Abstract
Objective
Patients and Methods
Results
Conclusion
Abbreviations and Acronyms:
DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ), ER (estrogen receptor), ERBB2 (tyrosine receptor kinase 2), OR (odds ratio), PR (progesterone receptor)Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Mayo Clinic ProceedingsReferences
- Influence of surgical margins on the outcome of breast cancer patients: a retrospective analysis.World J Surg. 2014; 38: 2279-2287
- 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: 717-730
- The importance of surgical margins in breast cancer.J Surg Oncol. 2016; 113: 256-263
- 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: 704-716
- Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ.Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 3801-3810
- 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: 3185-3191
- An assessment of margins after lumpectomy in breast cancer management.Am Surg. 2016; 82: 156-160
- Accuracy of intraoperative gross examination of surgical margin status in women undergoing partial mastectomy for breast malignancy.Am Surg. 2005; 71: 22-27
- Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery.JAMA. 2012; 307: 467-475
- Positive margins after breast-conserving therapy: localization technique or tumor biology?.Am J Surg. 2011; 202: 281-285
- The effect of intraoperative specimen inking on lumpectomy re-excision rates.World J Surg Oncol. 2010; 8: 4
- Prediction of positive margins following breast conserving surgery.Breast. 2015; 24: 46-50
- Prediction of positive resection margins in patients with non-palpable breast cancer.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41: 106-112
- HER-2 positive breast cancer is associated with an increased risk of positive cavity margins after initial lumpectomy.World J Surg Oncol. 2014; 12: 289
- Frozen sections in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery at a single ambulatory surgical center: 5 year experience.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43: 1273-1281
- Utility of intraoperative frozen section examinations of surgical margins: implication of margin-exposed tumor component features on further surgical treatment.Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015; 45: 19-25
- Reoperation rates in ductal carcinoma in situ vs invasive breast cancer after wire-guided breast-conserving surgery.JAMA Surg. 2017; 152: 378-384
- 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: 711-715
- A multi-site validation trial of radioactive seed localization as an alternative to wire localization.Breast J. 2008; 14: 153-157
- Current status of radioactive seed for localization of non palpable breast lesions.Am J Surg. 2010; 199: 522-528
- Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience.Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20: 4121-4127
- Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for lumpectomies: a comparison of outcomes.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 204: 872-877
- Radioactive seed localization or wire-guided localization of nonpalpable invasive and in situ breast cancer: a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial.Ann Surg. 2017; 266: 29-35
- Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics.BMJ. 2012; 345: e4505
- Re-resection 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: 357-363
- Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: the American Society of Breast Surgeons consensus conference.Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 3174-3183
- 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: 190-197
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins.Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18: 3204-3209
- Economic implications of widespread expansion of frozen section margin analysis to guide surgical resection in women with breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery.J Oncol Pract. 2016; 12: e413-e422
- Role of re-excision for positive and close resection margins in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery.Breast. 2014; 23: 870-875
- Intraoperative frozen section analysis for breast-conserving therapy in 1016 patients with breast cancer.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009; 35: 264-270
- Intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conservative surgery—still in use?.J Surg Oncol. 2014; 110: 15-20
- 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: 657-669
- 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: 2953-2960
- Efficacy of intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis of lumpectomy margins during breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer.Int J Clin Oncol. 2015; 20: 1093-1101
Article Info
Publication History
Footnotes
For editorial comment, see page 406; for related articles, see pages 458 and 467
Grant Support: Drs Murphy and Habermann receive salary support from the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery.
Potential Competing Interests: The authors report no competing interests.
Data Previously Presented: These data were presented in part as a poster presentation at the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in San Antonio, TX.