Toolbox to Reduce Lumpectomy Reoperations and Improve Cosmetic Outcome in Breast Cancer Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 3174-3183

  Landercasper, Jeffrey ^a   Attai, Deanna ^b   Atisha, Dunya ^c   Beitsch, Peter ^d   Bosserman, Linda ^e   Boughey, Judy ^f   Carter, Jodi ^f   Edge, Stephen ^g   Feldman, Sheldon ^h,i   Froman, Joshua ^f   Greenberg, Caprice ^j   Kaufman, Cary ^k   Morrow, Monica ^l,m   Pockaj, Barbara ⁿ   Silverstein, Melvin ^o,p   Solin, Lawrence ^q   Staley, Alicia ^r   Vicini, Frank ^s   Wilke, Lee ^j   Yang, Wei ^t   Cody, Hiram ^l,m   more..

^a Norma J Vinger Center for Breast Care (NJVCBC)   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^d Dallas Surgical Group   (United States)

^e City of Hope Medical Group   (United States)

^f MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^g Memphis Pathology Laboratory   (United States)

^h NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁱ Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^k Bellingham Breast Center   (United States)

^l MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^m WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

ⁿ MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^o HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^q EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^r Akari Healthcare   (United States)

^s 21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY   (United States)

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

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST Q; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SIZE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CONSENSUS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; EXCISION; EXCISIONAL CAVITY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE BREAST BIOPSY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE PROCEDURE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ONCOPLASTIC TECHNIQUE; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; RADIATION; RADIOLOGY; REOPERATION; SHAVE BIOPSY; SURGEON; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT PLANNING; TUMOR INVASION; BREAST NEOPLASMS; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; CANCER STAGING; FEMALE; ORGANIZATION; RADIATION ONCOLOGY; STANDARDS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONGRESSES AS TOPIC; CONSENSUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMAPLASTY; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RADIATION ONCOLOGY; REOPERATION; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; SURGEONS;

EID: 84940450341     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4759-x     Document Type: Article

References (135)

