Margin width is not predictive of residual disease on re-excision in breast conserving therapy

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 109, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 426-430

  Hadzikadic Gusic, L ^a   McGuire, K P ^b   Ozmen, T ^b   Soran, A ^b   Thomas, C R ^b   McAuliffe, P F ^b   Diego, E J ^b   Bonaventura, M ^b   Johnson, R R ^b   Ahrendt, G M ^b  

^a CAROLINAS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer; breast surgery; close margins

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CONSERVING THERAPY; CANCER REGISTRY; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; EXCISION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MASTECTOMY; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RE EXCISION; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CLOSE MARGINS;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REGISTRIES; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84897028411     PISSN: 00224790     EISSN: 10969098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23530     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, et al.: Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1456-1461.
2. Newman LA, Kuerer HM:, Advances in breast conservation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 1685-1697.
3. Schwartz GF, Veronesi U, Clough KB, et al.: Proceedings of the Consensus Conference on Breast Conservation. April 28 to May 1, 2005, Milan, Italy. Cancer 2006; 107: 242-250.
4. Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz S, et al.: What is an adequate margin for breast conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17: 558-563.
5. Silverstein MJ:, The University of Southern California/Van Nuys prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg 2003; 186: 337-343.
6. de Mascarel I, Bonichon F, MacGrogan G, et al.: Application of the Van Nuys prognostic index in a retrospective series of 367 ductal carcinomas in situ of the breast examined by serial macroscopic sectioning: Practical considerations. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000; 61: 151-159.
7. Di Saverio S, Catena F, Santini D, et al.: 259 Patients with DCIS of the breast applying USC/Van Nuys prognostic index: A retrospective review with long term follow up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 109: 405-416.
8. Lankholm AV, Jensen MB, Kroman N, et al.: Breast cancer in situ. From pre-malignant lesion of uncertain significance to well-defined non-invasive malignant lesion. The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Register. 1977-2007 revisited. Acta Oncol 2008; 47: 765-771.
9. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al.: Variability in re-excision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA 2012; 307: 467-475.
10. Kobbermann A, Unzeitig A, Xie XJ, et al.: Impact of routine cavity shave margins on breast cancer re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18: 1349-1355.
11. Gurdal SO, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, et al.: Positive or close margins in breast conserving surgery: Is re-excision always necessary ? Eur J Surg Oncol 2012; 38: 399-406.
12. Sabel MS, Rogers K, Griffith K, et al.: Residual disease after re-excision lumpectomy for close margins. J Surg Oncol 2009; 99: 99-103.
13. Atalay C, Irkkan C:, Predictive factors for residual disease in re-excision specimens after breast conserving surgery. Breast J 2012; 18: 339-344.
14. Turnbull L, Brown S:, Harvey: Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 563-571.
15. NCI/SEER database. Available: seer.cancer.gov (accessed April 14, 2013).
16. Camp MS, Greenup RA, Taghian A, et al.: Application of ACOSOG Z0011 criteria reduces perioperative costs. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 836-841.
17. Schwartz T, Degnim AC, Landercasper J:, Should re-excision lumpectomy rates be a quality measure in breast conserving surgery ? Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 3180-3183.
18. American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBS) Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer Lumpectomy Margins. www.breastsurgeons.org
19. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, 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.
20. Singletary SE:, Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002; 184: 383-393