BACKGROUND:Routine resection of cavity shave margins (additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by partial mastectomy) may reduce the rates of positive margins (margins positive for tumor) and reexcision among patients undergoing partial mastectomy for breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, 235 patients with breast cancer of stage 0 to III who were undergoing partial mastectomy, with or without resection of selective margins, to have further cavity shave margins resected (shave group) or not to have further cavity shave margins resected (no-shave group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively after surgeons had completed standard partial mastectomy. Positive margins were defined as tumor touching the edge of the specimen that was removed in the case of invasive cancer and tumor that was within 1 mm of the edge of the specimen removed in the case of ductal carcinoma in situ. The rate of positive margins was the primary outcome measure; secondary outcome measures included cosmesis and the volume of tissue resected. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 61 years (range, 33 to 94). On final pathological testing, 54 patients (23%) had invasive cancer, 45 (19%) had ductal carcinoma in situ, and 125 (53%) had both; 11 patients had no further disease. The median size of the tumor in the greatest diameter was 1.1 cm (range, 0 to 6.5) in patients with invasive carcinoma and 1.0 cm (range, 0 to 9.3) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Groups were well matched at baseline with respect to demographic and clinicopathological characteristics. The rate of positive margins after partial mastectomy (before randomization) was similar in the shave group and the no-shave group (36% and 34%, respectively; P=0.69). After randomization, patients in the shave group had a significantly lower rate of positive margins than did those in the no-shave group (19% vs. 34%, P=0.01), as well as a lower rate of second surgery for margin clearance (10% vs. 21%, P=0.02). There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cavity shaving halved the rates of positive margins and reexcision among patients with partial mastectomy. (Funded by the Yale Cancer Center; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01452399.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Routine resection of cavity shave margins (additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by partial mastectomy) may reduce the rates of positive margins (margins positive for tumor) and reexcision among patients undergoing partial mastectomy for breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, 235 patients with breast cancer of stage 0 to III who were undergoing partial mastectomy, with or without resection of selective margins, to have further cavity shave margins resected (shave group) or not to have further cavity shave margins resected (no-shave group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively after surgeons had completed standard partial mastectomy. Positive margins were defined as tumor touching the edge of the specimen that was removed in the case of invasive cancer and tumor that was within 1 mm of the edge of the specimen removed in the case of ductal carcinoma in situ. The rate of positive margins was the primary outcome measure; secondary outcome measures included cosmesis and the volume of tissue resected. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 61 years (range, 33 to 94). On final pathological testing, 54 patients (23%) had invasive cancer, 45 (19%) had ductal carcinoma in situ, and 125 (53%) had both; 11 patients had no further disease. The median size of the tumor in the greatest diameter was 1.1 cm (range, 0 to 6.5) in patients with invasive carcinoma and 1.0 cm (range, 0 to 9.3) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Groups were well matched at baseline with respect to demographic and clinicopathological characteristics. The rate of positive margins after partial mastectomy (before randomization) was similar in the shave group and the no-shave group (36% and 34%, respectively; P=0.69). After randomization, patients in the shave group had a significantly lower rate of positive margins than did those in the no-shave group (19% vs. 34%, P=0.01), as well as a lower rate of second surgery for margin clearance (10% vs. 21%, P=0.02). There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cavity shaving halved the rates of positive margins and reexcision among patients with partial mastectomy. (Funded by the Yale Cancer Center; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01452399.).
Authors: Lee G Wilke; Tomasz Czechura; Chih Wang; Brittany Lapin; Erik Liederbach; David P Winchester; Katharine Yao Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: D Héquet; A Bricou; M Koual; M Ziol; J G Feron; R Rouzier; J P Brouland; Y Delpech; E Barranger Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Allyson F Jacobson; Juhi Asad; Susan K Boolbol; Michael P Osborne; Kwadwo Boachie-Adjei; Sheldon M Feldman Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Laurence E McCahill; Richard M Single; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Heather S Feigelson; Ted A James; Tom Barney; Jessica M Engel; Adedayo A Onitilo Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Don S Dizon; Lada Krilov; Ezra Cohen; Tara Gangadhar; Patricia A Ganz; Thomas A Hensing; Stephen Hunger; Smitha S Krishnamurthi; Andrew B Lassman; Merry Jennifer Markham; Erica Mayer; Michael Neuss; Sumanta Kumar Pal; Lisa C Richardson; Richard Schilsky; Gary K Schwartz; David R Spriggs; Miguel Angel Villalona-Calero; Gina Villani; Gregory Masters Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jianfeng Wang; Yang Xu; Kelly J Mesa; Fredrick A South; Eric J Chaney; Darold R Spillman; Ronit Barkalifa; Marina Marjanovic; P Scott Carney; Anna M Higham; Z George Liu; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 3.732
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: 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: S E Tevis; H B Neuman; E A Mittendorf; H M Kuerer; I Bedrosian; S M DeSnyder; A M Thompson; D M Black; M E Scoggins; A A Sahin; K K Hunt; A S Caudle Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Gou Watanabe; M Itoh; X Duan; H Watabe; N Mori; H Tada; A Suzuki; M Miyashita; N Ohuchi; T Ishida Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Anees B Chagpar; Nina R Horowitz; Brigid K Killelea; Theodore Tsangaris; Peter Longley; Sonia Grizzle; Michael Loftus; Fangyong Li; Meghan Butler; Karen Stavris; Xiaopan Yao; Malini Harigopal; Veerle Bossuyt; Donald R Lannin; Lajos Pusztai; Amy J Davidoff; Cary P Gross Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 12.969