Ex vivo fluorescence-guided resection margin assessment in breast cancer surgery using a topically applied, cathepsin-activatable imaging agent

Up to 40 % of breast cancer patients have a tumor-positive resection margin (TPRM) - defined as cancer cells at the surface of the resected specimen - after breast-conserving surgery (BCS), necessitating re-resection or boost radiation. To prevent these additional treatments, intraoperative near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging with the topically applied, cathepsin-activatable imaging agent AKRO-6qcICG might be used to detect TPRMs and guide additional resection. Here, to validate its performance, the agent is topically applied to all surfaces of freshly resected breast cancer specimens (n = 11 patients) and to 3-5 mm thick tissue slices of the specimens (n = 26 patients). NIR fluorescence images of the resection surfaces and tissue slices are acquired and correlated to final histopathology. AKRO-6qcICG detects TPRMs with a sensitivity, specificity, PVV, and NPV of 100 %, 67 %, 10 %, and 100 %, respectively. On the tissue slices, the fluorescence signal has a median tumor-to-background ratio of 1.8. These findings indicate that topically applied AKRO-6qcICG can visualize TPRMs ex vivo with a high sensitivity and NPV, with sufficient contrast to adjacent healthy breast tissue.

Routine four-quadrant cavity shaving at the time of wide local excision for breast cancer reduces re-excision rate

INTRODUCTION

Breast conservation therapy (BCT) has been shown to have comparable long-term survival outcomes when compared with mastectomy. Clearance of excision margin is one of the mainstays of the surgical treatment, which if not achieved at the first operation of BCT results in the need for subsequent surgery.

METHODS

This study evaluated the impact of routinely taken cavity shavings on re-excision rates. This retrospective two-centre study describes the use of routine four-quadrant cavity shaving in 449 patients with consecutively treated with wide local excision for invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

RESULTS

The overall incomplete excision rate was 10.6%. Routine cavity shaving prevented the need for re-excision in 84 patients (18.7%) and identified the need for further re-excision in 33 patients (7.3%). Median time from surgery to radiotherapy was 50 days (range 13-209) for non-re-excised patients versus 78 days (range 47-260) for re-excised patients (p<0.001). Median time to chemotherapy (n=75) was 44 days (range 14-106) for non-re-excised patients versus 56 days (range 35-116) for re-excised patients (p=0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that routine cavity shaving decreases re-excision rate in patients treated with wide local excision and prevents delays to adjuvant treatment due to incomplete excision.

Radiofrequency spectroscopy with intraoperative pathological assessment for breast carcinoma: synergistic or redundant?

BACKGROUND

Published MarginProbe (Dune Medical Devices Ltd., Israel) data reports ≥50% reduction in positive lumpectomy margins. We sought to determine whether adjunctive use of MarginProbe would provide value over intraoperative pathologic assessment alone.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review of 86 consecutive lumpectomies with MarginProbe from December 2018 to November 2019. Margins were considered positive using 'no ink on tumor' guideline for invasive cancer, and 2 mm or greater for ductal carcinoma in-situ. Significance was measured using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients yielded 86 lumpectomies for inclusion. Mean age was 69.8 and mean tumor size was 1.09 cm. Sixty-eight invasive cancers were assessed using adjunct MarginProbe and gross assessment, while 18 ductal carcinoma in-situ cases utilized MarginProbe only. Among all cases, gross assessment alone reduced positive margins(29.2% relative reduction, p = 0.28). Utilizing both modalities, positive margins decreased from 27.9% to 9.3% (66.7% relative reduction, p < 0.01) representing a 46.9% relative reduction versus gross assessment alone. After gross assessment and MarginProbe evaluation, additional excised volume averaged 2.9 cc.

CONCLUSIONS

Synergistic use of MarginProbe and gross assessment reduces positive margins during breast conserving surgery. Surgeons can weigh its cost against it benefit with the succinct analysis we provide.

[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.

Cavity shaving for invasive breast cancer conservative surgery: Reduced specimen volume and margin positive rates

INTRODUCTION

The cavity shaving (CS) technique was described in breast conserving surgery to reduce the rate of reoperation avoiding the need for intraoperative margin analysis. This study assesses differences in the rates of involvement of the surgical margin (requiring further surgery) and volume of surgical specimens, depending on the use or not of this technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with breast carcinoma who underwent breast conserving surgery between 2013 and 2019. They were divided into two groups depending on whether the cavity shaving technique was used or not. Primary outcomes of the study included presence of final margin involvement, requiring need for further surgery, and the volume of excised tissue comparing the study groups.

