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

Impact of cavity shave margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing conserving breast surgery

Aim

The main challenge during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to obtain clear margins, especially in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) due to the absence of well-defined nodules. Many surgical approaches have been used in an attempt to reduce the positive margin rate. The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the cavity shave margin technique with standard surgery and the intraoperative evaluation of surgical margins.

Methods

This is a single-center retrospective study analyzing margin status, need for re-excision, and surgical time in a cohort of 227 patients who underwent surgery from September 2016 to September 2022.

Results

In patients subjected to cavity shaving, we reported a significant reduction in positive margins of 17.1% versus 28.7% (p-value = 0.042). Also, a difference in terms of surgical re-excision was reported as p-value = 0.039 (12.4% versus 23.8%, respectively, for the cavity shave and control group). In the multivariate analysis, intraoperative evaluation of the margins was a risk factor for margins re-excision (Wald = 4.315, p = 0.038, OR: 2.331 [95% CI: 1.049-5.180]). Surgical time was lower in patients subjected to cavity shaves (p = 0.024), and the relative mean time was 68.4 min ± 37.1 min in the cavity shave group versus 93.9 min ± 40.6 min in the control group.

Conclusion

The cavity shave margin technique in conserving breast surgery results in a reduction in positive margin rate, surgical re-excision, and operative time.

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.

Reducing re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery with Margin Probe: systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Different intraoperative techniques with varying levels of evidence are available to decrease positive surgical margins during breast conserving surgery. The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of the MarginProbe® device as an intraoperative adjunct tool in reducing positive surgical margins, and subsequently exploring the effect on patient re-excision rates.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of the available medical literature was conducted from 2007 to March 2022. A literature search of Cochrane, PubMed and Embase by two independent reviewers reviwers was performed to identify eligible articles looking at the primary outcome of percentage reduction in patient re-excision rates using MarginProbe®. Secondary outcomes analysed were comparison of tissue volume removed, absolute and relative reduction in re-excision rate, cosmetic outcome, as well as MarginProbe® sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

A total of 12 full text articles were identified. An independent samples t-test using a total of 2680 patients found a 54.68 per cent reduction in re-excision rate with the use of MarginProbe®, which was statistically significant with a large effect size (P < 0.001; d = 1.826). Secondary outcomes showed a relatively higher sensitivity of the MarginProbe® device, at the expense of decreased specificity, and no significant impact on cosmesis and volume of breast tissue excised.

CONCLUSION

MarginProbe® is an effective intraoperative adjunct in breast-conservation surgery that reduces patient re-excision rates, with no adverse effects relating to breast cosmesis or increase in volume of excised tissue.

Analysis of Specimen Mammography with Artificial Intelligence to Predict Margin Status

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative specimen mammography is a valuable tool in breast cancer surgery, providing immediate assessment of margins for a resected tumor. However, the accuracy of specimen mammography in detecting microscopic margin positivity is low. We sought to develop an artificial intelligence model to predict the pathologic margin status of resected breast tumors using specimen mammography.

METHODS

A dataset of specimen mammography images matched with pathologic margin status was collected from our institution from 2017 to 2020. The dataset was randomly split into training, validation, and test sets. Specimen mammography models pretrained on radiologic images were developed and compared with models pretrained on nonmedical images. Model performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

The dataset included 821 images, and 53% had positive margins. For three out of four model architectures tested, models pretrained on radiologic images outperformed nonmedical models. The highest performing model, InceptionV3, showed sensitivity of 84%, specificity of 42%, and AUROC of 0.71. Model performance was better among patients with invasive cancers, less dense breasts, and non-white race.

CONCLUSIONS

This study developed and internally validated artificial intelligence models that predict pathologic margins status for partial mastectomy from specimen mammograms. The models' accuracy compares favorably with published literature on surgeon and radiologist interpretation of specimen mammography. With further development, these models could more precisely guide the extent of resection, potentially improving cosmesis and reducing reoperations.

Cost minimization in breast conserving surgery: a comparative study of radiofrequency spectroscopy and full cavity shave margins

BACKGROUND

In an effort to minimize positive margins and subsequent re-excision after breast conserving surgery (BCS), many providers and facilities have implemented either a Full Cavity Shave (FCS) approach or adding the MarginProbe Radiofrequency Spectroscopy System.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to create a functioning Pro-Forma for use by facilities and payers to evaluate and compare the cost savings of implementing FCS or MarginProbe based on personalized variable inputs.

METHODS

A decision tree demonstrating three possible surgical pathways, BCS, BCS + FCS, and BCS + MarginProbe was developed with clinical inputs for re-excision rate, mastectomy as 2nd surgery, rate of reconstruction, and rate of 3rd surgery derived by a literature review. A surgical pathway cost formula was created using the decision tree and financial inputs derived by utilizing the nation's largest database of privately billed health insurance claims and Medicare claims data (fairhealth.org). Using the surgical pathway formula and financial inputs, a customizable Pro-Forma was created for immediate cost savings analysis of BCS + FCS and BCS + Marginprobe using variable inputs. Costs are from the perspective of third-party payers.

