Effect of Cavity Shaving on Reoperation Rate Following Breast-Conserving Surgery

Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Conservative Surgery a Strategy to Reduce Positive Margins and Surgical Time

Background: Resection of additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by lumpectomy (cavity shave) was suggested to reduce rates of positive margins and re-excision. Methods: A single center retrospective study which analyzed margins status, re-excision, and surgical time in patients who underwent breast conserving surgery and cavity shave or intraoperative evaluation of resection margins. Results: Between 2021 and 2023, 594 patients were enrolled in the study. In patients subjected to cavity shave, a significant reduction in positive, focally positive, or closer margins was reported 8.9% vs. 18.5% (p = 0.003). No difference was reported in terms of surgical re-excision (p < 0.846) (5% vs. 5.5%). Surgical time was lower in patients subjected to cavity shave (<0.001). The multivariate analysis intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph node OR 1.816 and cavity shave OR 2.909 were predictive factors for a shorter surgical time. Excluding patients subjected to intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph node and patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, patients that underwent the cavity shave presented a reduced surgical time (67.9 + 3.8 min vs. 81.6 + 2.8 min) (p = 0.006). Conclusions: Cavity shaving after lumpectomy reduced the rate of positive margins and it was associated with a significant reduction in surgical time compared to intraoperative evaluation of resection margins.

Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re-excision rates? A systematic review

PURPOSE

Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical technique used in the treatment of breast cancer (BC). It may reduce margin positivity in histologic assessment and consequently reduces re- excision rates in breast conserving surgery (BCS). The evidence for this assumption is described in the present review.

METHODS

A systematic review of relevant literature in English from January 1999 to April 2019 was conducted. The analysis included studies on CS and its effects on re-excision rates and margin positivity. We searched PubMed databases for relevant publications. In total, 22 studies were included in the present review.

RESULTS

The benefit from CS on re-excision rates and histologic margin positivity was variable. Out of 22 studies, 17 reported a reduction in both re-excision rates and histologic margin positivity in margin shaved patients. Four studies could not find a significant reduction of second surgeries and residual tumor rates. One study suggested that CS after BCS was superior to single BCS only in subgroup analysis in IDC tumors.

CONCLUSION

CS is a surgical technique that was shown to reduce re-excision and margin positivity rates in most of the studies. Furthermore, it can be a useful tool to assess specimen margins and detect multifocality.

Impact of cavity shaving on residual tumor rates in patients with primary invasive carcinoma and carcinoma in situ in breast conserving surgery

Background

Several international studies reported relatively high re-excision rates due to residual tumor in breast conserving surgery (BCS). Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical strategy to reduce re-excision rates. This study aimed to investigate the effect of circumferential cavity shaving during BCS to reduce residual tumor.

Material and Methods

A total of 591 patients with early invasive carcinoma or carcinoma in situ of the breast (ICD-10, C50 or D05) who were diagnosed between 01/01/2017 and 31/12/2019 and underwent BCS in a certified breast cancer center of the University Regensburg were analyzed regarding surgical excision methods. Patients with CS during BCS and patients with targeted re-excision in a specific direction depending on the result of intraoperative mammography or sonography during BCS were compared. The risk of pathologic residual tumor (R1) was compared between both groups by means of a multivariable binary logistic regression model to determine if there is a benefit of a certain surgical method to avoid a second intervention for re-excision. We adjusted for age, tumor size, nodal status, histologic type, surgeon, breast side, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

80 (n = 13.54%) patients had CS and 511 (n = 86.46%) had a targeted re-excision in a specific direction during BCS according to intraoperative mammography or sonography. After comparing both techniques in a multivariable regression model, there was no significant difference regarding risk of residual tumor (p = 0.738) in the total cohort. However, CS showed a tendency to be favorable regarding rates of residual tumor in patients with invasive breast cancer between 60 and 70 years (p = 0.072) and smaller T1-tumors (p = 0.057) compared to targeted intraoperative re-excision following mammographic or sonographic assessment.

Conclusion

CS showed a tendency to reduce residual tumor compared to the standard technique of intraoperative re-excision in specific subgroups, although no statistical significance was reached. Further studies are needed to overcome potential limitations like surgeon-based bias and missing standardized definitions of CS to reduce residual tumor rates.

