 for close vs. negative, 2.44 for positive vs. negative; (P < 0.001 both models)] but not with margin distance [model 1: >0 mm vs. 1 mm (referent) vs. 2 mm vs. 5 mm (P = 0.12); and model 2: 1 mm (referent) vs. 2 mm vs. 5 mm (P = 0.90)], adjusting for study median follow-up time. There was little to no statistical evidence that the odds of LR decreased as the distance for declaring negative margins increased, adjusting for follow-up time [model 1: 1 mm (OR 1.0, referent), 2 mm (OR 0.95), 5 mm (OR 0.65), P = 0.21 for trend; and model 2: 1 mm (OR 1.0, referent), 2 mm (OR 0.91), 5 mm (OR 0.77), P = 0.58 for trend]. Adjustment for covariates, such as use of endocrine therapy or median-year of recruitment, did not change the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis confirms that negative margins reduce the odds of LR; however, increasing the distance for defining negative margins is not significantly associated with reduced odds of LR, allowing for follow-up time. Adoption of wider relative to narrower margin widths to declare negative margins is unlikely to have a substantial additional benefit for long-term local control in BCT.
Authors: Ana P Kiess; Heather L McArthur; Kathleen Mahoney; Sujata Patil; Patrick G Morris; Alice Ho; Clifford A Hudis; Beryl McCormick Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nadeem Q Mirza; Georges Vlastos; Funda Meric; Thomas A Buchholz; Nestor Esnaola; S Eva Singletary; Henry M Kuerer; Lisa A Newman; Frederick C Ames; Merrick I Ross; Barry W Feig; Raphael E Pollock; Marsha McNeese; Eric Strom; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Charles Kunos; Larry Latson; Beth Overmoyer; Paula Silverman; Robert Shenk; Timothy Kinsella; Janice Lyons Journal: Breast J Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: M C Smitt; K W Nowels; M J Zdeblick; S Jeffrey; R W Carlson; F E Stockdale; D R Goffinet Journal: Cancer Date: 1995-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Philip M Poortmans; Laurence Collette; Jean-Claude Horiot; Walter F Van den Bogaert; Alain Fourquet; Abraham Kuten; Evert M Noordijk; Willem Hoogenraad; René-Olivier Mirimanoff; Marianne Pierart; Erik Van Limbergen; Harry Bartelink Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Laura S Dominici; Monica Morrow; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Jennifer Bellon; Tari A King Journal: Curr Probl Surg Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Abimbola Ayangbesan; David M Golombos; Ron Golan; Padraic O'Malley; Patrick Lewicki; Xian Wu; Douglas S Scherr Journal: J Endourol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Laura H Rosenberger; Anita Mamtani; Sarah Fuzesi; Michelle Stempel; Anne Eaton; Monica Morrow; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M Luke Marinovich; Lamiae Azizi; Petra Macaskill; Les Irwig; Monica Morrow; Lawrence J Solin; Nehmat Houssami Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 5.344