RESULTS

Utilizing MarginProbe to reduce re-excisions for positive margins can be associated with better cost-savings than FCS due to the increased pathology processing costs by using an FCS approach. The reduction in re-excision provided by both FCS and MarginProbe offset their increased expense to various degrees with cost savings of each method improving as baseline re-excisions rates increase, until ultimately each may become cost-neutral or cost-prohibitive when compared to BCS alone. Our data suggest that in the privately insured population, MarginProbe provides a cost-savings over BCS alone when baseline re-excision rates are over 20% and that FCS becomes cost-saving when baseline re-excision rates are over 29%. For Medicare patients, MarginProbe provides a cost-savings when baseline re-excision rates exceed 34%, and FCS becomes cost-saving for re-excision rates over 52%. Our Pro-Forma allows an individual provider or institution to evaluate the cost savings of the FCS approach and/or utilization of the MarginProbe device such that the additional cost or cost-savings of utilizing one or both of these methods can be quickly calculated based on their facility's volume and baseline re-excision rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that utilizing either an FCS approach or the MarginProbe radiofrequency spectroscopy system may be a cost-saving solution to reducing the rate of re-excisions depending on a facility or practice's surgical volume and baseline re-excision rate. The degree to which each of these interventions provides an added cost or cost-savings to healthcare payers can be evaluated by utilizing the Pro-Forma outlined herein with customizable variable inputs.

Intraoperative Fluorescence Guidance for Breast Cancer Lumpectomy Surgery

BACKGROUND: Although lumpectomy and mastectomy provide equivalent survival for patients with breast cancer, local recurrence after lumpectomy increases breast cancer mortality. Positive lumpectomy margins, which imply incomplete tumor removal, are the strongest predictor of local recurrence and are identified days after surgery, necessitating a second surgery. METHODS: In this prospective trial, we assessed margin status with or without pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) for stages 0 to 3 breast cancers. To prevent surgeons from performing smaller than standard lumpectomies in anticipation of pFGS assistance, patients were randomly assigned 10:1 to pFGS or control groups, thus randomization was not designed to provide a control group for evaluating device performance. In patients undergoing pFGS, additional pFGS-guided cavity margins were excised at sites of pegulicianine signal. We evaluated three coprimary end points: the percentage of patients for whom pFGS-guided margins contained cancer, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Overall, 406 patients received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Among 392 patients randomly assigned, 316 had invasive cancers, and 76 had in situ cancers. In 27 of 357 patients undergoing pFGS, pFGS-guided margins removed tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy, 22 from cavity orientations deemed negative on standard margin evaluation. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins. On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. Pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in six patients. Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine. CONCLUSIONS: The use of pFGS in breast cancer surgery met prespecified thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity but did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity. (Funded by Lumicell, Inc. and the National Institutes of Health; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03686215.)

Breast-Conserving Surgery Margin Guidance Using Micro-Computed Tomography: Challenges When Imaging Radiodense Resection Specimens

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is an integral component of early-stage breast cancer treatment, but costly reexcision procedures are common due to the high prevalence of cancer-positive margins on primary resections. A need exists to develop and evaluate improved methods of margin assessment to detect positive margins intraoperatively.

METHODS

A prospective trial was conducted through which micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) with radiological interpretation by three independent readers was evaluated for BCS margin assessment. Results were compared to standard-of-care intraoperative margin assessment (i.e., specimen palpation and radiography [abbreviated SIA]) for detecting cancer-positive margins.

RESULTS

Six hundred margins from 100 patients were analyzed. Twenty-one margins in 14 patients were pathologically positive. On analysis at the specimen-level, SIA yielded a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 42.9%, 76.7%, 23.1%, and 89.2%, respectively. SIA correctly identified six of 14 margin-positive cases with a 23.5% false positive rate (FPR). Micro-CT readers achieved sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV ranges of 35.7-50.0%, 55.8-68.6%, 15.6-15.8%, and 86.8-87.3%, respectively. Micro-CT readers correctly identified five to seven of 14 margin-positive cases with an FPR range of 31.4-44.2%. If micro-CT scanning had been combined with SIA, up to three additional margin-positive specimens would have been identified.

DISCUSSION

Micro-CT identified a similar proportion of margin-positive cases as standard specimen palpation and radiography, but due to difficulty distinguishing between radiodense fibroglandular tissue and cancer, resulted in a higher proportion of false positive margin assessments.

Impact of Atypical Hyperplasia at Surgical Margins on breast cancer outcomes in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Background

Women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) is associated with a higher risk of future breast cancer. However, whether AH found at margins in patients with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) needs re-excision is not well-defined. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of AH at the surgical margins on the local recurrence and survival outcomes in breast cancer patients treated with NAC and BCS.