RESULTS

A total of 202 cases were included: 92 in the control group and 110 in the cavity shaving group. Significant differences were found regarding involvement of the final margin (19.57% control group vs. 4.55% cavity shaving group; p = 0.010). The volume of additional surgical specimens were significantly greater in the traditional technique group than in the shaving technique (46.43 vs 13.32 cm³; p = 0.01) as was total specimen volume (143.40 vs 100.63 cm³; p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

CS can reduce the positive margin and re-excision rates without larger-volume resections and should therefore be considered a routine technique in BCS for early-stage breast cancer.

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

OBJECTIVE

Single-center studies have demonstrated that resection of cavity shave margins (CSM) halves the rate of positive margins and re-excision in breast cancer patients undergoing partial mastectomy (PM). We sought to determine if these findings were externally generalizable across practice settings.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial occurring in 9 centers across the United States, stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing PM were randomly assigned to either have resection of CSM ("shave" group) or not ("no shave" group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively, after the surgeon had completed their standard PM. Primary outcome measures were positive margin and re-excision rates.

RESULTS

Between July 28, 2016 and April 13, 2018, 400 patients were enrolled in this trial. Four patients (2 in each arm) did not meet inclusion criteria after randomization, leaving 396 patients for analysis: 196 in the "shave" group and 200 to the "no shave" group. Median patient age was 65 years (range; 29-94). Groups were well matched at baseline for demographic and clinicopathologic factors. Prior to randomization, positive margin rates were similar in the "shave" and "no shave" groups (76/196 (38.8%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), respectively, P = 0.604). After randomization, those in the "shave" group were significantly less likely than those in the "no shave" group to have positive margins (19/196 (9.7%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), P < 0.001), and to require re-excision or mastectomy for margin clearance (17/196 (8.7%) vs. 47/200 (23.5%), P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Resection of CSM significantly reduces positive margin and re-excision rates in patients undergoing PM.

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.

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.

Effect of Intraoperative Imprint Cytology Followed by Frozen Section on Margin Assessment in Breast-Conserving Surgery

PURPOSE

Intraoperative margin assessment can reduce positive margins in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. However, reports on intraoperative margin assessment have described only the use of either imprint cytology or frozen section. This study was designed to elucidate the effect of intraoperative margin assessment using imprint cytology followed by frozen section.

METHODS

Overall, 522 patients were enrolled. First, the entire surgical margin was subjected to imprint cytology. Frozen section was performed only in cases with "positive" or "suspicious" imprint cytology results. An additional intraoperative excision was performed in patients with frozen section-positive lesion sites. All margins were evaluated using postoperative permanent sections after excision.

RESULTS

Among 522 patients, 136 (26.1%) were imprint cytology-positive, and 386 (73.9%) were imprint cytology-negative. Among the 386 imprint cytology-negative patients not subjected to frozen section, 11 (2.1%) were permanent sections-positive (imprint cytology-false-negative). In 47 of the 136 imprint cytology-positive patients, additional intraoperative excision was unnecessary due to the frozen section-negative diagnosis. Moreover, these patients could avoid reoperation, because they were permanent section-negative. The false-positive rate of imprint cytology alone was 13.4%, but adding frozen section to imprint cytology decreased the overall false-positive rate to 2.5%. After undergoing excision, four patients still had positive margins. The overall positive margin rate in the final pathology based on permanent sections was 2.9% (15/522).

CONCLUSIONS

Imprint cytology followed by frozen section led to a markedly decreased positive margin rate. This is considered the best method for intraoperative margin assessment, as it can overcome the limitations of cytology and histology performed individually.

Effect of Surgeon Factors on Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes After Breast-Conserving Therapy in Older Breast Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND

The effect of surgeon factors on patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is unknown and may help patients make informed care decisions.

METHODS

We performed a survey study of women aged ≥ 67 years with non-metastatic breast cancer diagnosed in 2009 and treated with guideline-concordant BCT, to determine the association of surgeon factors with patient-reported outcomes. The treating surgeon was identified using Medicare claims, and surgeon factors were identified via the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The primary outcome was patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction measured by the Cancer Surveillance and Outcomes Research Team (CanSORT) Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcome instrument, while secondary outcomes included BREAST-Q subdomains. All patient, treatment, and surgeon covariables were included in a saturated multivariable linear regression model with backward elimination applied until remaining variables were p < 0.1.

