BACKGROUND: Reoperation rates following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) range from 10 to 40%, with marked surgeon and institutional variation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with intraoperative margin re-excision, evaluate for any differences in local recurrence based on margin re-excision and determine reoperation rates with use of intraoperative margin analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed consecutive patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer who underwent BCS at our institution between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2016. Routine intraoperative frozen section margin analysis was performed and positive or close margins were re-excised intraoperatively. Univariate analysis was used to compare margin status and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare recurrence. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to analyze factors associated with re-excision. RESULTS: We identified 3201 patients who underwent BCS-688 for DCIS and 2513 for invasive carcinoma. Overall, 1513 (60.2%) patients with invasive cancer and 434 (63.1%) patients with DCIS had close or positive margins that underwent intraoperative re-excision. Margin re-excision was associated with larger tumor size in both groups. The permanent pathology positive margin rate among all patients was 1.2%, and the 30-day reoperation rate for positive margins was 1.1%. Five-year local recurrence rates were 0.6% and 1.2% for patients with DCIS and invasive cancer, respectively. There was no difference in recurrence between patients with and without intraoperative margin re-excision (p = 0.92). CONCLUSION: Both DCIS and invasive carcinoma had similar rates of intraoperative margin re-excision. Although intraoperative margin re-excision was common, the reoperation rate was extremely low and there was no difference in recurrence between those with or without intraoperative re-excision.
BACKGROUND: Reoperation rates following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) range from 10 to 40%, with marked surgeon and institutional variation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with intraoperative margin re-excision, evaluate for any differences in local recurrence based on margin re-excision and determine reoperation rates with use of intraoperative margin analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed consecutive patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer who underwent BCS at our institution between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2016. Routine intraoperative frozen section margin analysis was performed and positive or close margins were re-excised intraoperatively. Univariate analysis was used to compare margin status and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare recurrence. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to analyze factors associated with re-excision. RESULTS: We identified 3201 patients who underwent BCS-688 for DCIS and 2513 for invasive carcinoma. Overall, 1513 (60.2%) patients with invasive cancer and 434 (63.1%) patients with DCIS had close or positive margins that underwent intraoperative re-excision. Margin re-excision was associated with larger tumor size in both groups. The permanent pathology positive margin rate among all patients was 1.2%, and the 30-day reoperation rate for positive margins was 1.1%. Five-year local recurrence rates were 0.6% and 1.2% for patients with DCIS and invasive cancer, respectively. There was no difference in recurrence between patients with and without intraoperative margin re-excision (p = 0.92). CONCLUSION: Both DCIS and invasive carcinoma had similar rates of intraoperative margin re-excision. Although intraoperative margin re-excision was common, the reoperation rate was extremely low and there was no difference in recurrence between those with or without intraoperative 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: 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
Authors: S Darby; P McGale; C Correa; C Taylor; R Arriagada; M Clarke; D Cutter; C Davies; M Ewertz; J Godwin; R Gray; L Pierce; T Whelan; Y Wang; R Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mansher Singh; Gayatri Singh; Kevin T Hogan; Kristen A Atkins; Anneke T Schroen Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Swati A Kulkarni; Kirti Kulkarni; David Schacht; Sonya Bhole; Ingrid Reiser; Hiroyuki Abe; Jean Bao; Kevin Bethke; Nora Hansen; Nora Jaskowiak; Seema A Khan; Jennifer Tseng; Buxin Chen; Jennifer Pincus; Jeffrey Mueller; Lauren Schulte; Bazil LaBomascus; Zheng Zhang; Dan Xia; Xiaochuan Pan; Christian Wietholt; Dimple Modgil; David Lester; Li Lan; Bidur Bohara; Xiao Han Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-07-31 Impact factor: 5.344