Methods

A retrospective analysis comparing patients who treated with NAC and BCS with AH at the margins to those without AH was performed.

Results

598 patients were included in this study. The 5-year rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) were 4.6% and 6.2% in patients with and without AH, respectively. No significant differences were observed among the two groups in terms of IBTR, DMFS, or OS. HER2 overexpressing breast cancer patients with severe AH at margins have a significantly higher risk of IBTR compared to those without severe AH.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that the presence of AH at the surgical margins of BCS in patients who received NAC does not appear to increase the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer. Therefore, there is no need for surgeons to routinely perform additional re-excision of AH found at the margins of BCS in these patients. However, selective re-excision should be considered in certain cases, particularly in patients with HER2 overexpression.

The Effect of Lumpectomy and Cavity Shave Margin Status on Recurrence and Survival in Breast-Conserving Surgery

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Cavity shave margins (CSMs) decrease rate of positive margins and need for re-excision. Recurrence data following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are not always available in large cancer registries. We sought to define our recurrence and survival data in BCS with routine excision of CSMs.

METHODS

A single institution, 10-year retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent BCS with routine CSMs was conducted. Cavity shave margin technique was standard. Cox proportional hazard analyses and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to estimate recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

Breast-conserving surgery with CSM was performed in 839 patients. Re-excision rate to achieve negative margins was 8.5%. Fifty-two patients (75%) underwent margin re-excision vs 18 patients (25%) underwent salvage mastectomy. Positive margin rate stratified by tumor histology was highest for invasive lobular carcinoma followed by mixed invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), followed by pure DCIS and lowest for IDC. Length of follow-up was (4.7 ± 2.6, years). Overall recurrence rate (locoregional and systemic) was 4.3%: highest in patients with negative lumpectomy margin but positive CSM (L-S+ = 15%) followed by positive lumpectomy and CSMs (L+S+ = 14%), followed by patients with positive lumpectomy margin but negative CSMs (L+S- = 13%) and lowest for negative lumpectomy and CSM (L-S- = 5%), (P = .0008). There was no difference in 5-year breast cancer-specific survival between the 4 subgroups: 96% for L-S-, 86.7% L-S+, 94.7% L+S+ and 90% L+S- (P = .094).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence following BCS with CSMs can be stratified based on both lumpectomy and cavity shave margin positivity. Routine excision of CSMs allows identification of these patient subsets.

Effect of three-dimensional intraoperative imaging on surgical outcomes with breast conservation therapy

BACKGROUND

Breast conservation therapy (BCT) is frequently performed for breast cancer and associated with a significant risk for positive margins. Intraoperative three-dimensional (3-D) tomosynthesis potentially could limit the risk of positive margins.

METHODS

Retrospective review of an institutional breast cancer registry. Evaluated BCT cases for a two year time period prior to and after the introduction of intraoperative 3-D tomosynthesis. Primary outcome was the effect of 3-D tomosynthesis on margin positivity rates. Secondary measures were the impact of 3-D tomosynthesis on additional margin procurements at the index surgery and operative time.

RESULTS

A total of 228 cases were evaluated with 106 cases utilizing 3-D tomosynthesis and 122 cases with standard imaging. No significant difference in margin positivity rates between the cohorts at 23.9% versus 15.8% for 3-D tomosynthesis and standard imaging respectively (OR 1.53, CI 0.772-3.032, P = 0.221). 3-D tomosynthesis was associated with increased margin procurement rates (OR 2.34, 95%CI 1.303-4.190, P = 0.004) and longer operative times (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative 3-D tomosynthesis was not found to limit margin positivity rates or improve the performance of the procedure.

Quantitative Micro-Elastography Enables In Vivo Detection of Residual Cancer in the Surgical Cavity during Breast-Conserving Surgery

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is commonly used for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. Following BCS, approximately 20% to 30% of patients require reexcision because postoperative histopathology identifies cancer in the surgical margins of the excised specimen. Quantitative micro-elastography (QME) is an imaging technique that maps microscale tissue stiffness and has demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy (96%) in detecting cancer in specimens excised during surgery. However, current QME methods, in common with most proposed intraoperative solutions, cannot image cancer directly in the patient, making their translation to clinical use challenging. In this proof-of-concept study, we aimed to determine whether a handheld QME probe, designed to interrogate the surgical cavity, can detect residual cancer directly in the breast cavity in vivo during BCS. In a first-in-human study, 21 BCS patients were scanned in vivo with the QME probe by five surgeons. For validation, protocols were developed to coregister in vivo QME with postoperative histopathology of the resected tissue to assess the capability of QME to identify residual cancer. In four cavity aspects presenting cancer and 21 cavity aspects presenting benign tissue, QME detected elevated stiffness in all four cancer cases, in contrast to low stiffness observed in 19 of the 21 benign cases. The results indicate that in vivo QME can identify residual cancer by directly imaging the surgical cavity, potentially providing a reliable intraoperative solution that can enable more complete cancer excision during BCS.