RESULTS

Of 1650 women randomly selected to receive the questionnaire, 489 responded, of whom 289 underwent BCT. Median age at diagnosis was 72 years and the time from diagnosis to survey was 6 years. The mean adjusted CanSORT score was higher for patients treated by surgical oncologists than patients treated by non-surgical oncologists (4.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 3.65-4.38] vs. 3.53 [95% CI 3.28-3.77], p = 0.006). Similarly, mean adjusted BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being (91.97 [95% CI 86.13-97.80] vs. 83.04 [95% CI 80.85-85.22], p = 0.006) and Adverse Radiation Effects (95.28 [95% CI 91.25-99.31] vs. 88.90 [95% CI 86.23-91.57], p = 0.004) scores were better among patients treated by surgical oncologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialized surgical oncology training is associated with improved long-term patient-reported outcomes. These findings underscore the value of specialized training and may be useful to patients choosing their care team.

Prognostic impact of residual disease in simultaneous additional excision specimens after one-step breast conserving therapy with negative final margin status in primary breast cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was the evaluation of risk factors for local recurrence after breast conserving surgery (BCS) with special focus on the impact of residual disease in specimens of simultaneous additional excisions (AE) from the tumor cavity on patients' outcome in patients with negative final margin status after one-step BCS.

METHODS

This study was designed as a single center retrospective cohort study. Patients with primary non-metastatic breast cancer treated by one-step BCS with pathologically confirmed negative resection status between 1990 and 2006 were included. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier-estimates. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify potential independent prognostic factors associated with the risk of IBTR.

RESULTS

A total of 1081 patients were included in this analysis. Simultaneous additional excisions were performed in 79.4% of patients (tumor positive: 12.2%). Median follow-up after primary diagnosis was 124 months. The IBTR rate after 15 years was significantly higher in the group with tumor positive AE (no AE (10.2%) vs. AE tumor positive (27.5%) p = 0.002; AE tumor negative (14.0%) vs. AE tumor positive (27.5%) p = 0.008). The OS rate did not differ significantly between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed residual cancer in AE being associated with a significantly increased relative risk of IBTR of 2.0 (p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

In the current analysis residual disease in simultaneous additional excisions was associated with an increased risk for IBTR despite negative final margin status. This should be considered in the overall therapeutic concept.

Novel techniques for intraoperative assessment of margin involvement

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) is now the standard of care for the majority of women with early stage breast cancer. There is a finite rate of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) for breast conserving therapy (BCT) with annual rates of less than 1% for specialist breast practices. There has been recent consensus on the definition of an adequate resection margin for both invasive and noninvasive breast cancer treated with BCS, although some variation in margin policy persists with definitions of 'no tumour at ink', 1 and 2 mm margin mandates. Despite the development of methods for intraoperative assessment of margins, up to 20% of patients require further surgery (cavity re-excision or completion mastectomy) to achieve clear surgical margins. In the past decade, several novel technologies for intraoperative margin assessment have been explored with the aim of reducing rates of re-operation and its attendant patient anxiety, inconvenience and additional cost. Ongoing studies are addressing the safety, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of these novel technologies relative to methods in routine clinical usage.

Is the systematic circumferential tumor cavity shaving a representative sample for the remaining mammary gland? About 75 cases

INTRODUCTION

The conservative surgery is more and more indicated for breast cancer. However, we still fear local recurrence which is mostly due to residual tumors?. Several techniques have been used to minimize theses residual tumors; one of them is the systematic circumferential tumor cavity shaving (SCTCS).

METHODS

We sampled 75 female patients who had conservative surgery with positive shaved margins in the anatomopathology examination and to whom a complementary treatment with mastectomy have been decided.

RESULTS

The median age was 48 years old. The median tumor size was 23 mm. In the histological examination of the tumors, 93% were invasive ductal carcinoma associated in 50% of the cases to the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) where all the lumpectomies had clear margin. For the SCTCS, 62,2% were DCIS and in 17,6% of the cases were invasive ductal carcinoma. A complementary treatment with mastectomy was indicated to all the patients. A residual tumor was detected in the remaining mammary gland in 47,7% of the cases out of which 50% were DCIS. Local recurrence happened in three patients (4,6%) after a median of follow up of 36 months. The overall survival and the disease free survival at five years were respectively 83,6% and 75,5%.

