Factors Associated With Positive Margins in Women Undergoing Breast Conservation Surgery

Radioactive Seed Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study is a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing radioactive seed localization (RSL) versus radio-guided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and wire-guided localization (WGL) for patients with impalpable breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery and evaluating efficacy, safety, and logistical outcomes. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42022299726.

METHODS

A search was conducted in the Embase, Lilacs, Pubmed, Scielo, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, in addition to a manual search in the reference list of relevant articles, for randomized clinical trials and cohort studies. Studies selected were submitted to their own data extraction forms and risk of bias analysis according to the ROB 2 and ROBINS 1 tools. A meta-analysis was performed, considering the random effect model, calculating the relative risk or the mean difference for dichotomous or continuous data, respectively. The quality of the evidence generated was analyzed by outcome according to the GRADE tool. Overall, 46 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review; of these, 4 studies compared RSL and ROLL with a population of 1550 women, and 43 compared RSL and WGL with a population of 19,820 women.

RESULTS

The results showed that RSL is a superior method to WGL in terms of surgical efficiency in the impalpable breast lesions' intraoperative localization, and it is at least equivalent to ROLL. Regarding security, RSL obtained results equivalent to the already established technique, the WGL. In addition to presenting promising results, RSL has been proven to be superior to WGL and ROLL technologies.

Risk Factors for Positive Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery

Introduction Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by adjuvant radiotherapy has similar overall survival compared to mastectomy but is associated with higher rates of local recurrence. Positive surgical margins in BCS are the most important predictor of local recurrence. The aim of our study was to assess the risk factors associated with positive margins in women undergoing BCS for breast cancer in order to inform our clinical practice and minimize re-operation rates. Methods Patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer who underwent BCS from January 2013 to January 2021 were identified from our pathology database and included in the study. All patients underwent a lumpectomy with the removal of additional shaved cavity margins. Statistical analysis was used to assess the effect of patient clinical and pathological risk factors on the rate of positive margins. Results One hundred and twenty patients underwent BCS for breast cancer. Twenty-four percent of patients had positive margins. Of the 29 patients that underwent subsequent re-excisions, only 13 (45%) had residual disease in the re-excision specimen. In younger patients, tumors localized in lower quadrants and the presence of extensive intraductal component within invasive breast cancer increased the risk of positive margins. In addition, positive margins were encountered more significantly in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared to invasive tumors. Multivariate analysis showed that DCIS and young age were the only factors independently associated with positive margins. Conclusion DCIS and younger patients have a higher rate of positive margins during BCS than invasive breast cancer. For such patients at higher risk of positive margins, excision of cavity shave margins and intraoperative inking may be done to lower positive margin rates. Preoperative review of breast imaging, core biopsies, and counseling of patients about the likelihood of positive margins is important.

Positive surgical margins after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in-situ: does histologic grade or estrogen receptor status matter?

PURPOSE

DCIS has been shown to have a higher rate of positive margins following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) than invasive breast cancer. We aim to analyze certain factors of DCIS, specifically histologic grade and estrogen receptor (ER) status, in patients with positive surgical margins following BCS to determine if there is an association.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our institutional patient registry was performed to identify women with DCIS and microinvasive DCIS who underwent BCS by a single surgeon from 1999 to 2021. Demographics and clinicopathologic characteristics between patients with and without positive surgical margins were compared using chi-square or Student's t-test. We assessed factors associated with positive margins using univariate and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 615 patients evaluated, there was no significant difference in demographics between the patients with and without positive surgical margins. Increasing tumor size was an independent risk factor for margin positivity (P =  < 0.001). On univariate analysis both high histologic grade (P = 0.009) and negative ER status (P =  < 0.001) were significantly associated with positive surgical margins. However, when adjusted in multivariable analysis, only negative ER status remained significantly associated with margin positivity (OR = 0.39 [95% CI 0.20-0.77]; P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

The study confirms increased tumor size as a risk factor for positive surgical margins. We also demonstrated that ER negative DCIS was independently associated with a higher rate of positive margins after BCS. Given this information, we can modify our surgical approach to reduce rate of positive margins in patients with large-sized ER negative DCIS.

