BACKGROUND: The recently published SSO-ASTRO consensus guideline on margins concluded "no ink on tumor" is the standard for an adequate margin. This study was conducted to determine how this guideline is aligned with current clinical practice. METHODS: A survey was sent to 3057 members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Questions assessed respondents' clinical practice type and duration, familiarity with the guideline, and preferences for margin re-excision. RESULTS: Of those surveyed, 777 (25%) responded. Most (92%) indicated familiarity with the guideline. Of these respondents, the majority (n = 678, or 94.7%) would re-excise all or most of the time when tumor extended to the inked margin. Very few (n = 9, or 1.3%) would re-excise all or most of the time when tumor was within 2 mm of the margin. Over 12 % (n = 90) would re-excise all or most of the time for a triple-negative tumor within 1 mm of the margin, whereas 353 (49.6%) would re-excise all or most of the time when imaging and pathology were discordant, and tumor was within 1 mm of multiple margins. Finally, 330 (45.8%) would re-excise all or most of the time when multiple foci of ductal carcinoma in situ extended to within 1 mm of multiple inked margins. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons are in agreement to re-excise margins when tumor touches ink and generally not to perform re-excisions when tumor is close to (but not touching) the inked margin. For more complex scenarios, surgeons are utilizing their individual clinical judgment to determine the need for re-excision.
BACKGROUND: The recently published SSO-ASTRO consensus guideline on margins concluded "no ink on tumor" is the standard for an adequate margin. This study was conducted to determine how this guideline is aligned with current clinical practice. METHODS: A survey was sent to 3057 members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Questions assessed respondents' clinical practice type and duration, familiarity with the guideline, and preferences for margin re-excision. RESULTS: Of those surveyed, 777 (25%) responded. Most (92%) indicated familiarity with the guideline. Of these respondents, the majority (n = 678, or 94.7%) would re-excise all or most of the time when tumor extended to the inked margin. Very few (n = 9, or 1.3%) would re-excise all or most of the time when tumor was within 2 mm of the margin. Over 12 % (n = 90) would re-excise all or most of the time for a triple-negative tumor within 1 mm of the margin, whereas 353 (49.6%) would re-excise all or most of the time when imaging and pathology were discordant, and tumor was within 1 mm of multiple margins. Finally, 330 (45.8%) would re-excise all or most of the time when multiple foci of ductal carcinoma in situ extended to within 1 mm of multiple inked margins. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons are in agreement to re-excise margins when tumor touches ink and generally not to perform re-excisions when tumor is close to (but not touching) the inked margin. For more complex scenarios, surgeons are utilizing their individual clinical judgment to determine the need for re-excision.
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: S J Schnitt; J L Connolly; U Khettry; G Mazoujian; M Brenner; B Silver; A Recht; G Beadle; J R Harris Journal: Cancer Date: 1987-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: 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: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heather A Jones; Ninja Antonini; Augustinus A M Hart; Johannes L Peterse; Jean-Claude Horiot; Françoise Collin; Philip M Poortmans; S Bing Oei; Laurence Collette; Henk Struikmans; Walter F Van den Bogaert; Alain Fourquet; Jos J Jager; Dominic A X Schinagl; Carla C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; Harry Bartelink Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Elvira L Vos; Sabine Siesling; Margreet H A Baaijens; Cornelis Verhoef; Agnes Jager; Adri C Voogd; Linetta B Koppert Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kathryn Ottolino-Perry; Anam Shahid; Stephanie DeLuca; Viktor Son; Mayleen Sukhram; Fannong Meng; Zhihui Amy Liu; Sara Rapic; Nayana Thalanki Anantha; Shirley C Wang; Emilie Chamma; Christopher Gibson; Philip J Medeiros; Safa Majeed; Ashley Chu; Olivia Wignall; Alessandra Pizzolato; Cheryl F Rosen; Liis Lindvere Teene; Danielle Starr-Dunham; Iris Kulbatski; Tony Panzarella; Susan J Done; Alexandra M Easson; Wey L Leong; Ralph S DaCosta Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 6.466