SIGNIFICANCE

Optical imaging of microscale tissue stiffness enables the detection of residual breast cancer directly in the surgical cavity during breast-conserving surgery, which could potentially contribute to more complete cancer excision.

Assessment of Surgeon Factors Associated With Margin Re-excision After Breast-Conserving Surgery

This cross-sectional study examines 5-year re-excision rates and use of recommended techniques among breast surgeons in a single health system.

Economic Impact of Reducing Reexcision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health System

BACKGROUND

Reexcision after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is costly for patients, but few studies have captured the economic burden to a healthcare system. We quantified operating room (OR) charges as well as OR time and then modeled expected savings of a reexcision reduction initiative.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort review of all breast cancer patients with BCS between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Operating room charges of disposable supplies and implants as well as operative time were calculated.

RESULTS

During the 5-year period, the 8804 patients who underwent BCS, 1628 (18.5%) required reexcision. The reexcision cohort was younger (61 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (23.7% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), and had larger tumors (T1+T2 73.2% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.001). Reexcision costs represented 39% of total costs, the cost per patient for surgery was fourfold higher for reexcision patients. Reexcision operations comprised 14% of total operating room (OR) time (1848 of 13,030 hours). The reexcision rate for 54 surgeons varied from 7.2-39.0% with 46% (n = 25) having a reexcision rate >20%. A model simulating reducing reexcision rates to 20% or below for all surgeons reduced the reexcision rate to 16.2% overall. Using per procedure data, the model predicted a decrease in reexcision operations by 18% (327 operations), OR costs by 14% ($287,534), and OR time by 11% (204 hours).

CONCLUSIONS

Reexcision after BCS represents 39% of direct OR costs and 14% of OR time in our healthcare system. Modest improvements in surgeon reexcision rates may lead to significant economic and OR time savings.

Omission of Radiation in Conservative Treatment for Breast Cancer: Opportunity for De-escalation of Care

INTRODUCTION

De-escalation of breast cancer treatment aims to reduce patient and financial toxicity without compromising outcomes. Level I evidence and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines support omission of adjuvant radiation in patients aged >70 y with hormone-sensitive, pT1N0M0 invasive breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy. We evaluated radiation use in patients eligible for guideline concordant omission of radiation.

METHODS

Subgroup analysis of patients eligible for radiation omission from two pooled randomized controlled trials, which included stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery, was performed to evaluate factors associated with radiation use.

RESULTS

Of 631 patients, 47 (7.4%) met radiation omission criteria and were treated by 14 surgeons at eight institutions. The mean age was 75.3 (standard deviation + 4.4) y. Majority of patients identified as White (n = 46; 97.9%) and non-Hispanic (n = 44; 93.6%). The mean tumor size was 1.0 cm; 37 patients (88.1%) had ductal, 4 patients (9.5%) had lobular, and 17 patients (40.5%) had low-grade disease. Among patients eligible for radiation omission, 34 (72.3%) patients received adjuvant radiation. Those who received radiation were significantly younger than those who did not (74 y, interquartile range = 4 y, versus 78 y, interquartile range = 11 y, P = 0.03). There was no difference in radiation use based on size (P = 0.4), histology (P = 0.5), grade (P = 0.7), race (P = 1), ethnicity (P = 0.6), institution (P = 0.1), gender of the surgeon (P = 0.7), or surgeon (P = 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than 10% of patients undergoing breast conservation met criteria for radiation omission. Nearly three-quarters received radiation therapy with younger age being a driver of radiation use, suggesting ample opportunity for de-escalation, particularly among younger eligible patients.

[Interest of systematic shavings to reduce reoperation in breast-conserving surgery of breast cancer]

OBJECTIVE

The INCa and HAS have developed quality and safety indicators for care specific to breast cancer. Among these, in the conservative surgery of this cancer includes the reoperation rate: target˂10%, alert>20%. The main objective of our study was to evaluate whether the practice of systematic recuts still called "shaving" would meet the objectives of the indicators.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective, single-center study over two years in a regional referral center. Two groups of patients were compared: one with "shaving" and one without (no shaving or oriented shaving).

RESULTS

In total, 381 patients were operated on, including 48 (12.6%) with shaving and 333 (87.4%) without. Revision rates for damaged margins were 18.75% (9/48) in the shaving group which met the quality criterias vs. 23.7% (79/333) which did not satisfy them; P=0.4. Furthermore, the rate of discovery of occult sites on recuts was higher in the shaving group: 22.9% (11/48) vs. 9.9% (33/333); P=0.02. In the shaving group, 10.4% (5/48) of the patients were resected again for damaged margins for the initial cancer vs. 18.6% (62/333) in the group without shaving; P=0.23.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms the interest of performing "shaving" to meet the requirements of the INCa and HAS quality criteria. The absence of systematic cross-sectioning leads to the risk of not recognizing the existence of occult sites. However, the discovery of occult cancers does not significantly reduce the rate of repeat surgery.