CONCLUSION

Standardized lumpectomy cavity shaving provides a backup to lumpectomy margins in conservative breast surgery but it can also be used as a sample for the remaining breast, helping to detect the residual tumor, and decreasing the rates of local recurrence after BCT.

Cavity Shaving plus Lumpectomy versus Lumpectomy Alone for Patients with Breast Cancer Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The margin status is a well-established prognostic predictor for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Recent data suggested that cavity shaving in addition to lumpectomy might be a promising approach for improving the clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between cavity shaving plus lumpectomy and lumpectomy alone with a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for studies comparing cavity shaving with lumpectomy before June 10, 2016. Both comparative studies and self-control studies were included. A random-effects model was used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for positive margin rate, reoperation rate, recurrence rate, and weighted mean difference (WMD) for excised tissue volume. Twenty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis. The cavity shaving group had a significantly lower positive margin rate than the BCS-alone group (16.4% vs. 31.9%; OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.53, P < 0.05). Cavity shaving was associated with a significantly decreased rate of reoperation (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.59, P < 0.05). The overall locoregional rate was low for cavity shaving and BCS-alone (3% vs. 4%). Cavity shaving had no significant effect on the risk of locoregional recurrence (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.32-2.35; P = 0.78). The excised tissue volume did not differ substantially between cavity shaving and BCS alone (WMD = -23.88, 95% CI -55.20 to 7.44, P = 0.14). For patients undergoing BCS, additional cavity shaving was an effective method to decrease the positive margin rate and avoid reoperation. The addition of cavity shaving did not appear to have excessive excised tissue volume compared with partial mastectomy alone.

Achieving clear margins. Directed shaving using MarginProbe, as compared to a full cavity shave approach

BACKGROUND

Following lumpectomy, full cavity shaving approach is used to reduce positive margin rates, among other issues previously studied by others, at an expense of increase in tissue volume removed. We present our experience after switching from full cavity shaving to a targeted shaving approach using MarginProbe, an intra-operative margin assessment device.

METHODS

Specimen excision was performed according to standard of care. Additional shavings were taken based on device readings on the lumpectomy specimen. Intra-operative imaging was used, as required.

RESULTS

We compared 137 MarginProbe cases to 199 full cavity shave cases. The re-excision rate was reduced by 57% (P = 0.026), from 15.1% to 6.6%. The overall tissue volume removed was reduced by 32% (P = 0.0023), from 115 cc to 78 cc.

CONCLUSIONS

MarginProbe enabled a change in the lumpectomy technique from full cavity shavings to directed shavings guided by the device. There was a significant reduction in re-excisions and in the overall tissue volume removed.The lower amount of shavings also contributed to a reduction in pathology work.

Toolbox to Reduce Lumpectomy Reoperations and Improve Cosmetic Outcome in Breast Cancer Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND

Multiple recent reports have documented significant variability of reoperation rates after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer. To address this issue, a multidisciplinary consensus conference was convened during the American Society of Breast Surgeons 2015 annual meeting.

METHODS

The conference mission statement was to "reduce the national reoperation rate in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery for cancer, without increasing mastectomy rates or adversely affecting cosmetic outcome, thereby improving value of care." The goal was to develop a toolbox of recommendations to reduce the variability of reoperation rates and improve cosmetic outcomes. Conference participants included providers from multiple disciplines involved with breast cancer care, as well as a patient representative. Updated systematic reviews of the literature and invited presentations were sent to participants in advance. After topic presentations, voting occurred for choice of tools, level of evidence, and strength of recommendation.

RESULTS

The following tools were recommended with varied levels of evidence and strength of recommendation: compliance with the SSO-ASTRO Margin Guideline; needle biopsy for diagnosis before surgical excision of breast cancer; full-field digital diagnostic mammography with ultrasound as needed; use of oncoplastic techniques; image-guided lesion localization; specimen imaging for nonpalpable cancers; use of specialized techniques for intraoperative management, including excisional cavity shave biopsies and intraoperative pathology assessment; formal pre- and postoperative planning strategies; and patient-reported outcome measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

A practical approach to performance improvement was used by the American Society of Breast Surgeons to create a toolbox of options to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcomes.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Routine resection of cavity shave margins (additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by partial mastectomy) may reduce the rates of positive margins (margins positive for tumor) and reexcision among patients undergoing partial mastectomy for breast cancer.