Radiological Underestimation of Tumor Size as a Relevant Risk Factor for Positive Margin Rate in Breast-Conserving Therapy of Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)

Background: Radiological underestimation of the actual tumor size is a relevant problem in reaching negative margins in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) associated with microcalcifications in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the radiological underestimation of tumor size has an influence on the histopathological margin status. Methods: Patients who underwent BCT with preoperatively diagnosed pure DCIS were included (pooled analysis of two trials). Multiple factors were analysed regarding radiological underestimation ≥10 mm. Radiological underestimation was defined as mammographic minus histological tumor size in mm. Results: Positive margins occurred in 75 of 189 patients. Radiological underestimation ≥10 mm was an independent influencing factor (OR 5.80; 95%CI 2.55−13.17; p < 0.001). A radiological underestimation was seen in 70 patients. The following parameters were statistically significant associated with underestimation: pleomorphic microcalcifications (OR 3.77; 95%CI 1.27−11.18), clustered distribution patterns (OR 4.26; 95%CI 2.25−8.07), and mammographic tumor sizes ≤20 mm (OR 7.47; 95%CI 3.49−15.99). Only a mammographic tumor size ≤20 mm was an independent risk factor (OR 6.49; 95%CI 2.30−18.26; p < 0.001). Grading, estrogen receptor status, and comedo necrosis did not influence the size estimation. Conclusion: Radiological underestimation is an independent risk factor for positive margins in BCT of DCIS associated with microcalcifications predominantly occurring in mammographic small tumors.

Bracketing with Multiple Radioactive Seeds to Achieve Negative Margins in Breast Conservation Surgery: Multiple Seeds in Breast Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Breast conservation surgery (BCS) is the treatment of choice for unifocal, early-stage breast cancer. The ability to offer BCS to a wider subset of patients, including those with multifocal/multicentric cancer as well as extensive ductal carcinoma in situ, has emerged over time, especially in those undergoing joint oncoplastic reconstruction and those treated with neoadjuvant therapy. However, localization techniques using multiple radioactive seeds for bracketing in this patient subset have not been validated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review was conducted of all patients with breast cancer who underwent BCS, guided by multiple bracketed iodine I 125 radioactive seeds between January 2014 and April 2017.

RESULTS

Bracketing of breast cancer using 2 or more radioactive seeds was performed in 157 breasts in 156 patients. Negative margins were achieved in 124 of 157 (79%) breasts, including 33 cases (21%) that underwent targeted margin reexcision at the time of surgery after intraoperative, multidisciplinary margin assessment. Thirty-three cases (21%) resulted in close or positive margins, of which 11 (7%) and 10 (6.4%) underwent completion mastectomy or repeat lumpectomy, respectively. Twelve patients (7.6%) did not undergo reexcision. En bloc resection was successful in 134 of 157 (85.4%) lumpectomies. Eighty-nine percent of the procedures were coupled with oncoplastic reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Bracketing techniques using multiple radioactive seeds expands the indications for breast conservation therapy in patients who would have traditionally required mastectomy. Intraoperative margin assessment improves surgical and pathologic success. Larger defects created by multifocal resection are optimally managed in concert with oncoplastic reconstruction to minimize asymmetries and aesthetic defects.

The Challenging Image-Guided Preoperative Breast Localization: A Modality-Based Approach

Breast conservation surgery (BCS) is the standard of care for treating patients with early-stage breast cancer and those with locally advanced breast cancer who achieve an excellent response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The radiologist is responsible for accurately localizing nonpalpable lesions to facilitate successful BCS. In this article, we present a practical modality-based guide on approaching challenging preoperative localizations, incorporating illustrative examples of challenging localizations performed under sonographic, mammographic, and MRI guidance, as well as under multiple modalities. Aspects of preprocedure planning, modality selection, patient communication, as well as procedural and positional techniques are highlighted. Clip and device migration is also considered. Further, an overview is provided of the most widely used wire localization (WL) and non-wire localization (NWL) devices in the United States. Accurate preoperative localization of breast lesions is essential to achieve successful surgical outcomes. Certain modality-based techniques can be adopted to successfully complete challenging cases.