A New Look into Cancer-A Review on the Contribution of Vibrational Spectroscopy on Early Diagnosis and Surgery Guidance

Simple Summary

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, with the detection of the disease in its early stages, as well as a correct assessment of the tumour margins, being paramount for a successful recovery. While breast cancer is one of most common types of cancer, head and neck cancer is one of the types of cancer with a lower prognosis and poor aesthetic results. Vibrational spectroscopy detects molecular vibrations, being sensitive to different sample compositions, even when the difference was slight. The use of spectroscopy in biomedicine has been extensively explored, since it allows a broader assessment of the biochemical fingerprint of several diseases. This literature review covers the most recent advances in breast and head and neck cancer early diagnosis and intraoperative margin assessment, through Raman and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopies. The rising field of spectral histopathology was also approached. The authors aimed at expounding in a more concise and simple way the challenges faced by clinicians and how vibrational spectroscopy has evolved to respond to those needs for the two types of cancer with the highest potential for improvement regarding an early diagnosis, surgical margin assessment and histopathology.

Abstract

In 2020, approximately 10 million people died of cancer, rendering this disease the second leading cause of death worldwide. Detecting cancer in its early stages is paramount for patients’ prognosis and survival. Hence, the scientific and medical communities are engaged in improving both therapeutic strategies and diagnostic methodologies, beyond prevention. Optical vibrational spectroscopy has been shown to be an ideal diagnostic method for early cancer diagnosis and surgical margins assessment, as a complement to histopathological analysis. Being highly sensitive, non-invasive and capable of real-time molecular imaging, Raman and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopies give information on the biochemical profile of the tissue under analysis, detecting the metabolic differences between healthy and cancerous portions of the same sample. This constitutes tremendous progress in the field, since the cancer-prompted morphological alterations often occur after the biochemical imbalances in the oncogenic process. Therefore, the early cancer-associated metabolic changes are unnoticed by the histopathologist. Additionally, Raman and FTIR spectroscopies significantly reduce the subjectivity linked to cancer diagnosis. This review focuses on breast and head and neck cancers, their clinical needs and the progress made to date using vibrational spectroscopy as a diagnostic technique prior to surgical intervention and intraoperative margin assessment.

Minimizing re-excision after breast conserving surgery - a review of radiofrequency spectroscopy for real-time, intraoperative margin assessment

INTRODUCTION

For early-stage breast cancer, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation is standard-of-care. Nationwide, >20% of BCS patients require re-excision for positive margins, resulting in delayed adjuvant therapy, increased complications, emotional and financial stress for patients, and additional cost to the healthcare system. Although several methods may be employed to mitigate positive margins, no technique can fully address the need. MarginProbe® is an adjunctive tool for real-time intraoperative margin assessment and is shown to reduce positive margins by >50%.

AREAS COVERED

Discussion of the impact of re-excision following BCS, a review of currently available methods for intraoperative margin management, followed by a technology and literature review of the MarginProbe® Radiofrequency Spectroscopy System.

EXPERT OPINION

Re-excision significantly impacts patients, providers and payers. Limitations in the ability to assess margins at time of surgery warrant more advanced methods of residual disease detection. MarginProbe facilitates the most efficient pathway for breast cancer patients through the surgical phase of treatment. The device is well-suited for adoption as the healthcare focus shifts from volume to value and supports the three pillars of the US Department of Health and Human Services' 'Triple-Aim' strategy: improve population health, improve patient experience of care, and reduce per-capita costs.

Prognostic factors for residual occult disease in shave margins during partial mastectomy

PURPOSE

Shave margins have been shown to decrease positive final margins in partial mastectomy. We investigated prognostic factors associated with residual disease in shave margins.

METHODS

Patients with invasive breast carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who had circumferential shave margins excised during lumpectomy were abstracted from a retrospective database from 2015 to 2018. We defined residual occult disease (ROD) as either (1) residual disease in a shave margin when the initial lumpectomy specimen had negative margins or (2) residual disease in a shave margin that did not correspond with the positive lumpectomy margin. We identified the frequency of ROD and conducted logistic regression analysis to identify associated prognostic factors.

RESULTS

166 Patients (139 invasive carcinoma, 27 DCIS) were included with median follow-up of 28 months (9-50 months). Residual occult disease existed in 34 (24.5%) with invasive carcinoma and 8 (29.6%) with DCIS. In univariate analyses of the invasive group, invasive lobular carcinoma and a positive initial, non-corresponding lumpectomy margin were predictive of ROD (OR 3.63, p = 0.04, OR 3.48, p = 0.003 respectively). In multivariate analysis, a positive lumpectomy margin remained significant, p = 0.007. No variables were associated with ROD in DCIS.