Developing diagnostic assessment of breast lumpectomy tissues using radiomic and optical signatures

High positive margin rates in oncologic breast-conserving surgery are a pressing clinical problem. Volumetric X-ray scanning is emerging as a powerful ex vivo specimen imaging technique for analyzing resection margins, but X-rays lack contrast between non-malignant and malignant fibrous tissues. In this study, combined micro-CT and wide-field optical image radiomics were developed to classify malignancy of breast cancer tissues, demonstrating that X-ray/optical radiomics improve malignancy classification. Ninety-two standardized features were extracted from co-registered micro-CT and optical spatial frequency domain imaging samples extracted from 54 breast tumors exhibiting seven tissue subtypes confirmed by microscopic histological analysis. Multimodal feature sets improved classification performance versus micro-CT alone when adipose samples were included (AUC = 0.88 vs. 0.90; p-value = 3.65e-11) and excluded, focusing the classification task on exclusively non-malignant fibrous versus malignant tissues (AUC = 0.78 vs. 0.85; p-value = 9.33e-14). Extending the radiomics approach to high-dimensional optical data-termed "optomics" in this study-offers a promising optical image analysis technique for cancer detection. Radiomic feature data and classification source code are publicly available.

Resection of Cavity Shave Margins in Stage 0-III Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Single-center studies have demonstrated that resection of cavity shave margins (CSM) halves the rate of positive margins and re-excision in breast cancer patients undergoing partial mastectomy (PM). We sought to determine if these findings were externally generalizable across practice settings.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial occurring in 9 centers across the United States, stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing PM were randomly assigned to either have resection of CSM ("shave" group) or not ("no shave" group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively, after the surgeon had completed their standard PM. Primary outcome measures were positive margin and re-excision rates.

RESULTS

Between July 28, 2016 and April 13, 2018, 400 patients were enrolled in this trial. Four patients (2 in each arm) did not meet inclusion criteria after randomization, leaving 396 patients for analysis: 196 in the "shave" group and 200 to the "no shave" group. Median patient age was 65 years (range; 29-94). Groups were well matched at baseline for demographic and clinicopathologic factors. Prior to randomization, positive margin rates were similar in the "shave" and "no shave" groups (76/196 (38.8%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), respectively, P = 0.604). After randomization, those in the "shave" group were significantly less likely than those in the "no shave" group to have positive margins (19/196 (9.7%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), P < 0.001), and to require re-excision or mastectomy for margin clearance (17/196 (8.7%) vs. 47/200 (23.5%), P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Resection of CSM significantly reduces positive margin and re-excision rates in patients undergoing PM.

Breast-Conserving Surgeries With and Without Cavity Shave Margins Have Different Re-excision Rates and Associated Overall Cost: Institutional and Patient-Driven Decisions for Its Utilization

BACKGROUND

Reducing the rate of margin positivity and reoperations remains a paramount goal in breast-conserving surgery (BCS). This study assesses the effectiveness of standard partial mastectomy with cavity shave margins (CSM) compared with partial mastectomy with selective margin resection (SPM), with regard to outcomes of the initial surgeries, re-excisions, and overall costs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 122 eligible breast cancer patients who underwent BCS at one institution. The CSM and SPM groups each included 61 patients, matched for presurgical diagnoses and clinical stage. Data including margin status, rates and reason for re-excision, associated operation times, and costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing CSM had less than half the rate of positive margins (PMs) (10% vs. 23%; P = .03) and re-excisions (8% vs. 23%; P = .02) compared with SPM. In the former group, the margin involvement was focal, and re-excisions were performed almost exclusively for PMs. For SPM, the majority (92%) of PMs were on the main lumpectomy specimen rather than the selective margins, and re-excisions included, in addition to PMs, extensive or multifocal negative but close margins. Reduced breast tissue volumes were removed with CSM, particularly for patients undergoing a single surgery (47 vs. 165 cm³; P < .001). The initial surgery with CSM is on average 27% more costly than that for SPM (P < .001), due to the increased pathology costs which are partially offset by the increased re-excision rates in SPM.

CONCLUSION

Circumferential cavity shaving, associated with consistent lower PMs, tissue volumes excised, and re-excision rates, is appropriate for routine implementation as a method offering superior surgical outcomes.

Routine cavity shaves following breast conserving surgery; friend or foe?

BACKGROUND

Radial margin status is considered one of the most important prognostic predictor for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCT), not only related to regional recurrence but also to 5y survival, especially in patients with invasive disease.

