A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 373, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 503-510

  Chagpar, Anees B ^a,b   Killelea, Brigid K ^a,b   Tsangaris, Theodore N ^c   Butler, Meghan ^a,b   Stavris, Karen ^a,b   Li, Fangyong ^a,b   Yao, Xiaopan ^a,b   Bossuyt, Veerle ^a   Harigopal, Malini ^a   Lannin, Donald R ^a,b   Pusztai, Lajos ^a,b   Horowitz, Nina R ^a,b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b YALE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER MARGIN; CANCER SURGERY; CAVITY SHAVING; CONTROLLED STUDY; ETHNICITY; HEMATOMA; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; ONCOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SEROMA; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR VOLUME; WOUND CLOSURE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANCER STAGING; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; FEMALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REOPERATION; SEGMENTAL MASTECTOMY; TUMOR INVASION; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM STAGING; REOPERATION;

EID: 84936811691     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1504473     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 2015; 150: 9-16.
2. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, 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. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1233-41.
3. Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, et al. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004-2010. JAMA Surg 2014; 149: 1296-305.
4. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA 2012; 307: 467-75.
5. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 704-16.
6. Racz JM, Hong NL, Latosinsky S. In search of a gold standard scoring system for the subjective evaluation of cosmetic outcomes following breast-conserving therapy. Breast J 2015;21:345-51.
7. 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: 1349-55.
8. Unzeitig A, Kobbermann A, Xie XJ, et al. Influence of surgical technique on mastectomy and reexcision rates in breast-conserving therapy for cancer. Int J Surg Oncol 2012: 725121.
9. Marudanayagam R, Singhal R, Tanchel B, OConnor B, Balasubramanian B, Paterson I. Effect of cavity shaving on reoperation rate following breast-conserving surgery. Breast J 2008; 14: 570-3.
10. Cao D, Lin C, Woo SH, Vang R, Tsangaris TN, Argani P. Separate cavity margin sampling at the time of initial breast lumpectomy significantly reduces the need for reexcisions. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1625-32.
11. Tengher-Barna I, Hequet D, Reboul-Marty J, et al. Prevalence and predictive factors for the detection of carcinoma in cavity margin performed at the time of breast lumpectomy. Mod Pathol 2009; 22: 299-305.
12. Jacobson AF, Asad J, Boolbol SK, Osborne MP, Boachie-Adjei K, Feldman SM. Do additional shaved margins at the time of lumpectomy eliminate the need for reexcision? Am J Surg 2008; 196: 556-8.
13. Mook J, Klein R, Kobbermann A, et al. Volume of excision and cosmesis with routine cavity shave margins technique. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 886-91.
14. Huston TL, Pigalarga R, Osborne MP, Tousimis E. The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg 2006; 192: 509-12.
15. Feron JG, Nguyen A, Bézu C, et al. Interest in cavity shaving in breast conservative treatment does not depend on lumpectomy technique. Breast 2011; 20: 358-64.
16. Tang R, Coopey SB, Specht MC, et al. Lumpectomy specimen margins are not reliable in predicting residual disease in breast conserving surgery. Am J Surg 2014 December 13 (Epub ahead of print).
17. Hequet D, Bricou A, Koual M, et al. Systematic cavity shaving: modifications of breast cancer management and longterm local recurrence, a multicentre study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013; 39: 899-905.
18. Vos EL, Jager A, Verhoef C, Voogd AC, Koppert LB. Overall survival in patients with a re-excision following breast conserving surgery compared to those without in a large population-based cohort. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51: 282-91.