CONCLUSION

Residual occult disease was shown to be a frequent event in this analysis of lumpectomy with circumferential shave margins. Having a positive initial lumpectomy margin was predictive of ROD in a non-corresponding margin. Surgeons should consider not being selective in their shave margins or margin of re-excision if shave margins were not obtained in their initial surgery.

Effect of the Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Margin Consensus Guideline Implementation on Re-Excision Rates, Satisfaction, and Cost

INTRODUCTION

The 2016 consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with whole-breast irradiation (WBI) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) recommended 2 mm margins to decrease local recurrence rates. We examined re-excision rates, cost, and patient satisfaction before and after guideline implementation.

METHODS

From an Institutional Review Board-approved database, patients with DCIS who underwent BCS with over 1 year of follow-up at one academic institution and one community cancer center were evaluated. Two groups were compared based on when they received treatment, i.e. before (pre-consensus [PRE]) and after November 2016 (post consensus [POST]), with respect to outcome and cost parameters.

RESULTS

After consensus guideline implementation, re-excision rate (32.1% vs. 20.0%) and mastectomy conversion (8.3% vs. 2.3%) significantly increased, although total resection volume, operative cost per patient, and satisfaction with breast scores did not differ. Not all patients with <2 mm margins were re-excised, although the re-excision rate among this subset significantly increased (62.4% vs. 31.3%). On multivariable analysis controlling for age, estrogen receptor status, WBI use, and margin status, surgery after consensus guideline publication was independently associated with a higher re-excision rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-3.59, p = 0.03) and a higher rate of conversion to mastectomy (OR 6.84, 95% CI 1.67-28.00, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the 2016 margin consensus guideline for DCIS resulted in an increase in re-excisions and mastectomy conversions at two institutions. Research is needed for operative tools and strategies to decrease DCIS re-excision rates.

Does Localization Technique Matter for Non-palpable Breast Cancers?

BACKGROUND

There are several techniques for localization of non-palpable breast tumors, but comparisons of these techniques in terms of margin positivity and volume of tissue resected are lacking.

METHODS

Between 2011-2013 and 2016-2018, 2 randomized controlled trials involving 10 centers across the United States accrued 631 patients with stage 0-3 breast cancer, all of whom underwent breast conserving surgery. Of these, 522 had residual non-palpable tumors for which localization was required. The localization technique was left to the discretion of the individual surgeon. We compared margin positivity and volume of tissue resected between various localization techniques.

RESULTS

The majority of the patients (n = 465; 89.1%) had wire localization (WL), 50 (9.6%) had radioactive seed (RS) localization, and 7 (1.3%) had Savi Scout (SS) localization. On bivariate analysis, there was no difference in terms of margin positivity (37.8% vs. 28.0% vs. 28.6%, P = .339) nor re-excision rates (13.3% vs. 12.0% vs. 14.3%, P = .961) for the WL, RS, and SS groups, respectively. Further, the volume of tissue removed was not significantly different between the 3 groups (71.9 cm³ vs. 55.8 cm³ vs. 86.6 cm³ for the WL, RS, and SS groups, respectively, P = .340). On multivariate analysis, margin status was affected by tumor size (OR = 1.336; 95% CI: 1.148-1.554, P<.001) but not by type of localization (P = .670).

CONCLUSIONS

While there are a number of methods for tumor localization, choice of technique does not seem to influence volume of tissue resected nor margin status.

Rapid Assessment of Resection Margins During Breast Conserving Surgery Using Intraoperative Flow Cytometry

BACKGROUND

Positive margins are the most important factor for recurrence of the disease after breast-conserving surgery. Several methods have been developed throughout the years to evaluate the margin status during surgery in an attempt to assist the surgeon in excising the whole tumor at once, a goal that has not yet been accomplished.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In our study, we compared intraoperative flow cytometry (iFC) with cytology and pathology in order to evaluate 606 samples of margins and tumors corresponding to 99 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of no special type and invasive lobular carcinoma obtained from breast-conserving surgeries.

RESULTS

Using the pathology as the gold standard, flow cytometry had 93.3% sensitivity, 92.4% specificity, and 92.5% accuracy. Cytology had 82.3% sensitivity, 94.6% specificity, and 94.2% accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the suggestion that iFC is a novel, reliable technique that allows rapid evaluation of the excision margins of lumpectomies, thus improving the precision of breast-conserving surgery. Among the advantages of iFC are that it does not rely on the expertise of a pathologist or cytologist, it is low cost, and it has no additional psychological effect on patients, because no re-operation is needed.

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.

Performance of a novel protease-activated fluorescent imaging system for intraoperative detection of residual breast cancer during breast conserving surgery

Purpose

Safe breast cancer lumpectomies require microscopically clear margins. Real-time margin assessment options are limited, and 20–40% of lumpectomies have positive margins requiring re-excision. The LUM Imaging System previously showed excellent sensitivity and specificity for tumor detection during lumpectomy surgery. We explored its impact on surgical workflow and performance across patient and tumor types.