1. National Quality Forum: Measure evaluation criteria. http://www.qualityforum.org/docs/measure_evaluation_criteria.aspx#importance. Accessed 20 May 2015.
2. Hassett MJ, Hughes ME, Niland JC, et al. Selecting high priority quality measures for breast cancer quality improvement. Med Care. 2008;46:762–70.
3. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–75.
4. Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, Lapin B, Liederbach E, Winchester DP, Yao K. 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.
5. 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.
6. Landercasper J, Whitacre E, Degnim AC, Al-Hamadani M. Reasons for re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery(SM) database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3185–91.
7. 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;21:717–30.
8. 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.
9. American College of Surgeons Clinical Research Program, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Nelson HD, Hunt KK. Partial mastectomy. In: Blair S, El Tamer M, Khan S, et al. (eds). Operative standards cancer surg. Vol. 1. Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia, 2015.
10. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. National Academies of Press, Washington, DC, 2011. https://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Clinical-Practice-Guidelines-We-Can-Trust/Clinical%20Practice%20Guidelines%202011%20Insert.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2015.
11. Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55.
12. Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Core needle and open surgical biopsy for diagnosis of breast lesions: an update to the 2009 report [Internet]. Comparative effectiveness reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 2014, p. 139. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK246878/. Accessed 21 May 2015.
13. Esbona K, Li Z, Wilke LG. Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3236–45.
14. Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, et al. Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(8):1533–46. doi:10.1093/annouc/mdv221.
15. Bruening W, Schoelles K, Treadwell J, Launders J, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K. Comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy for the diagnosis of breast lesions [internet]. Comparative effectiveness reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 2009, p. 19. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45220/. Accessed 21 May 2015.
16. Fancellu A, Turner RM, Dixon JM, Pinna A, Cottu P, Houssami N. Meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative breast MRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg. 2015;102(8):883–93. doi:10.1002/bjs.9797.
17. Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:145–9.
18. Pouw B, de Wit-van der Veen LJ, Stokkel MP, Loo CE, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Valdes Olmos RA. Heading toward radioactive seed localization in non-palpable breast cancer surgery? A meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111:185–91.
19. Ahmed M, Douek M. Radioactive seed localisation (RSL) in the treatment of non-palpable breast cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2013;22:383–8.
20. Ahmed M, van Hemelrijck M, Douek M. Systematic review of radioguided vs wire localization in the treatment of non-palpable breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:214–52.
21. Butler-Henderson K, Lee AH, Price RI, Waring K. Intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conserving therapy: a systematic review. Breast. 2014;23:112–9.
22. American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Statements. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in breast oncology. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/index.php. Accessed 20 May 2015.
23. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2015 NCCN guidelines for breast cancer. Use of breast MRI in patients with breast cancer. https://www.nccn.org/store/login/login.aspx?, http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2015.
24. American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for the performance of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast. http://www.acr.org/quality-safety/standards-guidelines/practice-guidelines-by-modality/breast-imaging. Accessed 20 May 2015.
25. Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015.
26. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2015 NCCN guidelines for breast cancer. Margin status in DCIS. https://www.nccn.org/store/login/login.aspx?, http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.
27. Boughey JC, Hieken TJ, Jakub JW, et al. Impact of analysis of frozen-section margin on reoperation rates in women undergoing lumpectomy for breast cancer: evaluation of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Surgery. 2014;156:190–7.
28. Schnabel F, Boolbol SK, Gittleman M, et al. A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1589–95.
29. Sebastian M, Akbari S, Anglin B, Lin EH, Police AM. The impact of use of an intraoperative margin assessment device on re-excision rates. SpringerPlus. 2015;4:198.
30. Tummers QR, Verbeek FP, Schaafsma BE, et al. Real-time intraoperative detection of breast cancer using near-infrared fluorescence imaging and Methylene Blue. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:850–8.
31. Keller MD, Majumder SK, Kelley MC, et al. Autofluorescence and diffuse reflectance spectroscopy and spectral imaging for breast surgical margin analysis. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42:15–23.
32. Keller MD, Vargis E, de Matos Granja N, et al. Development of a spatially offset Raman spectroscopy probe for breast tumor surgical margin evaluation. J Biomed Opt. 2011;16:077006.
33. Martin DT, Sandoval S, Ta CN, et al. Quantitative automated image analysis system with automated debris filtering for the detection of breast carcinoma cells. Acta Cytol. 2011;55:271–80.
34. Nguyen FT, Zysk AM, Chaney EJ, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of breast tumor margins with optical coherence tomography. Cancer Res. 2009;69:8790–6.
35. Allweis TM, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of a real-time, intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2008;196:483–9.
