Margin index: A new method for prediction of residual disease after breast-conserving surgery

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 17, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 2696-2701

  Margenthaler, Julie A ^a   Gao, Feng ^a   Klimberg, V Suzanne ^b  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 78049475247     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1079-z     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. B Fisher S Anderson J Bryant, et al. 2002 Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer N Engl J Med. 347 1233 1241 10.1056/NEJMoa022152 12393820
2. J Jacobson D Danforth K Cowan, et al. 1995 Ten-year results of the National Cancer Institute's randomized trial of breast conservation versus mastectomy for stage I and II breast cancer N Engl J Med. 332 907 911 1:STN:280:DyaK2M7otlSqsw%3D%3D 10.1056/NEJM199504063321402 7877647
3. J Van Dongen AC Voogd IS Fentiman, et al. 2000 Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial J Natl Cancer Inst. 92 1143 1150 10.1093/jnci/92.14.1143 10904087
4. M Blichert-Toft C Rose JA Anderson, et al. 1992 Danish randomized trial comparing breast conservation therapy with mastectomy: six years of life table analysis J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 11 19 26 1627427
5. R Arriagada MG Le F Rochard, et al. 1996 Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with fifteen years of follow-up J Clin Oncol. 14 1558 1564 1:STN:280:DyaK283gvVygsQ%3D%3D 8622072
6. U Veronesi N Cascinelli L Mariani, et al. 2002 Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer N Engl J Med. 347 1227 1232 10.1056/NEJMoa020989 12393819
7. JJ Jobsen J Van Der Palen F Ong, et al. 2003 The value of a positive margin for invasive carcinoma in breast-conservative treatment in relation to local recurrence is limited to young women only Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 57 724 731 14529777
8. J Kurtz J Jacquiemier R Amalric, et al. 1990 Breast-conserving therapy for macroscopically multiple cancers Ann Surg. 212 38 44 1:STN:280: DyaK3czgtlSgsw%3D%3D 10.1097/00000658-199007000-00006 2363602
9. JM Bedwinek CA Perez S Kramer, et al. 1980 Irradiation as the primary management of stage I and II adenocarcinoma of the breast Cancer Clin Trials. 3 11 18 1:STN:280:DyaL3c3itlWgtQ%3D%3D 7389034
10. SE Singletary 2002 Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy Am J Surg. 184 383 393 10.1016/S0002-9610(02)01012-7 12433599
11. CC Park M Mitsumori A Nixon, et al. 2000 Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence J Clin Oncol. 18 1668 1675 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3islOquw%3D%3D 10764427
12. G Freedman B Fowble A Hanlon, et al. 1999 Patients with early stage invasive cancer with close or positive margins treated with conservative surgery and radiation have an increased risk of breast recurrence that is delayed by adjuvant systemic therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 44 1005 1015 1:STN:280:DyaK1Mzksl2jsw%3D%3D 10421533
13. LJ Solin BL Fowble DJ Schultz, et al. 1991 The significance of the pathology margins of the tumor excision on the outcome of patients treated with definitive irradiation for early stage breast cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 21 279 287 1:STN:280:DyaK3M3osF2htA%3D%3D 1648041
14. E Touboul L Buffat Y Belkacemi, et al. 1998 Local recurrences and distant metastases after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 43 25 38
15. PI Tartter J Kaplan I Bleiweiss, et al. 2000 Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer Am J Surg. 179 81 85 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvhs1CksQ%3D%3D 10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00272-5 10773138
16. B Magee R Swindell M Harris, et al. 1996 Prognostic factors for breast recurrence after conservative surgery and radiotherapy: results from a randomized trial Radiother Oncol. 39 223 227 1:STN:280:DyaK28znslGmug%3D%3D 10.1016/0167-8140(96)01747-1 8783398
17. A Taghian M Mohiuddin R Jagsi, et al. 2005 Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy Ann Surg. 241 629 639 10.1097/01.sla.0000157272.04803.1b 15798465
18. AJ Nixon D Neuberg DF Hayes, et al. 1994 Relationship of patient age to pathologic features of the tumor and the prognosis for patients with stage I and II breast cancer J Clin Oncol. 12 888 894 1:STN:280:DyaK2c3hs12gtA%3D%3D 8164038
19. ED Kurniawan MH Wong I Windle, et al. 2008 Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program Ann Surg Oncol. 15 2542 2549 10.1245/s10434-008-0054-4 18618180
20. AB Chagpar RC Martin LJ Hagendoorn, et al. 2004 Lumpectomy margins are affected by tumor size and histologic subtype but not by biopsy technique Am J Surg. 188 399 402 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.06.020 15474434
21. AR Miller G Brandao TJ Prihoda, et al. 2004 Positive margins following surgical resection of breast carcinoma: analysis of pathologic correlates J Surg Oncol. 86 134 140 10.1002/jso.20059 15170651
22. C Mazouni R Rouzier C Balleyguier, et al. 2006 Specimen radiography as predictor of resection margin status in non-palpable breast lesions Clin Radiol. 61 789 796 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28votVajsQ%3D%3D 10.1016/j.crad.2006.04.017 16905388
23. L Fortunato R Penteriani M Farina, et al. 2008 Intraoperative ultrasound is an effective and preferable technique to localize non-palpable breast tumors EJSO. 34 1289 1292 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1cjhsFersw%3D%3D 18248946
24. M Thompson R Henry-Tillman A Margulies, et al. 2007 Hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) breast lumpectomy Ann Surg Oncol. 14 148 156 10.1245/s10434-006-9076-y 17058127
25. HZ Malik WD George EA Mallon, et al. 1999 Margin assessment by cavity shaving after breast-conserving surgery: analysis and follow-up of 543 patients EJSO. 25 464 469 1:STN:280:DyaK1MvlvFaqtQ%3D%3D 10.1053/ejso.1999.0680 10527593
26. SEJ Janes M Stankhe S Singh, et al. 2006 Systematic cavity shaves reduces close margins and re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery Breast. 15 326 330 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28zltFeiug%3D%3D 10.1016/j.breast.2005.10.006 16337123
27. MF Dillon AA Maguire EW McDermott, et al. 2008 Needle core biopsy characteristics identify patients at risk of compromised margins in breast conservation surgery Mod Path. 21 39 45 10.1038/modpathol.3800975
28. Holland R, Veling SH, Mravunac M, et al. Histologic multifocality of Tis, T1-2 breast carcinomas. Implications for clinical trials of breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 1985;56(5):979-90.