BACKGROUND: There remains a controversy in the literature regarding adequate width of negative surgical margins in breast conservative therapy (BCT). It is now advocated that no tumor on an inked margin is a safe negative margin. Majority of studies on the outcomes of BCT had patients with favorable prognostic factors. Pakistani population has a high expression of unfavorable prognostic factors. The objective of this study was to determine a safe negative margin width in Pakistani population that undergoes BCT. METHODS: A total of 603 patients with identifiable surgical margins underwent BCT from 1997 to 2009 in Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital. Patients were divided into close (≤2 mm), free (>2-10 mm), and wide (>10 mm) margin groups. Locoregional recurrence was defined as recurrence within the operated breast, ipsilateral axilla, or supraclavicular or internal mammary lymph nodes. Locoregional recurrence-free survival was calculated from the date of surgery to the date of locoregional recurrence. Five-year locoregional recurrence-free survival was determined for margin groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to determine independent predictors of locoregional recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 415 (69 %) patients were <50 years of age. There were 82 (15 %) T3/T4, 337 (56 %) poorly differentiated, and 238 (39 %) ER/PR -ve tumors. Nodal positivity was present in 314 (52 %) patients. The actual number of locoregional recurrences was 16 (12 %), 8 (3 %), and 10 (4.6 %), respectively (P = 0.002). Expected 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival was 90, 97, and 96 %, respectively (P = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, tumor size, nodal involvement, and negative margin width were independent predictors of locoregional recurrence. CONCLUSION: A negative margin width of 2 mm might represent an adequate negative margin width in the Pakistani population undergoing breast conservative therapy.
BACKGROUND: There remains a controversy in the literature regarding adequate width of negative surgical margins in breast conservative therapy (BCT). It is now advocated that no tumor on an inked margin is a safe negative margin. Majority of studies on the outcomes of BCT had patients with favorable prognostic factors. Pakistani population has a high expression of unfavorable prognostic factors. The objective of this study was to determine a safe negative margin width in Pakistani population that undergoes BCT. METHODS: A total of 603 patients with identifiable surgical margins underwent BCT from 1997 to 2009 in Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital. Patients were divided into close (≤2 mm), free (>2-10 mm), and wide (>10 mm) margin groups. Locoregional recurrence was defined as recurrence within the operated breast, ipsilateral axilla, or supraclavicular or internal mammary lymph nodes. Locoregional recurrence-free survival was calculated from the date of surgery to the date of locoregional recurrence. Five-year locoregional recurrence-free survival was determined for margin groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to determine independent predictors of locoregional recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 415 (69 %) patients were <50 years of age. There were 82 (15 %) T3/T4, 337 (56 %) poorly differentiated, and 238 (39 %) ER/PR -ve tumors. Nodal positivity was present in 314 (52 %) patients. The actual number of locoregional recurrences was 16 (12 %), 8 (3 %), and 10 (4.6 %), respectively (P = 0.002). Expected 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival was 90, 97, and 96 %, respectively (P = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, tumor size, nodal involvement, and negative margin width were independent predictors of locoregional recurrence. CONCLUSION: A negative margin width of 2 mm might represent an adequate negative margin width in the Pakistani population undergoing breast conservative therapy.
Authors: Bas Kreike; Augustinus A M Hart; Tony van de Velde; Jacques Borger; Hans Peterse; Emiel Rutgers; Harry Bartelink; Marc J van de Vijver Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: N Bijker; J L Peterse; L Duchateau; J P Julien; I S Fentiman; C Duval; S Di Palma; J Simony-Lafontaine; I de Mascarel; M J van de Vijver Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J A van Dongen; A C Voogd; I S Fentiman; C Legrand; R J Sylvester; D Tong; E van der Schueren; P A Helle; K van Zijl; H Bartelink Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-07-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Matthew M Poggi; David N Danforth; Linda C Sciuto; Sharon L Smith; Seth M Steinberg; David J Liewehr; Cynthia Menard; Marc E Lippman; Allen S Lichter; Rosemary M Altemus Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: James R Bundred; Sarah Michael; Beth Stuart; Ramsey I Cutress; Kerri Beckmann; Bernd Holleczek; Jane E Dahlstrom; Jacqui Gath; David Dodwell; Nigel J Bundred Journal: BMJ Date: 2022-09-21
Authors: Jessie J J Gommers; Lucien E M Duijm; Peter Bult; Luc J A Strobbe; Toon P Kuipers; Marianne J H Hooijen; Ritse M Mann; Adri C Voogd Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 5.344