E L Vos1, J Gaal2, C Verhoef1, K Brouwer1, C H M van Deurzen2, L B Koppert3. 1. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, PO Box 5201, 3008 AE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, PO Box 5201, 3008 AE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: l.koppert@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Re-excision after breast conserving surgery (BCS) for invasive breast cancer (IBC) can be omitted for focally positive margins in the Netherlands, but this guideline is not routinely followed. Focally positive and extensively positive margins have rarely been studied separately and compared to negative margins regarding clinicopathological predictors, residual disease incidence, and local recurrence. METHODS: All females with BCS for Tis-T3, without neo-adjuvant chemotherapy between 2005 and 2014 at one university hospital were included. Clinicopathological and follow-up information was collected from electronic patient records. Index tumor samples from all patients with re-excision were reviewed by one pathologist. Margins were classified as negative (≥2 mm width), close (<2 mm width), focally positive (≤4 mm length of tumor touching inked margin), or extensively positive (>4 mm length). RESULTS: From 499 patients included, 212 (43%) had negative, 161 (32%) had close, 59 (12%) had focally positive, and 67 (13%) had extensively positive margins. Increasingly involved margins were associated with lobular type, tumor size, and adjacent DCIS in IBC patients and lesion size in purely DCIS patients. In IBC patients, 17%, 49%, and 77% had re-excision after close, focally positive, and extensively positive margins and residual disease incidence was 55%, 50%, and 70% respectively. In purely DCIS patients, 26 (65%), 13 (87%), and 16 (94%) had re-excision after close, focally positive, and extensively positive margins and residual disease incidence was 39%, 46%, and 90% respectively. CONCLUSION: Incidence of residual disease after focally positive margins was not different from close margins, but was significantly higher after extensively positive margins. We recommend quantifying extent of margin involvement in all pathology reports.
BACKGROUND: Re-excision after breast conserving surgery (BCS) for invasive breast cancer (IBC) can be omitted for focally positive margins in the Netherlands, but this guideline is not routinely followed. Focally positive and extensively positive margins have rarely been studied separately and compared to negative margins regarding clinicopathological predictors, residual disease incidence, and local recurrence. METHODS: All females with BCS for Tis-T3, without neo-adjuvant chemotherapy between 2005 and 2014 at one university hospital were included. Clinicopathological and follow-up information was collected from electronic patient records. Index tumor samples from all patients with re-excision were reviewed by one pathologist. Margins were classified as negative (≥2 mm width), close (<2 mm width), focally positive (≤4 mm length of tumor touching inked margin), or extensively positive (>4 mm length). RESULTS: From 499 patients included, 212 (43%) had negative, 161 (32%) had close, 59 (12%) had focally positive, and 67 (13%) had extensively positive margins. Increasingly involved margins were associated with lobular type, tumor size, and adjacent DCIS in IBC patients and lesion size in purely DCIS patients. In IBC patients, 17%, 49%, and 77% had re-excision after close, focally positive, and extensively positive margins and residual disease incidence was 55%, 50%, and 70% respectively. In purely DCIS patients, 26 (65%), 13 (87%), and 16 (94%) had re-excision after close, focally positive, and extensively positive margins and residual disease incidence was 39%, 46%, and 90% respectively. CONCLUSION: Incidence of residual disease after focally positive margins was not different from close margins, but was significantly higher after extensively positive margins. We recommend quantifying extent of margin involvement in all pathology reports.
Authors: Jennifer M Racz; Amy E Glasgow; Gary L Keeney; Amy C Degnim; Tina J Hieken; James W Jakub; John C Cheville; Elizabeth B Habermann; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Marie Colombe Agahozo; Sofie A M Berghuis; Esther van den Broek; Linetta B Koppert; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Carolien H M van Deurzen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: W B G Sanderink; L J A Strobbe; P Bult; M S Schlooz-Vries; S Lardenoije; D J Venderink; I Sechopoulos; N Karssemeijer; W Vreuls; R M Mann Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.872