Early Adoption of the SSO-ASTRO Consensus Guidelines on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery with Whole-Breast Irradiation in Stage I and II Invasive Breast Cancer: Initial Experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 3239-3246

  Rosenberger, Laura H ^a   Mamtani, Anita ^a   Fuzesi, Sarah ^a   Stempel, Michelle ^a   Eaton, Anne ^a   Morrow, Monica ^a   Gemignani, Mary L ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONSENSUS; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR POSITIVE BREAST CANCER; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR POSITIVE BREAST CANCER; REOPERATION; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER; TUMOR INVASION; TUMOR VOLUME; WHOLE BREAST IRRADIATION; ADJUVANT RADIOTHERAPY; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER CENTER; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; MULTIPLE CANCER; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGICAL MARGIN; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANCER CARE FACILITIES; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERRUPTED TIME SERIES ANALYSIS; MARGINS OF EXCISION; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; NEOPLASMS, MULTIPLE PRIMARY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RADIOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; REOPERATION;

EID: 84978121198     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5397-7     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. 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;17:558–63.
2. McCahill LE, Privette A, James T, et al. Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg. 2009;144:455–62.
3. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–75.
4. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302:1551–6.
5. King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2158–64.
6. 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.
7. Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:503–10.
8. Corben AD, Morrow M. Margins in breast cancer surgery. In: El-Tamer MB, editor. Principles and techniques in oncoplastic breast cancer surgery. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing; 2012. p. 65–85.
9. 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.
10. DeSnyder SM, Hunt KK, Smith BD, Moran MS, Klimberg S, Lucci A. 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. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3250–6.
11. 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;8:113–8.
12. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Harris JR, Hellman S, Cohen RB. Pathologic predictors of early local recurrence in Stage I and II breast cancer treated by primary radiation therapy. Cancer. 1984;53:1049–57.
13. Schnitt SJ, Abner A, Gelman R, et al. The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer. 1994;74:1746–51.
14. 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;46:3219–32.
15. 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.
16. Pilewskie M, Ho A, Orell E, et al. Effect of margin width on local recurrence in triple-negative breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1209–14.
17. Hadzikadic Gusic L, McGuire KP, Ozmen T, et al. Margin width is not predictive of residual disease on re-excision in breast conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:426–30.
18. O’Brien J, Morrow M. Margin width is not predictive of residual disease on re-excision in breast-conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:507–8.
19. Russo AL, Arvold ND, Niemierko A, et al. Margin status and the risk of local recurrence in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:353–61.
20. Isaacs AJ, Gemignani ML, Pusic A, Sedrakyan A. Association of breast conservation surgery for cancer with 90-day reoperation rates in New York State. JAMA Surg. 2015. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5535.
21. Nag U, Hwang ES. Reoperation for margins after breast conservation surgery: what’s old is new again. JAMA Surg. 2015. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5555.