Sampling of secondary margins decreases the need for re-excision after partial mastectomy

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.

Lumpectomy specimen margins are not reliable in predicting residual disease in breast conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

In breast conserving surgery, the concordance between lumpectomy margin (LM) status and the status of the corresponding lumpectomy cavity remains uncertain.

METHODS

We analyzed pathology reports of lumpectomies from 2004 to 2006. We included those which contained both ink-directed LM and complete (≥4) separate corresponding shaved cavity margins (SCMs). SCM pathology was used as a surrogate for lumpectomy cavity status, to determine the predictive value of LM for residual disease.

RESULTS

Pathology from 1,201 pairs of LM and SCM from 242 patients was compared. LM status predicted corresponding lumpectomy cavity status with 50.9% sensitivity, 69.5% specificity, 35% positive predictive value, and 81.4% negative predictive value, giving an overall accuracy of 64.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Oriented LMs are not reliable for predicting lumpectomy cavity status, and therefore not reliable for directing re-excision. Taking complete, oriented SCMs at the time of lumpectomy may improve accuracy compared with traditional LM assessment.

Evaluation of resection margins in breast conservation therapy: the pathology perspective-past, present, and future

Tumor surgical resection margin status is important for any malignant lesion. When this occurs in conjunction with efforts to preserve or conserve the afflicted organ, these margins become extremely important. With the demonstration of no difference in overall survival between mastectomy versus lumpectomy and radiation for breast carcinoma, there is a definite trend toward smaller resections combined with radiation, constituting "breast-conserving therapy." Tumor-free margins are therefore key to the success of this treatment protocol. We discuss the various aspects of margin status in this setting, from a pathology perspective, incorporating the past and current practices with a brief glimpse of emerging future techniques.

Cavity margins and lumpectomy margins for pathological assessment: which is superior in breast-conserving surgery?

PURPOSE

This prospective cohort study aimed to compare the efficacy of cavity margins (CMs) and lumpectomy margins (LMs) for pathological assessment in breast-conserving surgery.

METHODS

We assessed the CMs and LMs of 163 breast cancer patients during breast-conserving surgery. We compared and analyzed the positivity rates of CM and LM.

RESULTS

The positivity rate of CM at the case level and individual margin level was 30.7% and 8.0%, respectively. The positivity rate of LM was 12.3%, 33.1%, and 45.4% at the case level and 1.8%, 6.2%, and 9.1% at the individual margin level, when we used the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project criteria (ink-free), 1 mm-free criteria and 2 mm-free criteria, respectively. The positivity rate of LM with 1 mm-free criteria was similar to that of CM. Delivery of neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased the positivity rate of CM (50.0% versus 25.2%; P < 0.01) but not LM (41.6% versus 30.7%; P > 0.05) at the case level, whereas the positivity rate of CM and LM both increased after neoadjuvant chemotherapy at the margin level (CMs: 15.5% versus 5.6%, P < 0.001; and LMs: 10.7% versus 4.9%, P < 0.001). In univariate and multivariate analysis, delivery of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, higher node-positive stage, and presence of ductal carcinoma in situ component were correlated with positive CM, whereas positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and higher node-positive stage were associated with positive LM.

CONCLUSIONS

Ink-free criteria may be insufficient for LM assessment in breast-conserving surgery, and at least 1 mm width LM is suggested. After the delivery of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, CM assessment should be routinely performed in addition to LM assessment.