Review of Variables Associated With Positive Surgical Margins Using Scout Reflector Localizations for Breast Conservation Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors contributing to positive surgical margins associated with reflector guidance for patients undergoing breast conserving therapy for malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective IRB-approved review of our institutional database was performed for malignant breast lesions preoperatively localized from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020. The following data was recorded using electronic medical records: lesion type and grade, lesion location, reflector and wire placement modality, use of intraoperative ultrasound, margin status, patient age, family history, BMI, and final pathology. Statistical analysis was performed with univariate summary statistics and logistic regression. P < .05 was significant.

RESULTS

A total of 606 image-guided pre-surgical localizations were performed for lumpectomies of breast malignancies. A total of 352 of 606 (58%) wire localizations and 254 of 606 (42%) SCOUT reflector localizations were performed. Sixty out of 352 (17%) of wire-localized patients had positive surgical margins, whereas forty-eight out of 254 (19%) of reflector-localized patients had positive surgical margins. (OR = 1.12, P value: .59). For reflector guided cases, the use of intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) was associated with decreased positive margin status (OR = 0 .28, 95% CI = [0.14, 0.58]) while in situ disease was associated with increased positive margin status (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = [1.05, 3.75]). No association between modality used for localization (mammography vs. ultrasound) and positive margin status was observed (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = [0.33, 1.19]). No association between positive margins and age, family history, tumor location and BMI was observed.

CONCLUSION

For reflector guided surgeries, the use of IOUS was associated with decreased positive margins, by contrast the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ was associated with increased positive margins. There was no statistically significant difference in surgical outcomes for reflector-guided localization compared to wire localizations of the breast.

Lack of definitive presurgical pathological diagnosis is associated with inadequate surgical margins in breast-conserving surgery

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of definitive presurgical diagnosis on surgical margins in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for primary carcinomas; clinicopathological features were also analyzed.

METHODS

This retrospective study included women who underwent BCS for primary carcinomas in 2016 and 2017. Definitive presurgical diagnosis was defined as having a presurgical core needle biopsy (CNB) and not being upstaged between biopsy and surgery. Biopsy data and imaging findings including breast density were retrieved. Inadequate surgical margins (IM) were defined per latest ASCO and ASTRO guidelines. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

360 women (median age, 66) met inclusion criteria with 1 having 2 cancers. 82.5% (298/361) were invasive cancers while 17.5% (63/361) were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Most biopsies were US-guided (284/346, 82.0%), followed by mammographic (60/346, 17.3%), and MRI-guided (2/346, 0.6%). US and mammographic CNB yielded median samples of 2 and 4, respectively, with a 14G needle. 15 patients (4.2%) lacked presurgical CNB. The IM rate was 30.0%. In multivariable analysis, large invasive cancers (>20 mm), dense breasts, and DCIS were associated with IM (p = 0.029, p = 0.010, and p = 0.013, respectively). Most importantly, lack of definitive presurgical diagnosis was a risk factor for IM (OR, 2.35; 95% CI: 1.23-4.51, p = 0.010). In contrast, neither patient age (<50) nor aggressive features (e.g., LVI) were associated with IM.

CONCLUSION

Lack of a definitive presurgical diagnosis was associated with a two-fold increase of IM in BCS; other risk factors were dense breasts, large invasive cancers, and DCIS.

Optical tissue measurements of invasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ for surgical guidance

Background

Although the incidence of positive resection margins in breast-conserving surgery has decreased, both incomplete resection and unnecessary large resections still occur. This is especially the case in the surgical treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS), an optical technology based on light tissue interactions, can potentially characterize tissue during surgery thereby guiding the surgeon intraoperatively. DRS has shown to be able to discriminate pure healthy breast tissue from pure invasive carcinoma (IC) but limited research has been done on (1) the actual optical characteristics of DCIS and (2) the ability of DRS to characterize measurements that are a mixture of tissue types.