Methods

We performed IRB-approved, prospective, non-randomized studies in breast cancer lumpectomy procedures. The LUM Imaging System uses LUM015, a protease-activated fluorescent imaging agent that identifies residual tumor in the surgical cavity walls. Fluorescent cavity images were collected in real-time and analyzed using system software.

Results

Cavity and specimen images were obtained in 55 patients injected with LUM015 at 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg and in 5 patients who did not receive LUM015. All tumor types were distinguished from normal tissue, with mean tumor:normal (T:N) signal ratios of 3.81–5.69. T:N ratios were 4.45 in non-dense and 4.00 in dense breasts (p = 0.59) and 3.52 in premenopausal and 4.59 in postmenopausal women (p = 0.19). Histopathology and tumor receptor testing were not affected by LUM015. Falsely positive readings were more likely when tumor was present < 2 mm from the adjacent specimen margin. LUM015 signal was stable in vivo at least 6.5 h post injection, and ex vivo at least 4 h post excision.

Conclusions

Intraoperative use of the LUM Imaging System detected all breast cancer subtypes with robust performance independent of menopausal status and breast density. There was no significant impact on histopathology or receptor evaluation.

Breast-conserving surgery with 3D-printed surgical guide: a single-center, prospective clinical study

To facilitate precise tumor resection at the time of breast-conserving surgery (BCS), we developed and implemented a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based three-dimensional-printed (3DP) breast surgical guide (BSG). This prospective cohort study was conducted at a single institution from July 2017 to February 2019 on women with breast cancer who underwent partial breast resection using patient-specific 3DP BSGs. Eighty-eight patients with invasive cancer were enrolled, of whom 1 patient had bilateral breast cancer. The mean size of the tumor long-axis on MRI before surgery was 2.8 ± 0.9 cm, and multiple tumors were observed in 34 patients. In 16 cases (18.0%), the resection margin was tumor-positive according to intraoperative frozen biopsy; all of these tumors were ductal carcinoma in situ and were re-excised intraoperatively. In 93.3% of the cases, the resection margin was tumor-free in the permanent pathology. The mean pathological tumor size was 1.7 ± 1.0 cm, and the mean distance from the tumor to the border was 1.5 ± 1.0 cm. This exploratory study showed that the tumor area on the MRI could be directly displayed on the breast when using a 3DP BSG for BCS, thereby allowing precise surgery and safe tumor removal.

Trial Registration Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) Identifier (No. KCT0002375, KCT0003043).

Impact of Cavity Shave Margins on Margin Status in Patients with Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

BACKGROUND

We examined the impact of cavity shave margins (CSMs) on margin status in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) undergoing partial mastectomy (PM).

METHODS

One hundred and nine patients from 2 multicenter, randomized controlled trials were identified with pure DCIS (no invasive cancer). Surgeons performed their best PM, with specimen radiography and resection of selective margins per surgeon discretion. Patients were then randomized to have CSM resected or not. A positive margin was defined as <2 mm from ink.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 63 years; median size of DCIS was 1.20 cm; 43.6% of patients had high-grade DCIS; and 58 (53.2%) patients were randomized to take CSM. The "shave" and "no-shave" groups were well-matched for age, race, ethnicity, palpability, grade, and size of DCIS. Although 33 (56.9%) of the patients in the shave group had a positive margin before randomization, only 12 (20.7%) had a positive margin after randomization to CSM (p < 0.001). In the no-shave group, 17 patients (33.3%) had a positive margin. Controlling for size and grade of DCIS, taking CSM resulted in a nearly 65% reduction in the positive-margin rate (odds ratio 0.366; 95% CI, 0.136 to 0.981; p = 0.046). Size of DCIS remained an independent predictor of positive margins in the model (odds ratio 1.646; 95% CI, 1.227 to 2.209; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CSM reduces positive-margin rates in patients with pure DCIS, and can be a practical solution for DCIS patients who tend to have a high rate of margin positivity.

Do we need to routinely perform cavity shaving with breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) of breast cancer with and without cavity shaving.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BCS with or without cavity shaving for breast cancer were included. Positive margin rate, second operation rate, operative time, post-operative haematoma, cosmetic appearance and budget cost were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six RCTs reporting a total number of 971 patients; 495 of these underwent BCS plus shaving (BCS + S), and 473 underwent BCS alone were included. BCS + S showed significantly lower positive margin rate (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.40, P = 0.00001) and second operation rate (RR 0.38, P = 0.00001). BCS + S demonstrated longer operative time than BCS (79 ± 4 min vs 67 ± 3 min, Mean Difference 12.14, P = 0.002), and there was no significant difference in the risk of post-operative haematoma (RR 0.33, P = 0.20).

CONCLUSION

BCS + S is superior to BCS in terms of positive margins rate and second operation rate. Operative time is longer when cavity shaving is performed.

