Abstract
Objective
To identify factors predicting positive margins at lumpectomy prompting intraoperative
reexcision in patients with breast cancer treated at a large referral center.
Patients and Methods
We reviewed all breast cancer lumpectomy cases managed at our institution from January
1, 2012, through December 31, 2013. Associations between rates of positive margin
and patient and tumor factors were assessed using χ2 tests and univariate and adjusted multivariate logistic regression, stratified by
ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive cancer.
Results
We identified 382 patients who underwent lumpectomy for definitive surgical resection
of breast cancer, 102 for DCIS and 280 for invasive cancer. Overall, 234 patients
(61.3%) required intraoperative reexcision for positive margins. The reexcision rate
was higher in patients with DCIS than in those with invasive disease (78.4% [80 of
102] vs 56.4% [158 of 280]; univariate odds ratio, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.66-4.76; P<.001). Positive margin rates did not vary by patient age, surgeon, estrogen receptor,
progesterone receptor, or ERBB2 status of the tumor. Among the 280 cases of invasive
breast cancer, the only factor independently associated with lower odds of margin
positivity was seed localization vs no localization (P=.03).
Conclusion
Ductal carcinoma in situ was associated with a higher rate of positive margins at
lumpectomy than invasive breast cancer on univariate analysis. Within invasive disease,
seed localization was associated with lower rates of margin positivity.
Abbreviations and Acronyms:
DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ), ER (estrogen receptor), ERBB2 (tyrosine receptor kinase 2), OR (odds ratio), PR (progesterone receptor)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
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 ProceedingsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- 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
Published online: February 10, 2018
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.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
