A validated web-based nomogram for predicting positive surgical margins following breast-conserving surgery as a preoperative tool for clinical decision-making

Breast

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 773-779

  Pleijhuis, Rick G ^a   Kwast, Annemiek B G ^b   Jansen, Liesbeth ^a   de Vries, Jakob ^a   Lanting, Rosanne ^a   Bart, Joost ^a   Wiggers, Theo ^a   van Dam, Gooitzen M ^a   Siesling, Sabine ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b Integraal Kankercentrum Noord Nederland   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast conserving surgery; Nomogram; Surgical margin status

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL FEATURE; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NETHERLANDS; NOMOGRAM; ONLINE SYSTEM; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURGICAL ANATOMY; VALIDATION PROCESS; WEB BROWSER;

AREA UNDER THE RECEIVER-OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVE; AUROC; BCT; BREAST CANCER; BREAST-CONSERVING SURGERY; BREAST-CONSERVING THERAPY; CNB; CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; LOCAL RECURRENCE; LR; MULTIVARIATE REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MVA; NOMOGRAM; ODDS RATIO; OR; SURGICAL MARGIN STATUS;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; NOMOGRAMS; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; RADIOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT;

EID: 84884131602     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: 15323080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.01.010     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Fisher B., Anderson S., Bryant J., Margolese R.G., Deutsch M., Fisher E.R., et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. NEngl J Med 2002, 347:1233-1241.
2. Veronesi U., Cascinelli N., Mariani L., Greco M., Saccozzi R., Luini A., et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. NEngl J Med 2002, 347:1227-1232.
3. Park C.C., Mitsumori M., Nixon A., Recht A., Connolly J., Gelman R., et al. 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. JClin Oncol 2000, 18:1668-1675.
4. Leong C., Boyages J., Jayasinghe U.W., Bilous M., Ung O., Chua B., et al. Effect of margins on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast conservation therapy for lymph node-negative breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004, 100:1823-1832.
5. Pleijhuis R.G., Graafland M., de Vries J., Bart J., de Jong J.S., van Dam G.M. Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol 2009, 16:2717-2730.
6. Jacobs L. Positive margins: the challenge continues for breast surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol 2008, 15:1271-1272.
7. Iasonos A., Schrag D., Raj G.V., Panageas K.S. How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. JClin Oncol 2008, 26:1364-1370.
8. Peintinger F. Clinical use of nomograms for breast cancer. JSurg Oncol 2011, 103:745.
9. Shin H.C., Han W., Moon H.G., Cho N., Moon W.K., Park I.A., et al. Nomogram for predicting positive resection margins after breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012, 134:1115-1123.
10. Casparie M., Tiebosch A.T., Burger G., Blauwgeers H., van de Pol A., van Krieken J.H., et al. Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 2007, 29:19-24.
11. Fritz A., Percy C., Jack A., Shanmugaratnam K., Sobin L., Parkin D.M., et al. International classification of diseases for Oncology 2000, WHO, Geneva.
12. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) 2003, American College of Radiology, American College of Radiology, Reston. 4th ed.
13. Akaike H. Anew look at the statistical model identification. Automatic Control, IEEE Trans 1974, 19:716-723.
14. Harris G.C., Denley H.E., Pinder S.E., Lee A.H., Ellis I.O., Elston C.W., et al. Correlation of histologic prognostic factors in core biopsies and therapeutic excisions of invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2003, 27:11-15.
15. Rakha E.A., Ellis I.O. An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens. JClin Pathol 2007, 60:1300-1306.
16. Wood B., Junckerstorff R., Sterrett G., Frost F., Harvey J., Robbins P. Acomparison of immunohistochemical staining for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER-2 in breast core biopsies and subsequent excisions. Pathology 2007, 39:391-395.