Impact of systematic cavity shave margins in breast-conserving surgery at a large community hospital with a low baseline re-excision rate

Systematic cavity shave margins (CSM) can decrease rate of positive margins and re-excision beyond that of selective CSM. The objective of this study was to determine whether systematic CSM decreased re-excision rate in a population with a low baseline re-excision rate. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) from November 2013 to November 2017. Primary end points were re-excision rate and margin status. Secondary end points were total volume of tissue excised, operative time, and concordance of core needle biopsy (CNB) pathology with final surgical pathology. The re-excision rates were 14.29% in the no shave margin group; 15.38% in the selective CSM; and 14.59% in the systematic CSM (P = .985). Odds of re-excision with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 5.04 times greater than with invasive cancer (INV) and 1.94 times higher than with INV and DCIS. There was no significant difference in positive margins between groups (P = .362). Mean specimen volume was lowest in the systematic CSM group (64.6 cm³ ), compared to no CSM and selective CSM (94.6 cm³ and 91.8 cm³ , respectively). With inclusion of shave margin volumes, total volume removed was not significantly different between no shave margin group (94.6 cm³ ) and systematic CSM (89.7 cm³ ) (P = .949). For patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) alone on their initial biopsy pathology, 69% were discovered to also have DCIS upon final pathology. Re-excision rate and specimen volume between all groups were not statistically different. There was a higher re-excision rate when DCIS was present, especially when not identified on CNB. As systematic CSM is most impactful when DCIS is involved, it is important to establish its presence for proper surgical planning.

Reoperation rate after breast conserving surgery as quality indicator in breast cancer treatment: A reappraisal

Aim

To analyse the role of repeated breast surgery (RBS) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) as a quality indicator in a consecutive series of breast cancer patients.

Methods

Data from 1233 breast cancer patients submitted to BCS from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. The influence of several variables on RBS rate (182/1232; 14.8%) was examined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to look for significant associations with the risk of RBS.

Results

Surgical workload, BCS rate and clinicopathological variables were consistent over the study period, while RBS rate decreased after the introduction of shaving of cavity margins (from 17.9% to 9.5%). Tumor persistence at RBS was higher for mastectomy vs. re-excision (87.3% vs. 37.8%; p = 0.05), inconclusive vs. positive diagnostic biopsy (48.2% vs. 69.4%; p = 0.003), ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive carcinoma (69.0% vs. 51.3%; p = 0.046) and lower after neoadjuvant therapy (14.3% vs. 57.8%; p = 0.044). Several clinicopathological variables were associated with the risk of RBS, but only multifocality [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.8; p = 0.009], microcalcifications (OR: 2.0, p = 0.000), neoadjuvant therapy (OR: 0.4; p = 0.014), pathological intraoperative assessment (OR: 0.6; p = 0.010) and shaving of cavity margins (OR: 0.3; p = 0.000) retained independent value at multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

RBS rate can be reduced by shaving of cavity margins. Current standards for RBS should not be made more stringent due to the existence of non-actionable risk factors. The value of RBS as a quality indicator should be scrutinzed.

•

Some breast cancer patients need a reoperation for incomplete tumor excision after breast conserving surgery.

•

Reoperation rates show wide variations (10%–50%) among different Countries.

•

Shaving of cavity margins may reduce the reoperation rate, but non-invasive and multicentric lesiona are non-actionable risk factors

•

The value of reoperation rate as a quality indicator of breast cancer surgery is questionable.

Intraoperative ultrasonography-guided surgery: An effective modality for breast conservation after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy

Margin status is one of the significant prognostic factors for recurrence in breast-conserving surgery (BCS). The issue that merits consideration for oncologic safety and cost-effectiveness about the modalities to assure clear margins at initial surgical intervention remains controversial after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The presented study aimed to assess the impact of intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS)-guided surgery on accurate localization of tumor site, adequacy of excision with clear margins, and healthy tissue sacrifice in BCS after NAC. Patients who had IOUS-guided BCS ater NAC were reviewed. No patient had preoperative localization with wire or radiotracer. Intraoperative real-time sonographic localization, sonographic margin assessment during resection, macroscopic and sonographic examination of specimen, and cavity shavings (CS) were done as the standard procedure. No frozen assessment was performed. One hundred ninety-four patients were included, in which 42.5% had pCR. IOUS-guided surgery accomplished successful localization of the targeted lesions in all patients. Per protocol, all inked margins on CS specimens were reported to be tumor-free in permanent histopathology. No re-excision or mastectomy was required. For a setting without CS, the negative predictive value (NPV) of IOUS rate was 96%. IOUS was found to over and underestimate tumor response to NAC both in 2% of patients. IOUS-guided surgery seems to be an efficient modality to perform adequate BCS after NAC with no additional localization method. Especially, when CS is integrated as a standard to BCS, IOUS seems to provide safe surgery for patients with no false negativity and a high rate of NPV.