AIM

While our primary aim was to evaluate whether doing routine radial cavity shaves following at the time of primary conservative breast surgery will decrease the need for a second operation or not, our secondary aim was to assess time added to the operation to resect and mark the radial shaves, as well as patients' satisfaction with the results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We have conducted a case series prospective analysis, including158 patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery looking into the histological status of resection margins and radial shaves, added time taken to take and mark the shaves as well as patients' satisfaction.

RESULTS

158 female breast cancer patients have been included in our analysis, the mean age was 56 years; total number of lesions was 160. While 89.3% of lesions were palpable, 10.6% were not requiring wire-guided localisation. Mean tumour size was 24 mm SD 7, final histology revealed that 86.8% lesion was invasive ductal carcinoma, 5.6% invasive lobular carcinoma, 1.2% medullary carcinoma. 12.4% had invasive disease as well as DCIS, and 1.8% had DCIS only with no invasive disease. Mean preoperative breast volume was 723 ml, Mean wide local excision specimen weight was 73 g, and mean shave weight was 1.6 g. Total number of radial margins was 640, 81.8% was clear, 14.6% was close, and 3.4% was involved. Total number of shaves was 640 out of which 98.7% was clear 0.7% was close and 0.4% was involved. Out of the 160 lesions, 3.7% required a second procedure to clear margins, out of which 2.5% had re-excision for close or involved single shaves each while 1.2% had mastectomy due to close or involved two shaves each. Average time utilised in resection of radial shaves and marking was 7 min 0.6% of patients developed a haematoma, 1.8% had a Seroma, and 1.2% had wound infection. Mean hospital stay was 1day SD 1.

CONCLUSION

Routine radial cavity shaves not only ensure microscopic clearance, reduce the need for re-excision with no significant added operating time but also has no impact on patients' satisfaction.

Practical consensus recommendations for tumor margins and breast conservative surgery

My suggestion: There is no difference in survival of breast cancer patients treated with either mastectomy or with breast conservation therapy combined with external beam radiotherapy. A positive margin (s) is an important factor contributing to the increased risk of local recurrence. However, in published literature, there is a lack of consensus on the definition of acceptable margin (s). As a result decision process about need for re-excision after positive margins remains uncrear.

Real-time electromagnetic navigation for breast-conserving surgery using NaviKnife technology: A matched case-control study

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a mainstay in breast cancer treatment. For nonpalpable breast cancers, current strategies have limited accuracy, contributing to high positive margin rates. We developed NaviKnife, a surgical navigation system based on real-time electromagnetic (EM) tracking. The goal of this study was to confirm the feasibility of intraoperative EM navigation in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer and to assess the potential value of surgical navigation. We recruited 40 patients with ultrasound visible, single, nonpalpable lesions, undergoing BCS. Feasibility was assessed by equipment functionality and sterility, acceptable duration of the operation, and surgeon feedback. Secondary outcomes included specimen volume, positive margin rate, and reoperation outcomes. Study patients were compared to a control group by a matched case-control analysis. There was no equipment failure or breach of sterility. The median operative time was 66 (44-119) minutes with NaviKnife vs 65 (34-158) minutes for the control (P = .64). NaviKnife contouring time was 3.2 (1.6-9) minutes. Surgeons rated navigation as easy to setup, easy to use, and useful in guiding nonpalpable tumor excision. The mean specimen volume was 95.4 ± 73.5 cm³ with NaviKnife and 140.7 ± 100.3 cm³ for the control (P = .01). The positive margin rate was 22.5% with NaviKnife and 28.7% for the control (P = .52). The re-excision specimen contained residual disease in 14.3% for NaviKnife and 50% for the control (P = .28). Our results demonstrate that real-time EM navigation is feasible in the operating room for BCS. Excisions performed with navigation result in the removal of less breast tissue without compromising postive margin rates.

Definition and Management of Positive Margins for Invasive Breast Cancer

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by radiation therapy is the current standard of care for early stage breast cancer. Successful BCS necessitates complete tumor resection with clear margins at the pathologic assessment of the specimen ("no ink on tumor"). The presence of positive margins warrants additional surgery to obtain negative final margins, which has significant physical, psychological, and financial implications for the patient. The challenge lies in developing accurate real-time intraoperative margin assessment techniques to minimize the presence of "ink on tumor" and the subsequent need for additional surgery.

