Prediction of positive resection margins in patients with non-palpable breast cancer

Pushing the envelope in breast conserving surgery - is multiple-wire localization (3 or more wires) associated with increased risk of compromised margins and long-term recurrence?

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades there has been a paradigm shift with breast conserving surgery (BCS) being applied to larger and more extensive breast malignancies. The aim of this study is to examine the success of BCS being performed in patients with extensive breast malignancies requiring at least 3 wires for localization, and to assess possible risk factors for failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective single center review of 232 patients who underwent BCS between 2010 and 2020 requiring at least 3 wires for localization, thus comprising the multi-wire group (MWG). The cohort included a control group of 232 single-wire BCS patients (SWG) chronologically matched with the MWG. Patients with either invasive malignancy or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were included in the study. Clinical, radiological, and pathological data was collected. Proportions of positive surgical margins, re-lumpectomies and conversion to mastectomy were calculated. Survival analysis for locoregional and distant recurrence was performed.

RESULTS

Women in the MWG were younger (mean age 57 vs. 63.1, P < 0.001), had larger tumor size (mean size 5.1 cm vs. 1.3 cm, p < 0.001), a higher prevalence of calcifications on mammograms (72 % vs. 17 %, P < 0.001), a higher proportion of positive lymph nodes (75 % vs. 45 %, P = 0.019), and an elevated incidence of a ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) component (72 % vs. 38 %, P < 0.001). Positive surgical margins were higher in the MWG (13 % vs 7 %, P = 0.03), which lead to higher proportions of re-lumpectomies or conversion to mastectomies (7 % vs 4 %, P = 0.17). On multivariate analysis of the entire cohort, patients with positive margins were more likely to have a DCIS component (77 % vs 53 %, P = 0.001), an infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC) component (15 % vs 9 %, P = 0.013), and positive ER hormonal status (94 % vs 85 %, p = 0.05). The number of wires was not an independent predictor of positive margins. On long-term analysis, the locoregional disease-free survival was similar between the SWG and MWG (P = 0.1). However, the MWG showed higher rates of distant metastasis (12 % vs 4 %, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

BCS requiring 3 or more wires is associated with a slightly higher proportion of positive margins. The increased risk of positive margins appears to be related to the type of tumor (DCIS component, ILC component and ER status) rather than to the number of wires. The number of wires does not significantly impact locoregional disease-free survival.

Multitask deep learning on mammography to predict extensive intraductal component in invasive breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

To develop a multitask deep learning (DL) algorithm to automatically classify mammography imaging findings and predict the existence of extensive intraductal component (EIC) in invasive breast cancer.

METHODS

Mammograms with invasive breast cancers from 2010 to 2019 were downloaded for two radiologists performing image segmentation and imaging findings annotation. Images were randomly split into training, validation, and test datasets. A multitask approach was performed on the EfficientNet-B0 neural network mainly to predict EIC and classify imaging findings. Three more models were trained for comparison, including a single-task model (predicting EIC), a two-task model (predicting EIC and cell receptor status), and a three-task model (combining the abovementioned tasks). Additionally, these models were trained in a subgroup of invasive ductal carcinoma. The DeLong test was used to examine the difference in model performance.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 1459 breast cancers on 3076 images. The EIC-positive rate was 29.0%. The three-task model was the best DL model with an area under the curve (AUC) of EIC prediction of 0.758 and 0.775 at the image and breast (patient) levels, respectively. Mass was the most accurately classified imaging finding (AUC = 0.915), followed by calcifications and mass with calcifications (AUC = 0.878 and 0.824, respectively). Cell receptor status prediction was less accurate (AUC = 0.625-0.653). The multitask approach improves the model training compared to the single-task model, but without significant effects.

CONCLUSIONS

A mammography-based multitask DL model can perform simultaneous imaging finding classification and EIC prediction.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The study results demonstrated the potential of deep learning to extract more information from mammography for clinical decision-making.

KEY POINTS

• Extensive intraductal component (EIC) is an independent risk factor of local tumor recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. • A mammography-based deep learning model was trained to predict extensive intraductal component close to radiologists' reading. • The developed multitask deep learning model could perform simultaneous imaging finding classification and extensive intraductal component prediction.