Methods

In this study, DRS spectra were acquired from 107 breast specimens from 107 patients with proven IC and/or DCIS (1488 measurement locations). With a generalized estimating equation model, the differences between the DRS spectra of locations with DCIS and IC and only healthy tissue were compared to see if there were significant differences between these spectra. Subsequently, different classification models were developed to be able to predict if the DRS spectrum of a measurement location represented a measurement location with “healthy” or “malignant” tissue. In the development and testing of the models, different definitions for “healthy” and “malignant” were used. This allowed varying the level of homogeneity in the train and test data.

Results

It was found that the optical characteristics of IC and DCIS were similar. Regarding the classification of tissue with a mixture of tissue types, it was found that using mixed measurement locations in the development of the classification models did not tremendously improve the accuracy of the classification of other measurement locations with a mixture of tissue types. The evaluated classification models were able to classify measurement locations with > 5% malignant cells with a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.41 or 0.40. Some models showed better sensitivity whereas others had better specificity.

Conclusion

The results suggest that DRS has the potential to detect malignant tissue, including DCIS, in healthy breast tissue and could thus be helpful for surgical guidance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13058-021-01436-5.

Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery: Can We Reduce Rates of Mastectomy and Chemotherapy Use in Patients with Traditional Indications for Mastectomy?

INTRODUCTION

Traditional indications for mastectomy include multiple ipsilateral lesions and/or disease spanning ≥ 5 cm. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases breast conservation but does not improve survival. We hypothesized that oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPS) may allow for breast conservation while providing full staging and tumor profiling information to guide systemic therapy decisions, thereby permitting more judicious chemotherapy use.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer with multiple lesions and/or disease spanning ≥ 5 cm who underwent OPS from 2012 to 2018. Clinicopathologic features, mastectomy rate, chemotherapy use, and recurrence were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 100 patients were identified. Average disease span was 62.8 ± 20.1 mm, with an average of 2.9 lesions (range 1-13). 'No ink on tumor' was achieved at the index operation in 80 patients; 13 patients underwent completion mastectomy to achieve adequate margins. Eighty-one patients completed radiation therapy. Breast conservation was possible in 50/58 (86%) patients who did not receive chemotherapy. Forty-two patients received chemotherapy (8 neoadjuvant, 34 adjuvant), of whom 37 (88%) achieved breast conservation. Twenty-six patients with high-risk features received adjuvant chemotherapy. Oncotype DX testing demonstrated the need for chemotherapy in an additional eight patients. After a median follow-up of 40 months, four patients had a local recurrence, including two who declined radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

OPS can facilitate breast conservation in most patients with traditional indications for mastectomy. Additionally, OPS may reduce unnecessary chemotherapy, especially in patients who qualify for Oncotype DX testing. Further study evaluating long-term oncologic and cosmetic outcomes is warranted.

Reflector Localization of Breast Lesions and Parameters Associated with Positive Surgical Margins in Women Undergoing Breast Conservation Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate our experience with reflector localization of breast lesions and parameters influencing surgical margins in patients with a malignant diagnosis.

METHODS

A retrospective institution review board-approved review of our institutional database was performed for breast lesions preoperatively localized from September 1, 2016, through December 31, 2017. Wire localizations were excluded. From electronic medical records and imaging, the following data was recorded: breast density, lesion type and size, reflector placement modality and number placed, reflector distance from lesion and skin, excision of lesion and reflector, tissue volume, margin status, and final pathology. Statistical analysis was performed with a Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney test, and logistic regression. P < 0.05 was significant.

RESULTS

A total of 111 reflectors were deployed in the breasts of 103 women with 109 breast lesions. Ninety (81.1%) reflectors were placed under mammographic guidance and 21 (18.9%) under US. The lesions consisted of 68 (62.4%) masses, 17 (15.6%) calcifications, 2 (1.8%) architectural distortions, and 22 (20.2%) biopsy markers. Fourteen (21.2%) of 66 cases with a preoperative malignant diagnosis had a positive surgical margin. Final pathology, including 6 lesions upgraded to malignancy on excision, demonstrated 72 (66.0%) malignant, 22 (20.2%) high-risk, and 15 (13.8%) benign lesions. Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed no statistically significant parameters (lesion type or size, placement modality, reflector distance to skin or lesion, specimen radiography or pathology) were associated with a positive surgical margin.