17. Jacobs T.W., Siziopikou K.P., Prioleau J.E., Raza S., Baum J.K., Hayes D.F., et al. Do prognostic marker studies on core needle biopsy specimens of breast carcinoma accurately reflect the marker status of the tumor?. Mod Pathol 1998, 11:259-264.
18. Rhodes A., Jasani B., Barnes D.M., Bobrow L.G., Miller K.D. Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systems. JClin Pathol 2000, 53:125-130.
19. Monticciolo D.L. Histologic grading at breast core needle biopsy: comparison with results from the excised breast specimen. Breast J 2005, 11:9-14.
20. Bilous M. Breast core needle biopsy: issues and controversies. Mod Pathol 2010, 23(Suppl. 2):S36-S45.
21. Jimenez R.E., Bongers S., Bouwman D., Segel M., Visscher D.W. Clinicopathologic significance of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast core needle biopsies with invasive cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2000, 24:123-128.
22. Dillon M.F., Maguire A.A., McDermott E.W., Myers C., Hill A.D., O'Doherty A., et al. Needle core biopsy characteristics identify patients at risk of compromised margins in breast conservation surgery. Mod Pathol 2008, 21:39-45.
23. Richter-Ehrenstein C., Muller S., Noske A., Schneider A. Diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of core biopsy in the management of breast cancer: a series of 542 patients. Int J Surg Pathol 2009, 17:323-326.
24. Dillon M.F., Hill A.D., Quinn C.M., McDermott E.W., O'Higgins N. Apathologic assessment of adequate margin status in breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2006, 13:333-339.
25. Groot G., Rees H., Pahwa P., Kanagaratnam S., Kinloch M. Predicting local recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for early stage breast cancer: the significance of a narrow (≤2mm) surgical resection margin. JSurg Oncol 2011, 103:212-216.
26. Houssami N., Macaskill P., Marinovich M.L., Dixon J.M., Irwig L., Brennan M.E., et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46:3219-3232.
27. Luini A., Rososchansky J., Gatti G., Zurrida S., Caldarella P., Viale G., et al. The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery: discussion of an open issue. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009, 113:397-402.
28. Pengel K.E., Loo C.E., Teertstra H.J., Muller S.H., Wesseling J., Peterse J.L., et al. The impact of preoperative MRI on breast-conserving surgery of invasive cancer: a comparative cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009, 116:161-169.
29. Lovrics P.J., Cornacchi S.D., Farrokhyar F., Garnett A., Chen V., Franic S., et al. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 2009, 197:740-746.
30. de Lorenzi F. Oncoplastic surgery: the evolution of breast cancer treatment. Breast J 2010, 16(Suppl. 1):S20-S21.
31. Smitt M.C., Horst K. Association of clinical and pathologic variables with lumpectomy surgical margin status after preoperative diagnosis or excisional biopsy of invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007, 14:1040-1044.
32. Bevilacqua J.L., Kattan M.W., Fey J.V., Cody H.S., Borgen P.I., Van Zee K.J. Doctor, what are my chances of having a positive sentinel node? A validated nomogram for risk estimation. JClin Oncol 2007, 25:3670-3679.
33. Coutant C., Olivier C., Lambaudie E., Fondrinier E., Marchal F., Guillemin F., et al. Comparison of models to predict nonsentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: a prospective multicenter study. JClin Oncol 2009, 27:2800-2808.
34. Ravdin P.M., Siminoff L.A., Davis G.J., Mercer M.B., Hewlett J., Gerson N., et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. JClin Oncol 2001, 19:980-991.
35. Rudloff U., Jacks L.M., Goldberg J.I., Wynveen C.A., Brogi E., Patil S., et al. Nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. JClin Oncol 2010, 28:3762-3769.
36. Sanghani M., Balk E., Cady B., Wazer D. Predicting the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer: an approach to a new computer-based predictive tool. Am J Clin Oncol 2007, 30:473-480.
37. Werkhoven E., Hart G., Tinteren H., Elkhuizen P., Collette L., Poortmans P., et al. Nomogram to predict ipsilateral breast relapse based on pathology review from the EORTC 22881-10882 boost versus no boost trial. Radiother Oncol 2011, 100:101-107.
38. Rouzier R., Pusztai L., Garbay J.R., Delaloge S., Hunt K.K., Hortobagyi G.N., et al. Development and validation of nomograms for predicting residual tumor size and the probability of successful conservative surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Cancer 2006, 107:1459-1466.