Yasuaki Sagara1, William T Barry2, Melissa Anne Mallory3, Ines Vaz-Luis4, Fatih Aydogan3, Jane E Brock5, Eric P Winer4, Mehra Golshan3, Otto Metzger-Filho6. 1. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. yasuaki@sagara.or.jp. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. ometzger@partners.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) recommend the use of "no ink on tumor" as the standard for an adequate margin. The recommendations extend to invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), but the data on this subset are limited. We reviewed our modern dataset on margin status with outcomes of ILC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on 736 patients with a diagnosis of stage I-III ILC treated at our cancer center between May 1997 and December 2007. Clinicopathologic data were extracted from the Clinical Research Information Systems Database. Margin status was defined using the latest ASCO/ASTRO/SSO consensus guideline criteria. RESULTS: The initial surgery performed was mastectomy in 352 patients (48 %) and BCS in 384 patients (52 %). In multivariate analysis, tumor size and multifocality were significantly associated with high rates of mastectomy and positive surgical margins at initial BCS. After initial BCS, additional surgery was performed in 92 patients (24 %). During a 72-month median follow-up period, 12 (3.1 %) ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences (IBTR) and 5 (1.3 %) other locoregional recurrences (LRR) were observed. Patients with margins with ink on tumor who did not receive further surgery were found to have significantly increased LRR [odds ratio (OR) 5.5; p = 0.02] and IBTR (OR 8.5; p = 0.006), whereas patients with close margins (1-3 mm) and margins within 1 mm were not. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the validity of using "no ink on tumor" as the standard for a negative margin for pure and mixed ILC treated with multimodality therapy.
PURPOSE: Recent consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) recommend the use of "no ink on tumor" as the standard for an adequate margin. The recommendations extend to invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), but the data on this subset are limited. We reviewed our modern dataset on margin status with outcomes of ILC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on 736 patients with a diagnosis of stage I-III ILC treated at our cancer center between May 1997 and December 2007. Clinicopathologic data were extracted from the Clinical Research Information Systems Database. Margin status was defined using the latest ASCO/ASTRO/SSO consensus guideline criteria. RESULTS: The initial surgery performed was mastectomy in 352 patients (48 %) and BCS in 384 patients (52 %). In multivariate analysis, tumor size and multifocality were significantly associated with high rates of mastectomy and positive surgical margins at initial BCS. After initial BCS, additional surgery was performed in 92 patients (24 %). During a 72-month median follow-up period, 12 (3.1 %) ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences (IBTR) and 5 (1.3 %) other locoregional recurrences (LRR) were observed. Patients with margins with ink on tumor who did not receive further surgery were found to have significantly increased LRR [odds ratio (OR) 5.5; p = 0.02] and IBTR (OR 8.5; p = 0.006), whereas patients with close margins (1-3 mm) and margins within 1 mm were not. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the validity of using "no ink on tumor" as the standard for a negative margin for pure and mixed ILC treated with multimodality therapy.
Authors: David P Arps; Julie M Jorns; Lili Zhao; Jessica Bensenhaver; Celina G Kleer; Judy C Pang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: George W Sledge; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Harold J Burstein; Pamela J Goodwin; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-02 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: Thomas A Buchholz; Mark R Somerfield; Jennifer J Griggs; Souzan El-Eid; M Elizabeth H Hammond; Gary H Lyman; Ginny Mason; Lisa A Newman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S M Tan; K A Behranwala; P A Trott; N A Nasiri; E Moskovic; G Brown; D M King; N P M Sacks; G P H Gui; N A Nasim Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.424
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: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rend Al-Khalili; Ali Alzeer; Giang-Kimthi Nguyen; Erin P Crane; Judy H Song; Janice L Jeon; Michael Nellamattathil; Erini V Makariou; Victoria L Mango Journal: Radiographics Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Merisa L Piper; Jasmine Wong; Kelly Fahrner-Scott; Cheryl Ewing; Michael Alvarado; Laura J Esserman; Rita A Mukhtar Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2019-09-06