CONCLUSION

Reflector localization is an alternative to wire localization of breast lesions. There were no lesion-specific or technical parameters affecting positive surgical margins.

Predictors of Reexcision following Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

BACKGROUND

Reexcision following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) results in adjuvant treatment delays, higher health care costs, and undesirable cosmetic outcomes. The purpose of this study is to determine patient, imaging, pathological, and surgical predictors of reexcision following BCS for DCIS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of women with DCIS who had BCS from 2007 to 2016 was conducted. Patient, imaging, pathological, and surgical features, in addition to surgical outcomes, were collected from medical records. Standard statistical tests were used to compare features between patients who did and did not undergo at least one reexcision. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to assess features associated with reexcision.

RESULTS

A total of 547 women (mean age 59 years; range 30-88 years) diagnosed with DCIS at core needle biopsy underwent BCS. Of all women, 31.6% (173/547) had at least one reexcision. With multivariable analysis, features associated with reexcision included younger patient age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.0, p = 0.049), African-American race (aOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.13-6.26, p = 0.03), biopsy modality of ultrasound (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.22-4.53, p = 0.01), and earlier year of surgery (aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.98, p = 0.01). No pathological features of DCIS were associated with reexcision risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of nearly 550 women with DCIS who underwent BCS, 31.6% had at least one reexcision. Features associated with reexcision include younger patient age, African-American race, biopsy modality of ultrasound, and earlier year of surgery.

A decade of intraoperative ultrasound guided breast conservation for margin negative resection - Radioactive, and magnetic, and Infrared Oh My…

BACKGROUND

The oncologic goal of margin-negative breast conservation requires adequate localization of tumor. Intraoperative ultrasound remains most feasible but under-utilized method to localize the tumor and assess margins.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained breast cancer database over a decade was queried for margin status in breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation. Techniques of tumor localization, margin re-excision and closest margins were analyzed. Rate of conversion to mastectomy was determined.

RESULTS

Of the 945 breast cancer patients treated at a university-based Breast Center of Excellence between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2018, 149(15.8%) had ductal carcinoma in situ; 712(75.3%) had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 63(6.7%) had invasive lobular carcinoma. Clinical stage distribution was: T1 = 372(39.4%); T2 = 257(27.2%); T3 = 87(9.2%). Five hundred and eighty three (61.7%) patients underwent breast conservation. The median (25th -75th centile) closest margin was 6(2.5, 10.0) mm. Thirty five (6.0%) patients underwent margin re-excision, of which 9(25%) were converted to mastectomy. Tumor localization was achieved with ultrasound in 521(89.4%) patients and with wire localization in 62(10.6%) patients. The median (25th-75th centile) closest margin with wire localization was 5.0(2.0, 8.5) mm versus 5.0 (2.0, 8.0) mm with ultrasound guidance [p = 0.6635]. The re-excision rate with wire localization was 14.5% versus 4.9% with ultrasound guidance [p = 0.0073]. The unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) for margin revision in wire localized group compared with ultrasound was 3.2 (7.14, 1.42) [p = 0.0045]; multivariate adjusted OR (95%) was 4(9.09, 1.7) [p = 0.0013].

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound guidance for localization of breast cancer remains the most effective option for margin negative breast conservation.

Intraoperative Pathologic Margin Analysis and Re-Excision to Minimize Reoperation for Patients Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery

BACKGROUND

Reoperation rates following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) range from 10 to 40%, with marked surgeon and institutional variation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with intraoperative margin re-excision, evaluate for any differences in local recurrence based on margin re-excision and determine reoperation rates with use of intraoperative margin analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer who underwent BCS at our institution between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2016. Routine intraoperative frozen section margin analysis was performed and positive or close margins were re-excised intraoperatively. Univariate analysis was used to compare margin status and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare recurrence. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to analyze factors associated with re-excision.