Breast Specimen Processing and Reporting With an Emphasis on Margin Evaluation: A College of American Pathologists Survey of 866 Laboratories

CONTEXT

- The College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed protocols for reporting pathologic characteristics of breast cancer specimens, including margin status. The Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) published treatment guidelines regarding margins in patients with invasive cancer; and SSO, ASTRO, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recently published guidelines for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ.

OBJECTIVE

- To assess current practices among pathologists with regard to the processing/reporting of breast specimens, assess compliance with CAP cancer protocols, and assess alignment with SSO/ASTRO and SSO/ASTRO/ASCO guidelines.

DESIGN

- A survey concerning breast specimen processing/reporting was distributed to pathologists enrolled in the CAP Performance Improvement Program in Surgical Pathology.

RESULTS

- Ninety-four percent (716 of 764 respondents) and 91% (699 of 769 respondents) define positive margins as "tumor on ink" for invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ, respectively, in compliance with CAP cancer protocols and with SSO/ASTRO and SSO/ASTRO/ASCO guidelines. Of 791 respondents who provided details regarding methods for margin evaluation, 608 (77%) exclusively examine perpendicular margins, facilitating guideline compliance. However, 183 of 791 respondents (23%) examine en face margins in at least a subset of specimens, which may preclude guideline compliance in some cases. When separate cavity (shave) margins are examined, while 517 of 586 respondents (88%) ink these specimens, 69 of 586 (12%) do not, and this may also preclude guideline compliance in some cases.

CONCLUSIONS

- A substantial proportion of survey participants report margin status for breast cancer specimens in a manner consistent with CAP cancer protocols, and in alignment with SSO/ASTRO and SSO/ASTRO/ASCO guidelines. However, there are opportunities for some laboratories to modify procedures in order to facilitate more complete adherence to guidelines.

Differences Among a Modern Cohort of BRCA Mutation Carriers Choosing Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomies Compared to Breast Surveillance

BACKGROUND

Women with a BRCA mutation have significantly elevated breast cancer risk, which can be reduced by >90% with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM). We sought to compare a cohort of BRCA mutation carriers choosing BPM versus breast surveillance to better elucidate factors that may impact decision making.

METHODS

Women with a BRCA mutation were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database. The surveillance cohort (n = 313) consisted of women seen in a high-risk clinic between 2014 and 2016, while the surgery cohort (n = 142) consisted of women who underwent BPM between 2010 and 2016. Clinical and familial factors were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Women choosing BPM were more likely to have a BRCA1 than BRCA2 mutation compared with the surveillance group (57 vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and were less likely to have a personal history of ovarian cancer (10 vs. 20%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, women undergoing BPM were more likely to be married (78 vs. 62%, p = 0.01), to have more children (median 2 vs. 1, p < 0.001), and to have undergone a prophylactic oophorectomy (61 vs. 37%, p < 0.001). Women choosing BPM had more first-degree relatives (63 vs. 48%, p = 0.01) or a sister (23 vs. 14%, p = 0.02) with a history of breast cancer and were more likely to have a family member with ovarian cancer under the age of 40 years (9 vs. 4%, p = 0.03). There was no difference in the number of prior breast biopsies or history of atypia/lobular carcinoma in situ.

CONCLUSION

The decision to undergo BPM appears multifactorial, with gene mutation, family history, and relationships appearing to have the strongest influence on decision making.

Economic Impact of Routine Cavity Margins Versus Standard Partial Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare costs associated with excision of routine cavity shave margins (CSM) versus standard partial mastectomy (PM) in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND

Excision of CSM reduces re-excision rates by more than 50%. The economic implications of this is, however, unclear.

METHODS

Between October 21, 2011 and November 25, 2013, 235 women undergoing PM for Stage 0-III breast cancer were randomized to undergo either standard PM ("no shave", n = 116) or have additional CSM taken ("shave", n = 119). Costs from both a payer and a hospital perspective were measured for index surgery and breast cancer surgery-related care through subsequent 90 days.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were well-matched in terms of baseline characteristics. Those in the "shave" group had a longer operative time at the initial surgery (median 76 vs 66 min, P < 0.01), but a lower re-excision rate for positive margins (13/119 = 10.9% vs 32/116 = 27.6%, P < 0.01). Actual direct hospital costs associated with operating room time ($1315 vs. $1137, P = 0.03) and pathology costs ($1195 vs $795, P < 0.01) were greater for the initial surgery in patients in the "shave" group. Taking into account the index surgery and the subsequent 90 days, there was no significant difference in cost from either the payer ($10,476 vs $11,219, P = 0.40) or hospital perspective ($5090 vs $5116, P = 0.37) between the "shave" and "no shave" groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall costs were not significantly different between the "shave" and "no shave" groups due to significantly fewer reoperative surgeries in the former.