METHODS

In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, 235 patients with breast cancer of stage 0 to III who were undergoing partial mastectomy, with or without resection of selective margins, to have further cavity shave margins resected (shave group) or not to have further cavity shave margins resected (no-shave group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively after surgeons had completed standard partial mastectomy. Positive margins were defined as tumor touching the edge of the specimen that was removed in the case of invasive cancer and tumor that was within 1 mm of the edge of the specimen removed in the case of ductal carcinoma in situ. The rate of positive margins was the primary outcome measure; secondary outcome measures included cosmesis and the volume of tissue resected.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 61 years (range, 33 to 94). On final pathological testing, 54 patients (23%) had invasive cancer, 45 (19%) had ductal carcinoma in situ, and 125 (53%) had both; 11 patients had no further disease. The median size of the tumor in the greatest diameter was 1.1 cm (range, 0 to 6.5) in patients with invasive carcinoma and 1.0 cm (range, 0 to 9.3) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Groups were well matched at baseline with respect to demographic and clinicopathological characteristics. The rate of positive margins after partial mastectomy (before randomization) was similar in the shave group and the no-shave group (36% and 34%, respectively; P=0.69). After randomization, patients in the shave group had a significantly lower rate of positive margins than did those in the no-shave group (19% vs. 34%, P=0.01), as well as a lower rate of second surgery for margin clearance (10% vs. 21%, P=0.02). There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cavity shaving halved the rates of positive margins and reexcision among patients with partial mastectomy. (Funded by the Yale Cancer Center; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01452399.).

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.

[Conservative treatment of breast cancer: experience of a Tunisian team]

En Tunisie, le cancer du sein touche des femmes jeunes avec une taille moyenne au moment du diagnostic à 5 cm. Ces particularités font que la chirurgie radicale reste prédominante. Nous présentons dans ce travail l'expérience de notre équipe en matière de chirurgie conservatrice du cancer du sein. Le but de ce travail est d’évaluer les résultats de ce traitement. Etude rétrospective longitudinale, sur une période de 75 mois. Nous avons inclus toutes les patientes ayant bénéficié d'un traitement conservateur pour une tumeur maligne du sein. Ont été analysés: les caractéristiques épidémiologiques, les aspects radiologiques et histologiques. Le suivi des malades s'est basé sur la détection des récidives. Nous avons évalué le résultat esthétique à la fin de la radiothérapie. Le traitement conservateur a été réalisé dans 23.8% des cas. Le taux de récidives locales était de 6.8% avec une corrélation significative pour une taille tumorale > 30 mm (p= 0.009), l'association d'une composante intracanalaire (p= 0.035), le statut triple négatif (p= 0.003) et des marges d'exérèse < 5mm sans recoupes per-opératoires (p = 0.045). Les facteurs suivants étaient significativement liés au risque de survenue de métastases à distance: le statut triple négatif (p= 0.003), taille tumorale > 30mm (p = 0.006) et l'atteinte ganglionnaire (p = 0.001). Le résultat esthétique était satisfaisant dans 90% des cas. L'augmentation du nombre de patientes pouvant bénéficier d'une chirurgie conservatrice, doit passer impérativement par le développement et la promotion du diagnostic précoce et du dépistage par la mammographie.

A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies

Background

The presence of tumor cells at the margins of breast lumpectomy specimens is associated with an increased risk of ipsilateral tumor recurrence. Twenty to 30 % of patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery require second procedures to achieve negative margins. This study evaluated the adjunctive use of the MarginProbe device (Dune Medical Devices Ltd, Caesarea, Israel) in providing real-time intraoperative assessment of lumpectomy margins.

Methods

This multicenter randomized trial enrolled patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. The study evaluated MarginProbe use in addition to standard intraoperative methods for margin assessment. After specimen removal and inspection, patients were randomized to device or control arms. In the device arm, MarginProbe was used to examine the main lumpectomy specimens and direct additional excision of positive margins. Intraoperative imaging was used in both arms; no intraoperative pathology assessment was permitted.

Results

In total, 596 patients were enrolled. False-negative rates were 24.8 and 66.1 % and false-positive rates were 53.6 and 16.6 % in the device and control arms, respectively. All positive margins on positive main specimens were resected in 62 % (101 of 163) of cases in the device arm, versus 22 % (33 of 147) in the control arm (p < 0.001). A total of 19.8 % (59 of 298) of patients in the device arm underwent a reexcision procedure compared with 25.8 % (77 of 298) in the control arm (6 % absolute, 23 % relative reduction). The difference in tissue volume removed was not significant.

