Monica G Valero1,2, Melissa Anne Mallory1,2, Katya Losk3, Mustafa Tukenmez1, Jaeho Hwang2, Kristen Camuso3, Craig Bunnell2,3, Tari King1,2, Mehra Golshan4,5. 1. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. mgolshan@bwh.harvard.edu. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. mgolshan@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reoperation after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is common and has been partially associated with the lack of consensus on margin definition. We sought to investigate factors associated with reoperations and variation in reoperation rates across breast surgeons at our cancer center. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of patients with clinical stage I-II breast cancer who underwent BCS between January and December 2014 were conducted prior to the recommendation of 'no ink on tumor' margin. Patient demographics and tumor and surgical data were extracted from medical records. A multivariate regression model was used to identify factors associated with reoperation. RESULTS: Overall, 490 patients with stage I (n = 408) and stage II (n = 89) breast cancer underwent BCS; seven patients had bilateral breast cancer and underwent bilateral BCS procedures. Median invasive tumor size was 1.1 cm, reoperation rate was 22.9% (n = 114) and varied among surgeons (range 15-40%), and, in 100 (88%) patients, the second procedure was re-excision, followed by unilateral mastectomy (n = 7, 6%) and bilateral mastectomy (n = 7, 6%). Intraoperative margin techniques (global cavity or targeted shaves) were utilized in 50.1% of cases, while no specific margin technique was utilized in 49.9% of cases. Median total specimen size was 65.8 cm3 (range 24.5-156.0). In the adjusted model, patients with multifocal disease were more likely to undergo reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 5.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.17-15.42]. In addition, two surgeons were found to have significantly higher reoperation rates (OR 6.41, 95% CI 1.94-21.22; OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.07-10.85). CONCLUSIONS: Examination of BCS demonstrated variability in reoperation rates and margin practices among our breast surgeons. Future trials should look at surgeon-specific factors that may predict for reoperations.
BACKGROUND: Reoperation after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is common and has been partially associated with the lack of consensus on margin definition. We sought to investigate factors associated with reoperations and variation in reoperation rates across breast surgeons at our cancer center. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of patients with clinical stage I-II breast cancer who underwent BCS between January and December 2014 were conducted prior to the recommendation of 'no ink on tumor' margin. Patient demographics and tumor and surgical data were extracted from medical records. A multivariate regression model was used to identify factors associated with reoperation. RESULTS: Overall, 490 patients with stage I (n = 408) and stage II (n = 89) breast cancer underwent BCS; seven patients had bilateral breast cancer and underwent bilateral BCS procedures. Median invasive tumor size was 1.1 cm, reoperation rate was 22.9% (n = 114) and varied among surgeons (range 15-40%), and, in 100 (88%) patients, the second procedure was re-excision, followed by unilateral mastectomy (n = 7, 6%) and bilateral mastectomy (n = 7, 6%). Intraoperative margin techniques (global cavity or targeted shaves) were utilized in 50.1% of cases, while no specific margin technique was utilized in 49.9% of cases. Median total specimen size was 65.8 cm3 (range 24.5-156.0). In the adjusted model, patients with multifocal disease were more likely to undergo reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 5.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.17-15.42]. In addition, two surgeons were found to have significantly higher reoperation rates (OR 6.41, 95% CI 1.94-21.22; OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.07-10.85). CONCLUSIONS: Examination of BCS demonstrated variability in reoperation rates and margin practices among our breast surgeons. Future trials should look at surgeon-specific factors that may predict for reoperations.
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: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joerg Heil; Kathrin Breitkreuz; Michael Golatta; Elena Czink; Julia Dahlkamp; Joachim Rom; Florian Schuetz; Maria Blumenstein; Geraldine Rauch; Christof Sohn Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 5.344
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: M R Bani; M P Lux; K Heusinger; E Wenkel; A Magener; R Schulz-Wendtland; M W Beckmann; P A Fasching Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-06-09 Impact factor: 4.424
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: Woohyun Jung; Eunyoung Kang; Sun Mi Kim; Dongwon Kim; Yoonsun Hwang; Young Sun; Cha Kyong Yom; Sung-Won Kim Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2012-12-31 Impact factor: 3.588