Cavity Shaving plus Lumpectomy versus Lumpectomy Alone for Patients with Breast Cancer Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The margin status is a well-established prognostic predictor for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Recent data suggested that cavity shaving in addition to lumpectomy might be a promising approach for improving the clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between cavity shaving plus lumpectomy and lumpectomy alone with a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for studies comparing cavity shaving with lumpectomy before June 10, 2016. Both comparative studies and self-control studies were included. A random-effects model was used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for positive margin rate, reoperation rate, recurrence rate, and weighted mean difference (WMD) for excised tissue volume. Twenty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis. The cavity shaving group had a significantly lower positive margin rate than the BCS-alone group (16.4% vs. 31.9%; OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.53, P < 0.05). Cavity shaving was associated with a significantly decreased rate of reoperation (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.59, P < 0.05). The overall locoregional rate was low for cavity shaving and BCS-alone (3% vs. 4%). Cavity shaving had no significant effect on the risk of locoregional recurrence (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.32-2.35; P = 0.78). The excised tissue volume did not differ substantially between cavity shaving and BCS alone (WMD = -23.88, 95% CI -55.20 to 7.44, P = 0.14). For patients undergoing BCS, additional cavity shaving was an effective method to decrease the positive margin rate and avoid reoperation. The addition of cavity shaving did not appear to have excessive excised tissue volume compared with partial mastectomy alone.

Achieving clear margins. Directed shaving using MarginProbe, as compared to a full cavity shave approach

BACKGROUND

Following lumpectomy, full cavity shaving approach is used to reduce positive margin rates, among other issues previously studied by others, at an expense of increase in tissue volume removed. We present our experience after switching from full cavity shaving to a targeted shaving approach using MarginProbe, an intra-operative margin assessment device.

METHODS

Specimen excision was performed according to standard of care. Additional shavings were taken based on device readings on the lumpectomy specimen. Intra-operative imaging was used, as required.

RESULTS

We compared 137 MarginProbe cases to 199 full cavity shave cases. The re-excision rate was reduced by 57% (P = 0.026), from 15.1% to 6.6%. The overall tissue volume removed was reduced by 32% (P = 0.0023), from 115 cc to 78 cc.

CONCLUSIONS

MarginProbe enabled a change in the lumpectomy technique from full cavity shavings to directed shavings guided by the device. There was a significant reduction in re-excisions and in the overall tissue volume removed.The lower amount of shavings also contributed to a reduction in pathology work.

Appropriate margin for lumpectomy excision of invasive breast cancer

The management of patients with early-stage breast cancer has evolved over time, with the understanding that tumor biology, and not just disease burden, impact local control. Local control is greatly improved with systemic therapy, providing an opportunity to decrease the morbidity of local therapy in women with invasive breast cancer. In women undergoing breast-conserving therapy, which consists of lumpectomy and whole-breast irradiation, there has been a lack of consensus as to what constitutes a negative margin. Current evidence indicates that wider margins do not reduce local recurrence compared to "no tumor on ink". In this article, we will review the available data on the relationship between margin status and local control for invasive breast cancer, and discuss the impact of molecular subtypes and systemic therapy on local control.

Impact of Consensus Guidelines by the Society of Surgical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery in Stages 1 and 2 Invasive Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the impact that the release of consensus guidelines for margins in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) had on re-excision rates.

METHODS

A retrospective review examined a prospectively maintained database of patients who had operable invasive breast cancer treated with BCS at the authors' institution. The patients were divided into two groups: (1) those with a diagnosis determined from 1 July 2011 to 31 July 2013 (before release of the guidelines) and (2) those with a diagnosis determined from 1 February 2014 to 31 July 2014 (after release of the guidelines). The groups were evaluated with respect to patient and tumor characteristics, re-excision rates, and reasons for re-excision.