MRI-based radiomic models to predict surgical margin status and infer tumor immune microenvironment in breast cancer patients with breast-conserving surgery: a multicenter validation study

OBJECTIVES

Accurate preoperative estimation of the risk of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) resection margin positivity would be beneficial to surgical planning. In this multicenter validation study, we developed an MRI-based radiomic model to predict the surgical margin status.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected preoperative breast MRI of patients undergoing BCS from three hospitals (SYMH, n = 296; SYSUCC, n = 131; TSPH, n = 143). Radiomic-based model for risk prediction of the margin positivity was trained on the SYMH patients (7:3 ratio split for the training and testing cohorts), and externally validated in the SYSUCC and TSPH cohorts. The model was able to stratify patients into different subgroups with varied risk of margin positivity. Moreover, we used the immune-radiomic models and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) signature to infer the distribution patterns of immune cells and tumor cell EMT status under different marginal status.

RESULTS

The AUCs of the radiomic-based model were 0.78 (0.66-0.90), 0.88 (0.79-0.96), and 0.76 (0.68-0.84) in the testing cohort and two external validation cohorts, respectively. The actual margin positivity rates ranged between 0-10% and 27.3-87.2% in low-risk and high-risk subgroups, respectively. Positive surgical margin was associated with higher levels of EMT and B cell infiltration in the tumor area, as well as the enrichment of B cells, immature dendritic cells, and neutrophil infiltration in the peritumoral area.

CONCLUSIONS

This MRI-based predictive model can be used as a reliable tool to predict the risk of margin positivity of BCS. Tumor immune-microenvironment alteration was associated with surgical margin status.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study can assist the pre-operative planning of BCS. Further research on the tumor immune microenvironment of different resection margin states is expected to develop new margin evaluation indicators and decipher the internal mechanism.

KEY POINTS

• The MRI-based radiomic prediction model (CSS model) incorporating features extracted from multiple sequences and segments could estimate the margin positivity risk of breast-conserving surgery. • The radiomic score of the CSS model allows risk stratification of patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery, which could assist in surgical planning. • With the help of MRI-based radiomics to estimate the components of the immune microenvironment, for the first time, it is found that the margin status of breast-conserving surgery is associated with the infiltration of immune cells in the microenvironment and the EMT status of breast tumor cells.

Blood flow on ultrasound imaging is a predictor of lump margin status in breast-conserving patients: a retrospective matching study

PURPOSE

This study investigated the relationship between breast ultrasound features and lump margin status in breast-conserving patients.

METHODS

A single-institution database and medical records system were searched to identify patients who had undergone breast-conserving surgery between 2015 and 2022. Patients were divided into case and control groups based on their postoperative margin status, and different matching methods [case-control matching (CCM) and propensity score matching (PSM)] were used to match the cases and controls at a ratio of 1:1.

RESULTS

Before matching, patients with positive margins were more likely to have a tumor with increased blood flow (OR = 2.90, 95% CI 1.83-4.61, p < 0.001) and microcalcifications (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.44-3.42, p < 0.001). Among the 83 pairs of CCM subjects, patients with positive margins were prone to increased blood flow (p = 0.007) and crab sign (p = 0.040). In addition, there was a significant difference in blood flow (p = 0.030) among PSM subjects. After adjusting for the unbalanced factors, the same results were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound blood flow significantly predicts the status of breast-conserving margins, but further studies are required to verify our findings.

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.

Immediate or delayed oncoplastic surgery after breast conserving surgery at the Netherlands Cancer Institute: a cohort study of 251 cases

PURPOSE

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) after breast conserving surgery is preferably performed during the same operation. Offering delayed OPS instead of mastectomy to patients with a high risk of tumor-positive margins allows breast conservation with the option of margin re-excision during OPS, without having to dismantle the reconstruction. We aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes after immediate and delayed OPS.

METHODS

We included early-stage breast cancer patients who underwent OPS at the Netherlands Cancer Institute between 2016 and 2019. Patients were selected for delayed OPS after multidisciplinary consultation if the risk of tumor-positive margins with immediate OPS was considered significant (> 30%). Groups were compared on baseline characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 242 patients with 251 OPS, 130 (52%) OPS had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Immediate OPS was performed in 176 (70%) cases and delayed OPS in 76 (30%). Selection for delayed OPS was associated with tumor size (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04), ILC (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.10-6.20), DCIS (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.42-8.34) and bra size (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.94). Delayed and immediate OPS differed in tissue weight (54 vs. 67 g, p = 0.034), tissue replacement (51% vs. 26%, p < .001) and tumor-positive margins (66% vs. 18%, p < .001). Re-excision was performed in 48 (63%) delayed OPS and in 11 (6%) immediate OPS. Groups did not differ in complications (21% vs. 18%, p = 0.333). Breast conservation after immediate and delayed OPS was 98% and 93%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Performing delayed OPS in selected cases facilitated simultaneous margin re-excision without increasing complications, and resulted in an excellent breast conservation rate.