36. Karni T, Pappo I, Sandbank J, et al. A device for real-time, intraoperative margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2007;194:467–73.
37. The American Society of Breast Surgeons. Mastery program. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/new_layout/programs/mastery/. Accessed 20 May 2015.
38. National Quality Measures for Breast Centers. http://www2.nqmbc.org/about-us/. Accessed 20 May 2015.
39. Edge SB. Quality measurement in breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:509–17.
40. Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1269–70.
41. Morrow M, Katz SJ. The challenge of developing quality measures for breast cancer surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:509–10.
42. Schwartz T, Degnim AC, Landercasper J. Should re-excision lumpectomy rates be a quality measure in breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3180–3.
43. 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.
44. Silverstein MJ, Savalia N, Khan S, Ryan J. Extreme oncoplasty: breast conservation for patients who need mastectomy. Breast J. 2015;21:52–9.
45. Silverstein MJ, Mai T, Savalia N, Vaince F, Guerra L. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery: the new paradigm. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:82–9.
46. Clough KB, Benyahi D, Nos C, Charles C, Sarfati I. Oncoplastic surgery: pushing the limits of breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2015;21:140–6.
47. Rezai M, Knispel S, Kellersmann S, Lax H, Kimmig R, Kern P. Systematization of oncoplastic surgery: selection of surgical techniques and patient-reported outcome in a cohort of 1035 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015. doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4396-4.
48. Losken A, Pinell-White X, Hart AM, Freitas AM, Carlson GW, Styblo TM. The oncoplastic reduction approach to breast conservation therapy: benefits for margin control. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:1185–91.
49. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, et al. International consensus conference II. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:586–97.
50. Silverstein MJ, Recht A., Lagios MD, et al. Consensus conference III. Image-detected breast cancer: state-of-the-art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:504–20.
51. American College of Radiology. Appropriateness criteria for palpable breast masses. https://acsearch.acr.org/list. Accessed 20 May 2015.
52. American College of Radiology. Appropriateness criteria for Stage I breast cancer: initial workup and surveillance for local recurrence and distant metastases in asymptomatic women. https://acsearch.acr.org/list. Accessed 20 May 2015.
53. Fisher CS, Mushawah FA, Cyr AE, Gao F, Margenthaler JA. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy for palpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3198–203.
54. Davis KM, Hsu CH, Bouton ME, Wilhelmson KL, Komenaka IK. Intraoperative ultrasound can decrease the re-excision lumpectomy rate in patients with palpable breast cancers. Am Surg. 2011;77:720–5.
55. Pezner RD, Tan MC, Clancy SL, Chen YJ, Joseph T, Vora NL. Radiation therapy for breast cancer patients who undergo oncoplastic surgery: localization of the tumor bed for the local boost. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36:535–9.
56. Down SK, Jha PK, Burger A, Hussien MI. Oncological advantages of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in treatment of early breast cancer. Breast J. 2013;19:56–63.
57. Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AH, Boom RP, Meijer S. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:994–8.
58. Krekel NM, Haloua MH, Lopes Cardozo AM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:48–54.
59. Moore MM, Whitney LA, Cerilli L, Imbrie JZ, Bunch M, Simpson VB, Hanks JB. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for palpable infiltrating ductal breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233:761–8.
60. Ahmed M, Douek M. Intra-operative ultrasound vs wire localization in the surgical management of non-palpable breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;140:435–46.
61. Gray RJ, Salud C, Nguyen K, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:711–5.
62. Lovrics PJ, Goldsmith CH, Hodgson N, et al. A multicentered, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3407–14.
63. Murphy JO, Moo TA, King TA, et al. Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4121–7.
64. Postma EL, Koffijberg H, Verkooijen HM, Witkamp AJ, van den Bosch MA, van Hillegersberg R. Cost-effectiveness of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided localization (WGL) in breast conserving surgery for nonpalpable breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2219–26.
65. Medina-Franco H, Abarca-Perez L, Garcia-Alvarez MN, Ulloa-Gomez JL, Romero-Trejo C, Sepulveda-Mendez J. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided lumpectomy for non-palpable breast lesions: a randomized prospective evaluation. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:108–11.
66. Sajid MS, Parampalli U, Haider Z, Bonomi R. Comparison of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and wire localization for non-palpable breast cancers: a meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:852–8.
67. Landheer ML, Veltman J, van Eekeren R, Zeillemaker AM, Boetes C, Wobbes T. MRI-guided preoperative wire localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Clin Imaging. 2006;30:229–33.
68. van der Ploeg IM, Hobbelink M, van den Bosch MA, Mali WP, Borel Rinkes IH, van Hillegersberg R. Radioguided occult lesion localisation’ (ROLL) for non-palpable breast lesions: a review of the relevant literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1–5.
69. 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.
70. Fortunato L, Penteriani R, Farina M, Vitelli CE, Piro FR. Intraoperative ultrasound is an effective and preferable technique to localize non-palpable breast tumors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1289–92.
71. Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Vora R, Goldsmith CH, Kahnamoui K. Systematic review of radioguided surgery for non-palpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:388–97.
72. Olsha O, Shemesh D, Carmon M, et al. Resection margins in ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:447–52.