RESULTS

A total of 846 cases of BCS were managed: 597 in group 1 and 249 in group 2. Re-excision rates were significantly reduced after release of the consensus guidelines (p = 0.03). Re-excisions were performed for 115 (19 %) of 597 patients in group 1 and 32 (13 %) of 249 patients in group 2. After release of the guidelines, re-excisions were performed for positive margins, as defined by the consensus statement, in 25 (78 %) of 32 cases. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, tumor size, grade, nodal status, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. Group 1 had more tumors of mixed ductal and lobular histology than group 2, and group 2 had more lobular tumors than group 1 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus guidelines on margins for BCS were applied for 78 % of the patients who underwent re-excision and resulted in a significant reduction in re-excision rates.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Routine resection of cavity shave margins (additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by partial mastectomy) may reduce the rates of positive margins (margins positive for tumor) and reexcision among patients undergoing partial mastectomy for breast cancer.

METHODS

In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, 235 patients with breast cancer of stage 0 to III who were undergoing partial mastectomy, with or without resection of selective margins, to have further cavity shave margins resected (shave group) or not to have further cavity shave margins resected (no-shave group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively after surgeons had completed standard partial mastectomy. Positive margins were defined as tumor touching the edge of the specimen that was removed in the case of invasive cancer and tumor that was within 1 mm of the edge of the specimen removed in the case of ductal carcinoma in situ. The rate of positive margins was the primary outcome measure; secondary outcome measures included cosmesis and the volume of tissue resected.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 61 years (range, 33 to 94). On final pathological testing, 54 patients (23%) had invasive cancer, 45 (19%) had ductal carcinoma in situ, and 125 (53%) had both; 11 patients had no further disease. The median size of the tumor in the greatest diameter was 1.1 cm (range, 0 to 6.5) in patients with invasive carcinoma and 1.0 cm (range, 0 to 9.3) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Groups were well matched at baseline with respect to demographic and clinicopathological characteristics. The rate of positive margins after partial mastectomy (before randomization) was similar in the shave group and the no-shave group (36% and 34%, respectively; P=0.69). After randomization, patients in the shave group had a significantly lower rate of positive margins than did those in the no-shave group (19% vs. 34%, P=0.01), as well as a lower rate of second surgery for margin clearance (10% vs. 21%, P=0.02). There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cavity shaving halved the rates of positive margins and reexcision among patients with partial mastectomy. (Funded by the Yale Cancer Center; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01452399.).

Margins in breast conservation: a clinician's perspective and what the literature tells us

The optimal margin in breast-conserving surgery is controversial, and re-excision is common. Pathologic margin assessment is not standardized, and tumor biology and the use of systemic therapy have a major impact on local control. A study-level meta-analysis found no difference in local recurrence for margin widths of 1, 2, and 5 mm, leading a multidisciplinary panel to recommend adoption of no ink on tumor as the standard definition of a negative margin.

The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

There is no consensus on what constitutes adequate negative margins in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). We systematically review the evidence on surgical margins in BCT for invasive breast cancer to support the development of clinical guidelines.

METHODS

Study-level meta-analysis of studies reporting local recurrence (LR) data relative to final microscopic margin status and the threshold distance for negative margins. LR proportion was modeled using random-effects logistic meta-regression.

RESULTS

Based on 33 studies (LR in 1,506 of 28,162), the odds of LR were associated with margin status [model 1: odds ratio (OR) 1.96 for positive/close vs negative; model 2: OR 1.74 for close vs. negative, 2.44 for positive vs. negative; (P < 0.001 both models)] but not with margin distance [model 1: >0 mm vs. 1 mm (referent) vs. 2 mm vs. 5 mm (P = 0.12); and model 2: 1 mm (referent) vs. 2 mm vs. 5 mm (P = 0.90)], adjusting for study median follow-up time. There was little to no statistical evidence that the odds of LR decreased as the distance for declaring negative margins increased, adjusting for follow-up time [model 1: 1 mm (OR 1.0, referent), 2 mm (OR 0.95), 5 mm (OR 0.65), P = 0.21 for trend; and model 2: 1 mm (OR 1.0, referent), 2 mm (OR 0.91), 5 mm (OR 0.77), P = 0.58 for trend]. Adjustment for covariates, such as use of endocrine therapy or median-year of recruitment, did not change the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis confirms that negative margins reduce the odds of LR; however, increasing the distance for defining negative margins is not significantly associated with reduced odds of LR, allowing for follow-up time. Adoption of wider relative to narrower margin widths to declare negative margins is unlikely to have a substantial additional benefit for long-term local control in BCT.