RESULTS

We identified 3201 patients who underwent BCS-688 for DCIS and 2513 for invasive carcinoma. Overall, 1513 (60.2%) patients with invasive cancer and 434 (63.1%) patients with DCIS had close or positive margins that underwent intraoperative re-excision. Margin re-excision was associated with larger tumor size in both groups. The permanent pathology positive margin rate among all patients was 1.2%, and the 30-day reoperation rate for positive margins was 1.1%. Five-year local recurrence rates were 0.6% and 1.2% for patients with DCIS and invasive cancer, respectively. There was no difference in recurrence between patients with and without intraoperative margin re-excision (p = 0.92).

CONCLUSION

Both DCIS and invasive carcinoma had similar rates of intraoperative margin re-excision. Although intraoperative margin re-excision was common, the reoperation rate was extremely low and there was no difference in recurrence between those with or without intraoperative re-excision.

Comparative analysis of margin status in breast conservation surgery and its correlation with subsequent re-excision findings

Purpose

Breast-conservation surgery (BCS) has become a standard treatment option for invasive breast carcinoma (IBC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The strongest predictor of local recurrence remains the surgical margin status. We evaluated the margin positivity by quantifying the tumor on positive margins and analyzing the histologic factors including type and extent in determining the likelihood of residual disease upon re-excision.

Method

Retrospective analysis of 210 BCS performed at Mount Sinai Medical Center from the period of January 2011 - December 2017 revealed that 58 had IBC, DCIS, or both, with positive margins that were followed by re-excision.

Result

The margins had IBC in 18 (31%), DCIS in 32 (55.2%) and both in 8 (13%) cases. Thirty-eight cases (65.5%) were free of carcinoma on re-excision. Of 40 cases with margins positive for DCIS, 16 (40%) had residual DCIS. Of 26 cases with IBC at the margins, and 5 had residual disease (19%). This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Of 21 cases with extensive DCIS, 12 had residual disease (p = 0.02) as compared to only 4 out of 19 without extensive DCIS. None of the cases with clinging/micro-papillary DCIS had residual disease, while 51% of the other types (solid, cribriform, come-do) had residual disease (p = 0.02). The area of DCIS as measured on the involved margin correlated with the amount of residual disease on re-excision (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Margins positive for DCIS are more likely to have residual disease on re-excision in comparison to margins positive for only IBC. The type and extent of DCIS appears to influence the likelihood of residual disease.

Extreme oncoplasty: Expanding indications for breast conservation

INTRODUCTION

Presence of multiple lesions and/or tumor span ≥5 cm are traditional indications for mastectomy. Patient desire for breast conservation has increased the interest in extreme oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (EOBCS) to avoid mastectomy; however, perioperative outcomes in this population have not been well described.

METHODS

This is an observational cohort of breast cancer patients with multiple lesions and disease span ≥5 cm who underwent EOBCS. Patient demographics, disease span, margin width, mastectomy and re-excision rates, and cosmesis were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred-eleven patients underwent EOBCS between 2012 and 2017. Eighty-two patients presented with multifocal or multicentric disease with an average of 3.2 lesions per breast spanning 57.1 ± 23.6 mm. Eighteen patients presented with unifocal tumors measuring an average of 67.6 mm (range 50-160 mm) on imaging. Eleven patients with an imaging size of <5 cm had a disease span ≥5 cm on final pathology. No tumor on ink occurred in 87 (78.3%) patients. Fifty-seven (51.4%) patients had additional surgery for inadequate margins. Fifteen (12.6%) patients elected to have mastectomy while 42 (37.8%) patients opted for re-excision. Good to excellent cosmetic results were reported in 95% of patients who ultimately achieved breast conservation. Recurrence rate was 1.1% in patients who completed EOBCS and adjuvant radiation therapy.

CONCLUSION

EOBCS can allow for breast conservation in patients who are traditionally counseled to undergo mastectomy. Although the re-excision rate was significant, most patients ultimately achieved breast conservation with adequate margins. Further study is warranted to determine the long-term oncologic outcomes of this approach.