Prediction of positive resection margins in patients with non-palpable breast cancer

European Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 106-112

  Barentsz, M W ^a   Postma, E L ^a   Van Dalen, T ^b   Van Den Bosch, M A A J ^a   Miao, H ^c   Gobardhan, P D ^d   Van Den Hout, L E ^a   Pijnappel, R M ^a   Witkamp, A J ^a   Van Diest, P J ^a   Van Hillegersberg, R ^a   Verkooijen, H M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY   (Netherlands)

^c NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM   (Singapore)

^d AMPHIA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Non palpable lesions; Prediction model; Tumour margins

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BOOTSTRAPPING; BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURGERY; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NON PALPABLE BREAST CANCER; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PATIENT COUNSELING; POSITIVE RESECTION MARGIN; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT PLANNING; VALIDATION PROCESS; AGED; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; COMPLICATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NETHERLANDS; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; SEGMENTAL MASTECTOMY; TUMOR RECURRENCE; TUMOR VOLUME;

AGED; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; NETHERLANDS; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84925032045     PISSN: 07487983     EISSN: 15322157     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.08.474     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, 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. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1668-75.
2. Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, et al. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ 2012;345: e4505.
3. Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA, et al. The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breastconserving surgery for cancer. Breast J 2006;12:331-7.
4. Talsma AK, Reedijk AM, Damhuis RA, Westenend PJ, Vles WJ. Reresection rates after breast-conserving surgery as a performance indicator: introduction of a case-mix model to allow comparison between Dutch hospitals. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011;37:357-63.
5. Keskek M, Kothari M, Ardehali B, Betambeau N, Nasiri N, Gui GP. Factors predisposing to cavity margin positivity following conservation surgery for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004;30:1058-64.
6. Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, Windle I, et al. Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:2542-9.
7. Pleijhuis RG, Kwast AB, Jansen L, et al. A validated web-based nomogram for predicting positive surgical margins following breastconserving surgery as a preoperative tool for clinical decision-making. Breast 2013;22:773-9.
8. van der Heiden-van der Loo M, de Munck L, Visser O, et al. Variation between hospitals in surgical margins after first breast-conserving surgery in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;131:691-8.
9. Chagpar AB, Martin 2nd RC, Hagendoorn LJ, Chao C, McMasters KM. Lumpectomy margins are affected by tumor size and histologic subtype but not by biopsy technique. Am J Surg 2004;188:399-402.
10. Iasonos A, Schrag D, Raj GV, Panageas KS. How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1364-70.
11. Shin HC, Han W, Moon HG, et al. Nomogram for predicting positive resection margins after breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;134:1115-23.
12. Barentsz MW, van Dalen T, Gobardhan PD, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for excision of non-palpable invasive breast cancer: A hospital-based series and an overview of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;135:209-19.
13. Barentsz MW, van den Bosch MA, Veldhuis WB, et al. Radioactive seed localization for non-palpable breast cancer. Br J Surg 2013; 100:582-8.
14. Tafra L, Fine R, Whitworth P, et al. Prospective randomized study comparing cryo-assisted and needle-wire localization of ultrasoundvisible breast tumors. Am J Surg 2006;192:462-70.
15. Mariscal-Martinez A, Sola M, de-Tudela AP, et al. Radioguided localization of nonpalpable breast cancer lesions: randomized comparison with wire localization in patients undergoing conservative surgery and sentinel node biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:1001-9.
16. Postma EL, Verkooijen HM, van Esser S, et al. Efficacy of 'radioguided occult lesion localisation' (ROLL) versus 'wire-guided localisation' (WGL) in breast conserving surgery for non-palpable breast cancer: A randomised controlled multicentre trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;136:469-78.
17. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991;19:403-10.
18. van der Heijden GJ, Donders AR, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Imputation of missing values is superior to complete case analysis and the missingindicator method in multivariable diagnostic research: A clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1102-9.
19. R Development Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010. http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/christlieb/teaching/UKStaSS10/Rrefman.pdf.
20. Smitt MC, 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; 14:1040-4.
21. Dillon MF, Hill AD, Quinn CM, McDermott EW, O'Higgins N. A pathologic assessment of adequate margin status in breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:333-9.
22. Dzierzanowski M, Melville KA, Barnes PJ, MacIntosh RF, Caines JS, Porter GA. Ductal carcinoma in situ in core biopsies containing invasive breast cancer: correlation with extensive intraductal component and lumpectomy margins. J Surg Oncol 2005;90:71-6.
23. Miller AR, Brandao G, Prihoda TJ, Hill C, Cruz Jr AB, Yeh IT. Positive margins following surgical resection of breast carcinoma: Analysis of pathologic correlates. J Surg Oncol 2004;86:134-40.
24. Mai KT, Chaudhuri M, Perkins DG, Mirsky D. Resection margin status in lumpectomy specimens for duct carcinoma of the breast: correlation with core biopsy and mammographic findings. J Surg Oncol 2001;78:189-93.
25. Moore MM, Borossa G, Imbrie JZ, et al. Association of infiltrating lobular carcinoma with positive surgical margins after breastconservation therapy. Ann Surg 2000;231:877-82.
26. V. Dutch breast cancer guidelines. [accessed 11.04.13]. http://www.oncoline.nl/mammacarcinoom.
27. Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, et al. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 2009;197:740-6.
28. Saarela AO, Rissanen TJ, Lahteenmaki KM, et al. Wire-guided excision of non-palpable breast cancer: determinants and correlations between radiologic and histologic margins and residual disease in reexcisions. Breast 2001;10:28-34.
29. Noh WC, Paik NS, Kim MS, et al. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conserving therapy: A comparison of quadrantectomy versus lumpectomy at a single institution. World J Surg 2005;29: 1001-6.
30. Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A, et al. The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breastconserving therapy in the EORTC 'boost vs. no boost' trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. Radiother Oncol 2000;55:219-32.
31. Christiaens MR, Cataliotti L, Fentiman I, et al. Comparison of the surgical procedures for breast conserving treatment of early breast cancer in seven EORTC centres. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:1866-75.
32. den Hartogh MD, van Asselen B, Monninkhof EM, et al. Excised and irradiated volumes in relation to the tumor size in breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;129: 857-65.
33. Krekel N, Zonderhuis B, Muller S, et al. Excessive resections in breast-conserving surgery: A retrospective multicentre study. Breast J 2011;17:602-9.
34. Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET e randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 2011;47: 879-86.