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

The impact of use of an intraoperative margin assessment device on re-excision rates

Historically there has been a high rate of surgical interventions to obtain clear margins for breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving local therapy. An intraoperative margin assessment tool (MarginProbe) has been approved for use in the US since 2013. This study is the first compilation of data from routine use of the device, to assess the impact of device utilization on re-excision rates. We present a retrospective, observational, review from groups of consecutive patients, before and after the implementation of intraoperative use of the device during lumpectomy procedures. Lesions were localized by standard methods. The intraoperative margin assessment device was used on all circumferential margins of the main specimen, but not on any additional shavings. A positive reading by the device led to an additional shaving of the corresponding cavity location. Specimens were also, when feasible, imaged intra-operatively by X-ray, and additional shavings were taken if needed based on clinical assessment. For each surgeon, historical re-excision rates were established based on a consecutive set of patients from a time period proximal to initiation of use of the device. From March 2013 to April 2014 the device was routinely used by 4 surgeons in 3 centers. In total, 165 cases lumpectomy cases were performed. Positive margins resulted in additional re-excision procedures in 9.7% (16/165) of the cases. The corresponding historical set from 2012 and 2013 consisted of 186 Lumpectomy cases, in which additional re-excision procedures were performed in 25.8% (48/186) of the cases. The reduction in the rate of re-excision procedures was significant 62% (P < 0.0001). Use of an intraoperative margin assessment device contributes to achieving clear margins and reducing re-excision procedures. As in some cases positive margins were found on shavings, future studies of interest may include an analysis of the effect of using the device on the shavings intra-operatively.

Efficacy of intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis of lumpectomy margins during breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative frozen section analysis of the surgical margins during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer can reliably achieve clear surgical margins and prevent re-operations. The aim of this study was to assess intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis (IEFSA) of the lumpectomy margins during BCS.

METHODS

A total of 1029 patients who underwent BCS with IEFSA between June 2007 and July 2013 were available for assessment. The inner surfaces of the shaved lumpectomy margins were examined as frozen sections during BCS. The margins were defined as positive when the cancer cells were present within 5 mm from the edge of the outermost margins of the specimens.

RESULTS

Out of 1029 patients, 312 patients (30.3 %) had positive margins after the initial lumpectomy and underwent additional resections during BCS. Fourteen patients (1.4 %) underwent mastectomy following the results of additional resections during the first surgery. Of 1015 patients who completed BCS, 60 patients (5.9 %) were found to have positive margins in the final pathology. One patient (0.1 %) underwent re-operation after BCS while the residual diseases of the other 59 patients were judged to be minimal. Of the 312 patients who were judged to have positive margins after the initial lumpectomy with IEFSA, 53 patients (16.9 %) were found to have negative margins in the final pathology. At a median follow-up time of 54.1 months, one patient (0.1 %) had a recurrence of breast cancer in the preserved breast.

CONCLUSION

IEFSA is useful for preventing the need for re-operation and local recurrence after BCS.

Advances in managing breast cancer: a clinical update

Although substantial progress has been made in the screening and management of breast cancer, globally it remains the most common cause of cancer and cancer death in women. While breast cancer is potentially curable when detected at an early stage, it remains incurable in the metastatic setting. Thus, given its high prevalence, improved prevention and treatment of metastases remains a clinically meaningful unmet need. We review here the advances made in the last several years in the screening and treatment of breast cancer and explore how our increased insight into the underlying biology of breast cancer has influenced our efforts to individualize patient care.

Reasons for re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery(SM) database

BACKGROUND

There is marked variability of re-excision rates after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer. Reasons for re-excision and variability across surgeons have not been well documented. We hypothesized the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) Mastery(SM) Program can identify reasons for re-excision.

METHODS

Data from January 1 to 7 November 2013 were evaluated in the ASBrS Mastery(SM) Program to determine re-excision lumpectomy rate (RELR). On 1 June 2013, a tool to track reasons for re-excision was developed. Variation in re-excision rate by surgeon and patient characteristics was performed by Chi square test and Fisher's test for univariate analysis, then logistic regression with backwards elimination method for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

For 6,725 patients undergoing initial lumpectomy for cancer, 328 surgeons reported 1,451 (21.6 %) patients had one or more re-excisions. The most common reasons for re-excision were ink positive margins in 783 (49.7 %), margin <1 mm (34.3 %), and margin 1-2 mm (7.2 %). By multivariate analysis, re-excision rates were lower in patients aged less than 35 years, with White (non-) Hispanic ethnicity, and, among surgeons in solo practice, more years in practice and higher-volume practice.

CONCLUSION

Half of re-excisions after initial lumpectomy were performed for margins that are positive. Most of the remainder were for negative close (<1-2 mm) margins. This information corroborates surgeon survey data regarding reasons for re-excision and provides proof of concept the Mastery(SM) Program can capture surgical outcome data in real time, providing opportunity and a method for future performance improvement.

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.

Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline

PURPOSE

The Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO)/American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline on surgical margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer was considered for endorsement.

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing practice guidelines developed by other organizations. ASCO staff reviewed the SSO/ASTRO guideline for developmental rigor; an ASCO ad hoc review panel of experts reviewed the guideline content.

RESULTS

The ASCO ad hoc guideline review panel concurred that the recommendations are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence in this content area and that they present options acceptable to patients. According to the SSO/ASTRO guideline, the use of no ink on tumor (ie, no cancer cells adjacent to any inked edge/surface of specimen) as the standard for an adequate margin in invasive cancer in the era of multidisciplinary therapy is associated with low rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs.

CONCLUSION

The ASCO review panel endorses the SSO/ASTRO recommendations with qualifications, as follows. The panel reinforces and amplifies the guideline authors' call for the monitoring of outcomes of the guideline at the institutional level, as institutions transition to adopting the SSO/ASTRO recommendations; would place greater emphasis on the importance of postlumpectomy mammography for cases involving microcalcifications; and calls for flexibility in the application of the guideline in light of the generally weak evidence supporting the recommendations.

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

PURPOSE

To convene a multidisciplinary panel of breast experts to examine the relationship between margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and develop a guideline for defining adequate margins in the setting of breast conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A multidisciplinary consensus panel used a meta-analysis of margin width and IBTR from a systematic review of 33 studies including 28,162 patients as the primary evidence base for consensus.

RESULTS

Positive margins (ink on invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ) are associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of IBTR compared with negative margins. This increased risk is not mitigated by favorable biology, endocrine therapy, or a radiation boost. More widely clear margins than no ink on tumor do not significantly decrease the rate of IBTR compared with no ink on tumor. There is no evidence that more widely clear margins reduce IBTR for young patients or for those with unfavorable biology, lobular cancers, or cancers with an extensive intraductal component.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of no ink on tumor as the standard for an adequate margin in invasive cancer in the era of multidisciplinary therapy is associated with low rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs.