Assessment of Practice Patterns Following Publication of the SSO–ASTRO Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Therapy in Stage I and II Invasive Breast Cancer

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 3250-3256

  DeSnyder, Sarah M ^a   Hunt, Kelly K ^a   Smith, Benjamin D ^a   Moran, Meena S ^b   Klimberg, Suzanne ^c   Lucci, Anthony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b YALE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PRIVATE PRACTICE; SURGEON; TUMOR VOLUME; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; CONSENSUS; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARDS; TUMOR INVASION;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; CONSENSUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; PROGNOSIS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84940449726     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4666-1     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Fisher B, Rn R, et al. Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(13):822–8.
2. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1227–32.
3. Blichert-Toft M, Nielsen M, During M, et al. Long-term results of breast conserving surgery vs. mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of the Danish randomized DBCG-82TM protocol. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(4):672–81.
4. Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowan KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(14):907–11.
5. Sarrazin D, Le MG, Arriagada R, et al. Ten-year results of a randomized trial comparing a conservative treatment to mastectomy in early breast cancer. Radiother Oncol. 1989;14(3):177–184.
6. van Dongen JA, Bartelink H, Fentiman IS, et al. Randomized clinical trial to assess the value of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast cancer, EORTC 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Instit Monographs. 1992(11):15–18.
7. Taghian A, Mohiuddin M, Jagsi R, Goldberg S, Ceilley E, Powell S. Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2005;241(4):629–39.
8. Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(2):558–63.
9. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467–75.
10. Olsen MA, Nickel KB, Margenthaler JA, et al. Increased risk of surgical site infection among breast-conserving surgery re-excisions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(6):2003–9.
11. Greenup RA, Peppercorn J, Worni M, Hwang ES. Cost implications of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(5):1512–4.
12. King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2158–64.
13. 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. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1507–15.
14. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Morrow M. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):717–30.
15. Hunt KK, Smith BD, Mittendorf EA. The controversy regarding margin width in breast cancer: enough is enough. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):701–3.
16. Wazer DE, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Ruthazer R, et al. Factors determining outcome for breast-conserving irradiation with margin-directed dose escalation to the tumor bed. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;40(4):851–8.
17. Mansfield CM, Komarnicky LT, Schwartz GF, et al. Ten-year results in 1070 patients with stages I and II breast cancer treated by conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer. 1995;75(9):2328–36.
18. Jones HA, Antonini N, Hart AA, et al. Impact of pathological characteristics on local relapse after breast-conserving therapy: a subgroup analysis of the EORTC boost versus no boost trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(30):4939–47.
19. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Khettry U, et al. Pathologic findings on re-excision of the primary site in breast cancer patients considered for treatment by primary radiation therapy. Cancer. 1987;59(4):675–81.
20. Holland R, Connolly JL, Gelman R, et al. The presence of an extensive intraductal component following a limited excision correlates with prominent residual disease in the remainder of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8(1):113–8.
21. Buchholz TA, Somerfield MR, Griggs JJ, et al. Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1502–6.