Impact of margin assessment method on positive margin rate and total volume excised

BACKGROUND

For breast-conserving surgery, the method of margin assessment that most frequently achieves negative margins without increasing the volume of tissue excised is uncertain. We examined our institutional experience with three different margin assessment methods used by six experienced breast surgeons.

METHODS

Patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery for invasive carcinoma during July to December of a representative year during which each method was performed (perpendicular, 2003; tangential, 2004; cavity shave, 2011) were included. The effect of margin method on the positive margin rate at first excision and the total volume excised to achieve negative margins were evaluated by multivariable analysis, by surgeon, and by tumor size and presence of extensive intraductal component (EIC).

RESULTS

A total of 555 patients were identified, as follows: perpendicular, 140; tangential, 124; and cavity shave, 291. The tangential method had a higher rate of positive margins at first excision than the perpendicular and cavity-shave methods (49, 15, 11 %, respectively; p < 0.0001). Median volumes to achieve negative margins were similar (55 ml perpendicular; 64 ml tangential; 62 ml cavity shave; p = 0.24). Four of six surgeons had the lowest rate of positive margins with the cavity-shave method, which was significant when compared to the tangential method (p < 0.0001) but not the perpendicular method (p = 0.37). The volume excised by the three methods varied by surgeon (p < 0.0001). The perpendicular method was optimal for T1 tumors without EIC; the cavity-shave method tended to be superior for T2-T3 tumors and/or EIC.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the cavity-shave method may decrease the rates of positive margins, its effect on volume is variable among surgeons and may result in an increase in the total volume excised for some surgeons and for small tumors without EIC.

Preoperative localization and surgical margins in conservative breast surgery

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the treatment of choice for early breast cancer. The adequacy of surgical margins (SM) is a crucial issue for adjusting the volume of excision and for avoiding local recurrences, although the precise definition of an adequate margins width remains controversial. Moreover, other factors such as the biological behaviour of the tumor and subsequent proper systemic therapies may influence the local recurrence rate (LRR). However, a successful BCS requires preoperative localization techniques or margin assessment techniques. Carbon marking, wire-guided, biopsy clips, radio-guided, ultrasound-guided, frozen section analysis, imprint cytology, and cavity shave margins are commonly used, but from the literature review, no single technique proved to be better among the various ones. Thus, an association of two or more methods could result in a decrease in rates of involved margins. Each institute should adopt its most congenial techniques, based on the senologic equipe experience, skills, and technologies.

[Realizing systematic cavity margins in conservative breast cancer surgery]

The quality of surgical margins in lumpectomy are strong criteria to define risk of locoregional recurrence when conservative treatment is undertaken. Intraoperatively, the limits of adequate resection are sometimes difficult to define. This is why some teams propose the realization of systematic cavity margins during the excision of lumpectomy during the same operation. We expose the potential benefits of this type of practice using data from the literature.

Influence of surgical technique on mastectomy and reexcision rates in breast-conserving therapy for cancer

Introduction. Breast conserving surgery (BCS) requires tumor excision with negative margins. Reexcision rates of 30-50% are reported. Ultrasound localization, intraoperative margin pathology, and specimen mammography have reduced reexcisions, but require new equipment. Cavity shave margin (CSM) is a technique, utilizing existing equipment, that potentially reduces reexcision. This study evaluates CSM reexcision impact. Methods. 522 cancers treated with BCS were reviewed. Patients underwent standard partial mastectomy (SPM) or CSM. Data collected included demographics, pathology, and treatments. Results. 455 SPMs were compared to 67 CSMs. Analysis revealed no differences in pathology, intraductal component, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Overall reexcision rate = 43%. Most reexcisions were performed for DCIS at margin. SPMs underwent 213 reexcisions (46.8%), versus 16/67 (23.9%) CSMs (P = 0.0003). Total mastectomy as definitive procedure was performed after more SPMs (P = 0.009). Multivariate analysis revealed CSM, % DCIS, tumor size, and race to influence reexcisions. Conclusions. CSM is a technique that reduces reexcisions and mastectomy rates.

Impact of routine cavity shave margins on breast cancer re-excision rates

PURPOSE

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is an accepted method of treating early breast cancer. We hypothesized that routine excision of additional cavity shave margins (CSM) at time of initial partial mastectomy reduces the need for additional surgery.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review was performed of women, 18 years or older, with a new diagnosis of breast cancer who underwent partial mastectomy between 1 January 2004 and 1 October 2009. Five hundred thirty-three charts were reviewed. Of those, 69 patients underwent CSM at time of initial operation. These 69 patients were matched with patients who had undergone partial mastectomy without CSM by tumor size, presence of extensive intraductal component, and primary histology.

