L O'Connell1, S Walsh1, D Evoy1, A O'Doherty2, C Quinn3, J Rothwell1, J Geraghty1, E W McDermott1, R Prichard1. 1. Department of Breast, Endocrine and General Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital , Dublin , Ireland. 2. Department of Radiology, St Vincent's University Hospital , Dublin , Ireland. 3. Department of Pathology, St Vincent's University Hospital , Dublin , Ireland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although close radial margins after breast-conserving surgery routinely undergo re-excision, appropriate management of patients with close anterior margins remains a topic of controversy. An increasing body of literature suggests that re-excision of close anterior margins yields low rates of residual malignancy and may only be necessary in selected patients. The aim of this study was to examine the management of close anterior margins after breast conserving surgery in a single institution and to analyse the rate of residual disease in re-excised anterior margins. METHODS: All patients having breast conserving surgery at St Vincent's University Hospital from January 2008 to December 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Data collected included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, margin positivity, re-excision rates and definitive histology of the re-excision specimens. A close margin was defined as les than 2 mm. RESULTS: A total of 930 patients were included with an average age of 65 years (range 29-94 years). Of these, 121 (13%) had a close anterior margin. Further re-excison of the anterior margin was carried out in 37 patients (30.6%) and a further 16 (13.2%) proceeded to mastectomy. Residual disease was found in 18.5% (7/36) of those who underwent re-excision and 7/16 (43.75%) of those who underwent mastectomy. Overall, 11.57% (14/121) of patients with close anterior margins were subsequently found to have residual disease. CONCLUSION: The low yield of residual disease in re-excised anterior margins specimens supports the concept that routine re-excision of close anterior margins is not necessary. Further research is required to definitively assess its influence on the risk of local recurrence.
INTRODUCTION: Although close radial margins after breast-conserving surgery routinely undergo re-excision, appropriate management of patients with close anterior margins remains a topic of controversy. An increasing body of literature suggests that re-excision of close anterior margins yields low rates of residual malignancy and may only be necessary in selected patients. The aim of this study was to examine the management of close anterior margins after breast conserving surgery in a single institution and to analyse the rate of residual disease in re-excised anterior margins. METHODS: All patients having breast conserving surgery at St Vincent's University Hospital from January 2008 to December 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Data collected included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, margin positivity, re-excision rates and definitive histology of the re-excision specimens. A close margin was defined as les than 2 mm. RESULTS: A total of 930 patients were included with an average age of 65 years (range 29-94 years). Of these, 121 (13%) had a close anterior margin. Further re-excison of the anterior margin was carried out in 37 patients (30.6%) and a further 16 (13.2%) proceeded to mastectomy. Residual disease was found in 18.5% (7/36) of those who underwent re-excision and 7/16 (43.75%) of those who underwent mastectomy. Overall, 11.57% (14/121) of patients with close anterior margins were subsequently found to have residual disease. CONCLUSION: The low yield of residual disease in re-excised anterior margins specimens supports the concept that routine re-excision of close anterior margins is not necessary. Further research is required to definitively assess its influence on the risk of local recurrence.
Authors: Gordon F Schwartz; Umberto Veronesi; Krishna B Clough; J Michael Dixon; Ian S Fentiman; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Roland Holland; Kevin S Hughes; Robert E Mansel; Richard Margolese; Ellen B Mendelson; Ivo A Olivotto; Juan P Palazzo; Lawrence J Solin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: M Rietjens; C A Urban; P C Rey; G Mazzarol; P Maisonneuve; C Garusi; M Intra; S Yamaguchi; N Kaur; F De Lorenzi; A G Z Matthes; S Zurrida; J Y Petit Journal: Breast Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: C Cellini; S T Hollenbeck; P Christos; D Martins; J Carson; S Kemper; E Lavigne; E Chan; R Simmons Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-09-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Funda Meric; Nadeem Q Mirza; Georges Vlastos; Thomas A Buchholz; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; S Eva Singletary; Merrick I Ross; Frederick C Ames; Barry W Feig; Savitri Krishnamurthy; George H Perkins; Marsha D McNeese; Eric A Strom; Vicente Valero; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-02-15 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