73. Cox CE, Furman B, Stowell N, et al. Radioactive seed localization breast biopsy and lumpectomy: can specimen radiographs be eliminated? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1039–47.
74. Jakub JW, Gray RJ, Degnim AC, Boughey JC, Gardner M, Cox CE. Current status of radioactive seed for localization of non palpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2010;199:522–8.
75. Fine RE, Schwalke MA, Pellicane JV, Attai DJ. A novel ultrasound-guided electrosurgical loop device for intra-operative excision of breast lesions; an improvement in surgical technique. Am J Surg. 2009;198:283–6.
76. Eichler C, Hubbel A, Zarghooni V, Thomas A, Gluz O, Stoff-Khalili M, Warm M. Intraoperative ultrasound: improved resection rates in breast-conserving surgery. Anticancer Res. 2012;32:1051–6.
77. 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.
78. Gobardhan PD, de Wall LL, van der Laan L, et al. The role of radioactive iodine-125 seed localization in breast-conserving therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:668–73.
79. Hughes JH, Mason MC, Gray RJ, et al. A multi-site validation trial of radioactive seed localization as an alternative to wire localization. Breast J. 2008;14:153–7.
80. Donker M, Drukker CA, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. Guiding breast-conserving surgery in patients after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer: a comparison of radioactive seed localization with the ROLL technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2569–75.
81. Belloni E, Canevari C, Panizza P, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: preoperative radiological guidance in radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL). Radiol Med. 2011;116:564–74.
82. Duarte GM, Cabello C, Torresan RZ, et al. Radioguided intraoperative margins evaluation (RIME): preliminary results of a new technique to aid breast cancer resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:1150–7.
83. Lavoue V, Nos C, Clough KB, et al. Simplified technique of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) plus sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNOLL) in breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2556–61.
84. Nadeem R, Chagla LS, Harris O, Desmond S, Thind R, Titterrell C, Audisio RA. Occult breast lesions: a comparison between radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) vs. wire-guided lumpectomy (WGL). Breast. 2005;14:283–9.
85. Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman B, Kaufman LB. Intraoperative ultrasonography guidance is accurate and efficient according to results in 100 breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2003;186:378–82.
86. Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman B, Kaufman L. Intraoperative ultrasound facilitates surgery for early breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:988–93.
87. Molina MA, Snell S, Franceschi D, et al. Breast specimen orientation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:285–8.
88. Singh M, Singh G, Hogan KT, Atkins KA, Schroen AT. The effect of intraoperative specimen inking on lumpectomy re-excision rates. World J Surg Oncol. 2010;8:4. doi:10.1186/1477-7819-8-4.
89. Moo TA, Choi L, Culpepper C, et al. Impact of margin assessment method on positive margin rate and total volume excised. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:86–92.
90. Hequet D, Bricou A, Koual M, et al. Systematic cavity shaving: modifications of breast cancer management and long-term local recurrence, a multicentre study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:899–905.
91. Camp ER, McAuliffe PF, Gilroy JS, Morris CG, Lind DS, Mendenhall NP, Copeland EM III. Minimizing local recurrence after breast conserving therapy using intraoperative shaved margins to determine pathologic tumor clearance. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:855–61.
92. Janes SE, Stankhe M, Singh S, Isgar B. Systematic cavity shaves reduces close margins and re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery. Breast. 2006;15:326–30.
93. Hewes JC, Imkampe A, Haji A, Bates T. Importance of routine cavity sampling in breast conservation surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96:47–53.
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. Malik HZ, George WD, Mallon EA, Harnett AN, Macmillan RD, Purushotham AD. Margin assessment by cavity shaving after breast-conserving surgery: analysis and follow-up of 543 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1999;25:464–9.
97. Rizzo M, Iyengar R, Gabram SG, Park J, Birdsong G, Chandler KL, Mosunjac MB. The effects of additional tumor cavity sampling at the time of breast-conserving surgery on final margin status, volume of resection, and pathologist workload. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:228–34.
98. Britton PD, Sonoda LI, Yamamoto AK, Koo B, Soh E, Goud A. Breast surgical specimen radiographs: how reliable are they? Eur J Radiol. 2011;79:245–9.
99. Bathla L, Harris A, Davey M, Sharma P, Silva E. High resolution intra-operative two-dimensional specimen mammography and its impact on second operation for re-excision of positive margins at final pathology after breast conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2011;202:387–94.
100. Ciccarelli G, Di Virgilio MR, Menna S, et al. Radiography of the surgical specimen in early stage breast lesions: diagnostic reliability in the analysis of the resection margins. Radiol Med. 2007;112:366–76.
101. Kim SH, Cornacchi SD, Heller B, Farrokhyar F, Babra M, Lovrics PJ. An evaluation of intraoperative digital specimen mammography versus conventional specimen radiography for the excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2013;205:703–10.
102. Layfield DM, May DJ, Cutress RI, Richardson C, Agrawal A, Wise M, Yiangou C. The effect of introducing an in-theatre intra-operative specimen radiography (IOSR) system on the management of palpable breast cancer within a single unit. Breast. 2012;21:459–63.
103. McCormick JT, Keleher AJ, Tikhomirov VB, Budway RJ, Caushaj PF. Analysis of the use of specimen mammography in breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2004;188:433–6.
104. Carmichael AR, Ninkovic G, Boparai R. The impact of intra-operative specimen radiographs on specimen weights for wide local excision of breast cancer. Breast. 2004;13:325–8.
105. Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman BA, et al. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: rapid, accurate results expedite surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1478–85.
106. Kaufman CS, Bachman BA, Jacobson L, Kaufman LB, Mahon C, Gambrell L. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: prompt image review speeds surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;192:513–5.
107. Jorns JM, Visscher D, Sabel M, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis of margins in breast conserving surgery significantly decreases reoperative rates: one-year experience at an ambulatory surgical center. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138:657–69.
108. Olson TP, Harter J, Munoz A, Mahvi DM, Breslin T. Frozen section analysis for intraoperative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgery results in low rates of re-excision and local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2953–60.
109. Osborn JB, Keeney GL, Jakub JW, Degnim AC, Boughey JC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3204–9.
110. Sable MS, Jorns JM, Wu A, Myers J, Newman LA, Breslin T. Development of an intraoperative pathology consultation service at a free-standing ambulatory surgical center: clinical and economic impact for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Am J Surg. 2012;204:66–77.
111. Cox CE, Pendas S, Ku NN, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HS, Nicosia SV. Local recurrence of breast cancer after cytological evaluation of lumpectomy margins. Am Surg. 1998;64:533–7; discussion 537–8.
112. D’Halluin F, Tas P, Rouquette S, et al. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology following lumpectomy for breast cancer: a series of 400 procedures. Breast. 2009;18:248–53.
113. Weinberg E, Cox C, Dupont E, et al. Local recurrence in lumpectomy patients after imprint cytology margin evaluation. Am J Surg. 2004;188:349–54.
114. Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G, et al. Therapeutic mammaplasties: full local control of breast cancer in one surgical stage with frozen section. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:871–5.
115. Cendan JC, Coco D, Copeland EM III. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-bed margins. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:194–8.
116. Chen K, Zeng Y, Jia H, et al. Clinical outcomes of breast-conserving surgery in patients using a modified method for cavity margin assessment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3386–94.
117. Noguchi M, Minami M, Earashi M, Taniya T, Miyazaki I, Mizukami Y, Nonomura A. Intraoperative histologic assessment of surgical margins and lymph node metastasis in breast-conserving surgery. J Surg Oncol. 1995;60:185–90.
118. Riedl O, Fitzal F, Mader N, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis for breast-conserving therapy in 1016 patients with breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:264–70.
119. Weber S, Storm FK, Stitt J, Mahvi DM. The role of frozen section analysis of margins during breast conservation surgery. Cancer J Sci Am. 1997;3:273–7.
120. Cox CE, Hyacinthe M, Gonzalez RJ, et al. Cytologic evaluation of lumpectomy margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:644–9.
121. Creager AJ, Shaw JA, Young PR, Geisinger KR. Intraoperative evaluation of lumpectomy margins by imprint cytology with histologic correlation: a community hospital experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:846–8.
122. Mannell A. Breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients: a 12-year experience. S Afr J Surg. 2005;43:28–30; discussion 30, 32.
123. Valdes EK, Boolbol SK, Cohen JM, Feldman SM. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology; does it have a role in re-excision lumpectomy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1045–50.
124. Fukamachi K, Ishida T, Usami S, Takeda M, Watanabe M, Sasano H, Ohuchi N. Total-circumference intraoperative frozen section analysis reduces margin-positive rate in breast-conservation surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40:513–20.
125. Landercasper J, Linebarger JH. Contemporary breast imaging and concordance assessment: a surgical perspective. Surg Clin North Am. 2011;91:33–58.
126. Kaufman CS. Breast care is a team sport. Breast J. 2004;10:469–72.
127. Jagsi R, Li Y, Morrow M, et al. Patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes after breast conservation and mastectomy with and without reconstruction: results of a survey of breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg. 2015;213(6):1198–206.
128. Atisha DM, Rushing CN, Samsa GP, et al. A national snapshot of satisfaction with breast cancer procedures. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:361–9.
129. Waljee JF, Rogers MA, Alderman AK. Decision aids and breast cancer: do they influence choice for surgery and knowledge of treatment options? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1067–73.
130. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Correlates of patient satisfaction and provider trust after breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 2008;112:1679–87.
131. van der Steeg AF, De Vries J, Roukema JA. The value of quality of life and health status measurements in the evaluation of the well-being of breast cancer survivors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1225–30.
132. Sackey H, Sandelin K, Frisell J, Wickman M, Brandberg Y. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Long-term follow-up of health-related quality of life, emotional reactions and body image. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:756–62.
133. De Gournay E, Bonnetain F, Tixier H, Loustalot C, Dabakuyo S, Cuisenier J. Evaluation of quality of life after breast reconstruction using an autologous latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:520–7.
134. Waljee JF, Hawley S, Alderman AK, Morrow M, Katz SJ. Patient satisfaction with treatment of breast cancer: does surgeon specialization matter? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3694–8.
135. Chen CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, et al. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Breast J. 2010;16:587–97.