RESULTS

The two groups were well matched for age, nuclear grade, associated lymphovascular invasion (LVI), receptor status, and multifocality. We found that 31.9% (44/138) required return to the operating room (OR) for re-excision of margins. Rate of return to the OR was 21.7% (15/69) in the CSM group and 42.0% (29/69) in the matched group (p = 0.011). Multivariate analysis found factors significantly associated with need for additional operation included lack of CSM (odds ratio 9.2, 95% CI 2.8-30.5, p = 0.0003), larger extent of intraductal component (odds ratio 7.0, 95% CI 1.8-27.0, p = 0.005), and lack of directed re-excision (odds ratio 6.4, 95% CI 1.7-25.1, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

CSM at time of initial partial mastectomy decreases rate of re-excision by as much as ninefold. CSM should be considered at time of initial operation to reduce the need for subsequent reoperation.

The effects of additional tumor cavity sampling at the time of breast-conserving surgery on final margin status, volume of resection, and pathologist workload

INTRODUCTION

Margin status is an important prognostic factor for local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in patients with breast malignancy. It is unclear whether the removal of additional tumor cavity margins reduces the reoperation rate and is cosmetically acceptable. This study compares the reoperation rates, volume of breast excised in cm(3), and number of pathology slides examined in two groups of patients who underwent BCS with or without four or five additional margins (BCS + M).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 320 patients who underwent BCS or BCS + M for stage 0-I-II breast cancer from 2004 to 2007. We classified the margins as negative (>or=1 mm), close (<1 mm), or positive based on the distance from the tumor to the margin of resection.

RESULTS

Of 320 cases analyzed, 199 (62.2%) underwent BCS and 121 (37.8%) had BCS + M. Overall, patients with BCS + M had a higher negative margins rate (85.1% vs. 57.2%, P < 0.05) and a lower reoperation rate. However, when ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) were analyzed separately, only patients with IDC showed a higher negative margin rate (91% vs. 62.1%, P < 0.001) and a lower volume of breast tissue excised (205.63 vs. 392.27, P = 0.03). There was no significant increase in pathology workload in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Resection of four to five additional margins during BCS for early-stage invasive breast cancer results in a higher rate of negative microscopic margins, lower volume of breast excised, and subsequently, a lower reoperation rate. The advantages of this approach include improved patient satisfaction and decreased cost.

Standardized and reproducible methodology for the comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The primary goal of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to completely excise the tumor and achieve "adequate" or "negative" surgical resection margins while maintaining an acceptable level of postoperative cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, precise determination of the adequacy of BCS has long been debated. In this regard, the aim of the current paper was to describe a standardized and reproducible methodology for comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during BCS.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 204 BCS procedures performed for invasive breast cancer from August 2003 to June 2007, in which patients underwent a standard BCS resection and systematic sampling of nine standardized re-resection margins (superior, superior-medial, superior-lateral, medial, lateral, inferior, inferior-medial, inferior-lateral, and deep-posterior). Multiple variables (including patient, tumor, specimen, and follow-up variables) were evaluated.

RESULTS

6.4% (13/204) of patients had positive BCS specimen margins (defined as tumor at inked edge of BCS specimen) and 4.4% (9/204) of patients had close margins (defined as tumor within 1 mm or less of inked edge but not at inked edge of BCS specimen). 11.8% (24/204) of patients had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease, independent of the status of the BCS specimen margins. 7.1% (13/182) of patients with negative BCS specimen margins (defined as no tumor cells seen within 1 mm or less of inked edge of BCS specimen) had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease. Thus, 54.2% (13/24) of patients with additional disease in a re-resection margin would not have been recognized by a standard BCS procedure alone (P < 0.001). The nine standardized resection margins represented only 26.8% of the volume of the BCS specimen and 32.6% of the surface area of the BCS specimen.

CONCLUSION

Our methodology accurately assesses the adequacy of surgical resection margins for determination of which individuals may need further resection to the affected breast in order to minimize the potential risk of local recurrence while attempting to limit the volume of additional breast tissue excised, as well as to determine which individuals are not realistically amendable to BCS and instead need a completion mastectomy to successfully remove multifocal disease.