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Positive Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery

Background

The chances of second surgery due to positive margins in patients receiving breast-conversing surgery (BCS) were about 20-40%. This study aims to develop and validate a nomogram to predict the status of breast-conserving margins.

Methods

The database identified patients with core needle biopsy-proven ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast carcinoma who underwent BCS in Shanxi Bethune Hospital between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021 (n = 573). The patients were divided into two models: (1) The first model consists of 398 patients who underwent BCS between 2015 and 2019; (2) The validation model consists of 175 patients who underwent BCS between 2020 and 2021. The development of the nomogram was based on the findings of multivariate logistic regression analysis. Discrimination was assessed by computing the C-index. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to validate the calibration performance.

Results

The final multivariate regression model was developed as a nomogram, including blood flow signals (OR = 2.88, p = 0.001), grade (OR = 2.46, p = 0.002), microcalcifications (OR = 2.39, p = 0.003), tumor size in ultrasound (OR = 2.12, p = 0.011) and cerbB-2 status (OR = 1.99, p = 0.042). C-indices were calculated of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64-0.78) and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.59-0.78) for the modeling and the validation group, respectively. The calibration of the model was considered adequate in the validation group (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

We developed a nomogram that enables the estimation of the preoperative risk of positive BCS margins. Our nomogram provides a valuable tool for identifying high-risk patients who might have to undergo a wider excision.

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.

A scoping review of interactive and personalized web-based clinical tools to support treatment decision making in breast cancer

The increasing attention on personalized breast cancer care has resulted in an explosion of new interactive, tailored, web-based clinical decision tools for guiding treatment decisions in clinical practice. The goal of this study was to review, compare, and discuss the clinical implications of current tools, and highlight future directions for tools aiming to improve personalized breast cancer care. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify web-based decision tools addressing breast cancer treatment decisions. There was a total of 17 articles associated with 21 unique tools supporting decisions related to surgery, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, bisphosphonates, HER2-targeted therapy, and chemotherapy. The quality of the tools was assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument. Overall, the tools considered clinical (e.g., age) and tumor characteristics (e.g., grade) to provide personalized outcomes (e.g., survival) associated with various treatment options. Fewer tools provided the adverse effects of the selected treatment. Only one tool was field-tested with patients, and none were tested with healthcare providers. Future studies need to assess the feasibility, usability, acceptability, as well as the effects of personalized web-based decision tools on communication and decision making from the patient and clinician perspectives.

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.

Validated prediction model for positive resection margins in breast-conserving surgery based exclusively on preoperative data

Background

Positive margins after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and subsequent second surgery are associated with increased costs and patient discomfort. The aim of this study was to develop a prediction model for positive margins based on risk factors available before surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing BCS for in situ or invasive cancer between 2015 and 2016 at site A formed a development cohort; those operated during 2017 in site A and B formed two validation cohorts. MRI was not used routinely. Preoperative radiographic and tumour characteristics and method of operation were collected from patient charts. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a prediction model for positive margins including variables with discriminatory capacity identified in a univariable model. The discrimination and calibration of the prediction model was assessed in the validation cohorts, and a nomogram developed.

Results

There were 432 patients in the development cohort, and 190 and 157 in site A and B validation cohorts respectively. Positive margins were identified in 77 patients (17.8 per cent) in the development cohort. A non-linear transformation of mammographic tumour size and six variables (visible on mammography, ductal carcinoma in situ, lobular invasive cancer, distance from nipple–areola complex, calcification, and type of surgery) were included in the final prediction model, which had an area under the curve of 0.80 (95 per cent c.i. 0.75 to 0.85). The discrimination and calibration of the prediction model was assessed in the validation cohorts, and a nomogram developed.

Conclusion

The prediction model showed good ability to predict positive margins after BCS and might, after further validation, be used before surgery in centres without the routine use of preoperative MRI.

Presented in part to the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, Texas, USA, December 2018 and the Swedish Surgical Society Annual Meeting, Helsingborg, Sweden, August 2018.

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.

MRI predictors of tumor-positive margins after breast-conserving surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to identify predictors of tumor-positive surgical margins after breast-conserving surgery on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive women who underwent DCE MRI before breast-conserving surgery from 2005 to 2014. Patient demographics, indication for surgery, MRI findings, biopsy pathology results, and surgical outcomes were reviewed. The unpaired t-test and chi-square test were used to compare the positive and negative margins groups.