Conclusions

Adjunctive use of the MarginProbe device during breast-conserving surgery improved surgeons’ ability to identify and resect positive lumpectomy margins in the absence of intraoperative pathology assessment, reducing the number of patients requiring reexcision. MarginProbe may aid performance of breast-conserving surgery by reducing the burden of reexcision procedures for patients and the health care system.

Preoperative localization and surgical margins in conservative breast surgery

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the treatment of choice for early breast cancer. The adequacy of surgical margins (SM) is a crucial issue for adjusting the volume of excision and for avoiding local recurrences, although the precise definition of an adequate margins width remains controversial. Moreover, other factors such as the biological behaviour of the tumor and subsequent proper systemic therapies may influence the local recurrence rate (LRR). However, a successful BCS requires preoperative localization techniques or margin assessment techniques. Carbon marking, wire-guided, biopsy clips, radio-guided, ultrasound-guided, frozen section analysis, imprint cytology, and cavity shave margins are commonly used, but from the literature review, no single technique proved to be better among the various ones. Thus, an association of two or more methods could result in a decrease in rates of involved margins. Each institute should adopt its most congenial techniques, based on the senologic equipe experience, skills, and technologies.

A pilot study evaluating shaved cavity margins with micro-computed tomography: a novel method for predicting lumpectomy margin status intraoperatively

Microscopically clear lumpectomy margins are essential in breast conservation, as involved margins increase local recurrence. Currently, 18-50% of lumpectomies have close or positive margins that require re-excision. We assessed the ability of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) to evaluate lumpectomy shaved cavity margins (SCM) intraoperatively to determine if this technology could rapidly identify margin involvement by tumor and reduce re-excision rates. Twenty-five SCM from six lumpectomies were evaluated with a Skyscan 1173 table top micro-CT scanner (Skyscan, Belgium). Micro-CT results were compared to histopathological results. We scanned three SCM at once with a 7-minute scanning protocol, and studied a total of 25 SCM from six lumpectomies. Images of the SCM were evaluated for radiographic signs of breast cancer including clustered microcalcifications and spiculated masses. SCM were negative by micro-CT in 19/25 (76%) and negative (≥2 mm) by histopathology in 19/25 (76%). Margin status by micro-CT was concordant with histopathology in 23/25 (92%). Micro-CT overestimated margin involvement in 1/25 and underestimated margin involvement in 1/25. Micro-CT had an 83.3% positive predictive value, a 94.7% negative predictive value, 83.3% sensitivity, and 94.7% specificity for evaluation of SCM. Evaluation of SCM by micro-CT is an accurate and promising method of intraoperative margin assessment in breast cancer patients. The scanning time required is short enough to permit real-time feedback to the operating surgeon, allowing immediate directed re-excision.

Systematic cavity shaving: modifications of breast cancer management and long-term local recurrence, a multicentre study

BACKGROUND

The status of the surgical margins of lumpectomy is one of the most important determinants of local recurrence in breast cancer. Systematically practicing cavity margin resection is debated but may avoid surgical re-excision and allow the diagnosis of multifocality.

METHODS

This multicentric retrospective study included 294 patients who underwent conservative management of breast cancer with 2-4 systematic cavity shavings. Clinico-biological characteristics of the patients were collected in order to establish whether surgical management was modified by systematic cavity shaving. Local recurrence rate with a long-term follow up of minimum 4 years was evaluated.

RESULTS

Cavity shaving avoided the need for re-excision in 25% of cases and helped in the diagnosis of multifocality in 8% of cases. Resection volume was not associated with usefulness of the cavity shaving. No predictive factor of positive cavity shaving was found. The rate of local recurrence was 3.7% and appeared in a median time of 3 years and 8 month. Only one quarter of the patients with local recurrence had initially positive lumpectomy margins but negative cavity shaving.

DISCUSSION

Systematic cavity shaving can change surgical management of conservative treatment. No specific target population for useful cavity shaving was found, such that we recommend utilising it systematically.

[Realizing systematic cavity margins in conservative breast cancer surgery]

The quality of surgical margins in lumpectomy are strong criteria to define risk of locoregional recurrence when conservative treatment is undertaken. Intraoperatively, the limits of adequate resection are sometimes difficult to define. This is why some teams propose the realization of systematic cavity margins during the excision of lumpectomy during the same operation. We expose the potential benefits of this type of practice using data from the literature.