RESULTS

554 women (mean age, 56; range, 26-90) underwent DCE MRI before 575 breast-conserving surgeries for invasive carcinoma (n = 473) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n = 102). Positive margins requiring re-excision occurred in 19.7% (93/473) of surgeries for invasive carcinoma and 31.4% (32/102) of surgeries for DCIS. For invasive carcinoma surgeries, positive margins were more common when MRI demonstrated the finding of non-mass enhancement (NME) rather than the finding of enhancing mass (33.8% [22/65] versus 16.9% [61/360], p < 0.01). Tumor size on MRI was significantly larger in the positive margins group (2.5 cm versus 1.9 cm, p < 0.001). Positive margins were more common with invasive lobular rather than invasive ductal histology at core biopsy (38.3% [18/47] versus 16.0% [56/350], p < 0.001). For DCIS surgeries, there were no significant differences in positive margin rates related to MRI features.

CONCLUSION

For invasive carcinoma surgeries, positive margins are associated with NME on MRI, larger tumor size on MRI, and lobular histology at core biopsy. These findings may be used to predict which patients are at risk for positive margins after breast-conserving surgery.

Generalized linear model (GLM) analysis: Multivariables of microcalcification specimens obtained via X-ray guided by stereotactic wire localization biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively explore correlation of the resected specimen volume of breast microcalcification lesions and endogenous and exogenous factors of stereotactic needle localization biopsy (SNLB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Totally 214 patients underwent SNLB for non-palpable breast lesion with microcalcification lesions. Of 211 patients, 198 patients underwent single needle localization and 13 patients underwent multi-needle localization (26 lesions). Lesion sizes, distribution characteristics, lesion localization accuracy and resected specimen volumes were recorded and analyzed using a generalized linear model (GLM).

RESULTS

The average lesion diameter is 2.63±1.73 cm. The localization accuracy of 187 lesions were moderate, 26 were too deep and 11 were too superficial. The mean resected specimen volume (V) was 17.51±5.14 cm3. One-way ANOVA analysis showed that 3 factors, including lesion sizes, distribution characteristics and the localization accuracy were associated with resected specimen volume (F = 67.56-112.78, P < 0.001). GLM revealed that lesion sizes, single clustered distribution and accurate localization were significant factors for resected specimen volume (F = -4.82-11.36, P < 0.05). The ratio (%) of the resected specimen volume to the involved breast volume (V0) was defined as the degree of breast defect. The mean breast defect of 125 benign patients (V/V0) was 27.5% ranging from 10.1% to 42.3%.

CONCLUSION

Average lesion diameter and localization accuracy are highly significant variables for the resected specimen volume. Localization accuracy as a subjective controllable variable is one of the important factors that determine the volume of lesion resection. Single clustered distribution was more susceptible localization accuracy than other characteristic distributions. Improving localization accuracy can reduce resected specimen volume, which can reduce breast defect to a certain extent.

Predicting initial margin status in breast cancer patients during breast-conserving surgery

Background

We sought to develop and validate a model for prediction of initial margin status during breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

Methods

We included eligible breast cancer patients receiving BCS in Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital from January 2003 to December 2014. All patients received intraoperative frozen-section analysis for initial margin assessment. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to screen for predictors. A nomogram was developed in the training cohort (n=1,193) from the south branch of the hospital and externally validated in the validation cohort (n=499) from the north branch. We used the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve and Hosmer–Lemeshow tests to assess the discrimination and accuracy of the nomogram.

Results

The initial margin-positivity rates were 19.5% and 25.2% in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Preoperative tumor size, preoperative lymph-node status, suspicion of multifocality, hormone-receptor status, and HER2 status were significantly associated with margin status. The model included these five variables. The discrimination and calibration of the model were considered acceptable in both cohorts.

Conclusion

The nomogram can predict the likelihood of having positive initial margins during BCS and may be useful for clinical decision-making in the surgical treatment of breast cancer patients.

Factors Associated With Positive Margins in Women Undergoing Breast Conservation Surgery

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.

Prognostic value of ductal carcinoma in situ component in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database analysis

Background

The prognostic implication of concomitant ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) remains controversial. Our objective was to investigate whether concomitant DCIS affects survival outcomes in patients with IDC.

Materials and methods

Patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer who underwent surgery in 2010–2014 were included from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Statistical analyses were conducted using χ² test, linear-by-linear association, one-way analysis of variance, Kaplan–Meier method, Cox proportional hazards regression model, and propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

A total of 61,745 patients were identified, including 44,630 (72.3%), 13,559 (22.0%), and 3,556 (5.7%) patients with no DCIS component reported (No-DCIS), DCIS <25% (L-DCIS), and ≥25% (H-DCIS), respectively. Patients with H-DCIS were more likely to be younger (p<0.001), have smaller tumors (p<0.001), good/moderate differentiation (p<0.001), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease (p<0.001), receive mastectomy (p<0.001), and not receive radiotherapy (p<0.001) and chemotherapy (p<0.001). The median follow-up was 27 months, and the 2-year breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) in patients with No-DCIS, L-DCIS, and H-DCIS was 97.3%, 98.0%, and 98.5%, respectively (p<0.001). Before PSM, H-DCIS was an independent favorable prognostic factor for BCSS; patients with H-DCIS had better BCSS compared to patients with No-DCIS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.674, 95% CI: 0.528–0.861, p=0.002), while the BCSS between No-DCIS and L-DCIS was similar (HR 0.944, 95% CI: 0.840–1.061, p=0.334). However, this survival advantage disappeared after PSM; there was significantly different BCSS between patients with No-DCIS and H-DCIS (HR 0.923, 95% CI: 0.653–1.304, p=0.650). H-DCIS was not associated with BCSS as compared to No-DCIS in the breast-conserving surgery (p=0.295) and mastectomy (p=0.793) groups.

Conclusion

In breast cancer, patients with H-DCIS have unique clinicopathologic features compared to patients with No-DCIS. Before PSM, H-DCIS was associated with favorable BCSS as compared to No-DCIS. However, the survival advantage disappeared after PSM.

Radioactive seed localization in breast cancer treatment

Background

Breast cancer screening, improved imaging and neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) have led to increased numbers of non-palpable tumours suitable for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Accurate tumour localization is essential to achieve a complete resection in these patients. This study evaluated the role of radioactive seed localization (RSL) in improving breast- and axilla-conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer with or without NST.

Methods

Patients who underwent RSL between 2007 and 2014 were included. Learning curves were analysed by the rates of minimally involved (in situ/invasive tumour cells on a length of 0–4 mm on ink) and positive resection margins (over 4 mm on ink) after BCS, and the median resection volume over time.

Results

A total of 367 patients with in situ carcinomas and 199 with non-palpable invasive breast cancer underwent RSL before primary surgery. A further 697 patients had RSL before NST, of whom 206 also underwent RSL of a histologically verified axillary lymph node metastasis. BCS was performed in 93·2 and 87·9 per cent of patients undergoing primary surgery for in situ and invasive tumours respectively, and 57·5 per cent of those in the NST group. The rate of BCS with positive resection margins was low and stable over time in the three groups (9·1, 9·7 and 11·2 per cent respectively). The median resection volume decreased significantly with time in the invasive cancer and NST groups.

Conclusion

In the present study of more than 1200 patients and 7 years of experience, RSL was shown to facilitate breast- and axilla-conserving surgery in a diverse patient population. There was a significant reduction in resection volume while maintaining low positive resection margin rates after BCS.

A Retrospective Comparative Study of Image-Guided Excisional Biopsy in High-Risk Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: Predictive Factors for Malignancy

OBJECTIVE

The use of mammography (MM) in breast cancer screening programs has been increasing in recent years. Thus, increasing the number of detected nonpalpable breast cancer patients, through early diagnosis and treatment also increased survival rates. In our study, we wanted to share the factors about imaging-guided exicional biopsies for non-palpable breast lesions in postoperative proven breast carcinoma patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The surgical data were reviewed for 83 patients with non-palpabl high-risk breast lesions undergoing imaging-guided surgery in our department between January, 2006 and May, 2011. Histopathologic results and age, ultrasound(US) results, MM image results, BI-RADS categorization, localization of lesion(quadrant) were assessed and factors for predicting malignity were detected.

RESULTS

Median age was 52 (age range 32-80 years). 29 (34,9%) of patients were malign in histopathologic results. In four patient, re-excision performed because of positive surgical margins. Axillary examination results were normal in 24 (82,7%) of malignant patients. In MM examination; microcalcifications and nodular opasity were diagnosed in 74,6% of patients before surgery. There were no differance about malignity in these groups after surgery (p:0,428). 59% and 32,7% of patients were BI-RADS 4 and 3, respectively. Postoperative diagnosed malignancies in BI-RADS 4 group were significantly higher than BI-RADS 3 group (p:<0,001).

CONCLUSION

In our study; we concluded that, preoperative BI-RADS categorization (US and MM) is correlated with histopathologic findings after surgery and imaging-guided breast surgery is effective for diagnosis of early-stage breast carcinoma.