Contemporary Analysis of Reexcision and Conversion to Mastectomy Rates and Associated Healthcare Costs for Women Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery

PURPOSE

This study was designed to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of population-level reoperation rates and incremental healthcare costs associated with reoperation for patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using Merative™ MarketScan® commercial insurance data and Medicare 5% fee-for-service claims data. The study included females aged 18-64 years in the commercial cohort and females aged 18 years and older in the Medicare cohort, who underwent initial BCS for breast cancer in 2017-2019. Reoperation rates within a year of the initial BCS and overall 1-year healthcare costs stratified by reoperation status were measured.

RESULTS

The commercial cohort included 17,129 women with a median age of 55 (interquartile range [IQR] 49-59) years, and the Medicare cohort included 6977 women with a median age of 73 (IQR 69-78) years. Overall reoperation rates were 21.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.5-21.8%) for the commercial cohort and 14.9% (95% CI 14.1-15.7%) for the Medicare cohort. In both cohorts, reoperation rates decreased as age increased, and conversion to mastectomy was more prevalent among younger women in the commercial cohort. The mean healthcare costs during 1 year of follow-up from the initial BCS were $95,165 for the commercial cohort and $36,313 for the Medicare cohort. Reoperations were associated with 24% higher costs in both the commercial and Medicare cohorts, which translated into $21,607 and $8559 incremental costs, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of reoperation after BCS have remained high and have contributed to increased healthcare costs. Continuing efforts to reduce reoperation need more attention.

Does Non-Classic Lobular Carcinoma In Situ at the Lumpectomy Margin Increase Local Recurrence?

BACKGROUND

The clinical significance of nonclassic, lobular carcinoma in situ (NC-LCIS) at the surgical margin of excisions for invasive cancer is unknown. We sought to determine whether NC-LCIS at or near the margin in the setting of a concurrent invasive carcinoma is associated with risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and locoregional recurrence (LRR).

METHODS

Patients with stage 0-III breast cancer and NC-LCIS who underwent lumpectomy between January 2010 and January 2022 at a single institution were retrospectively identified. NC-LCIS margins were stratified as <2 mm, ≥2 mm, or within shave margin. Rates of IBTR and LRR were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 511 female patients (median age 60 years [interquartile range (IQR) 52-69]) with NC-LCIS and an associated ipsilateral breast cancer with a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR 2.0-5.9) were identified. Final margins for NC-LCIS were ≥2 mm in 348 patients (68%), <2 mm in 37 (7.2%), and within shave margin in 126 (24.6%). Crude incidence of IBTR was 3.3% (n = 17) and that of LRR was 4.9% (n = 25). There was no difference in the crude rate of IBTR by NC-LCIS margin status (IBTR rate: 3.7% ≥2 mm, 0% <2 mm, 3.2% within shave margin, p = 0.8) nor in LRR (LRR rate: 4.9% ≥2 mm, 2.7% <2 mm, 5.6% within shave margin, p = 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

For completely excised invasive breast cancers associated with NC-LCIS, extent of margin width for NC-LCIS was not associated with a difference in IBTR or LRR. These data suggest that the decision to perform reexcision of margin after lumpectomy should be driven by the invasive cancer, rather than the NC-LCIS margin.

The Impact of Breast-Conserving Surgery Re-excision on Patient-Reported Outcomes Using the BREAST-Q

BACKGROUND

Approximately 14% of women undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) require re-excision to achieve negative margins following the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) margin guidelines, which may influence patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Few studies have assessed the impact of re-excision on PROs following BCS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women with stage 0-III breast cancer undergoing BCS who completed a BREAST-Q PRO measure from 2010 to 2016 were identified from a prospective database. Baseline characteristics were compared between women who underwent one BCS and those who underwent ≥ 1 re-excision surgery for positive margins (R-BCS). Linear mixed models were used to analyze associations between number of excisions and BREAST-Q scores over time.

RESULTS

Of 2543 eligible women, 1979 (78%) had one BCS and 564 (22%) had R-BCS. Younger age, lower BMI, surgery pre-SSO Invasive Guidelines issuance, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), multifocal disease, radiation therapy receipt, and endocrine therapy omission were more common in the R-BCS group. Breast satisfaction and sexual well-being were lower in the R-BCS group 2 years postoperatively. There were no differences in psychosocial well-being between groups over 5 years. On multivariable analysis, re-excision was associated with lower breast satisfaction and sexual well-being (p= 0.007 and p= 0.049, respectively), but there was no difference in psychosocial well-being (p= 0.250).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with R-BCS had lower breast satisfaction and sexual well-being 2 years postoperatively, but this difference did not remain long term. Psychosocial well-being in women who underwent one BCS were largely comparable over time to the R-BCS group. These findings may help in counseling women who are concerned about satisfaction and quality-of-life outcomes with BCS if re-excision is necessary.

Factors influencing suboptimal pathologic margins and re-excision following breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in-situ

INTRODUCTION

Re-excisions following breast conserving surgery (BCS) are common, occurring more frequently in ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) than its' malignant counterpart. Although one quarter of patients with breast cancer will have DCIS, there is limited information available regarding factors predisposing to inadequate pathologic margins, and the need for re-excision.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients treated for DCIS between the years 2010-2016 was conducted. Patients with DCIS undergoing BCS were identified and evaluated for demographic and pathologic factors associated with suboptimal pathologic margins and re-excision. Multivariate analysis with Wald Chi-Square testing was performed.

RESULTS

241 patients underwent BCS with suboptimal margins (SOM) in 51.7% (123/238), with 27.8% undergoing re-excision (67/241). Tumor size was the most influential variable, positively associated with SOM (OR = 10.25, CI: 5.50-19.13) and re-excision (OR = 6.36, CI: 3.92-10.31). Patient age was inversely associated with SOM (OR = 0.58, CI: 0.39-0.85) and subsequent re-excisions (OR = 0.56, CI: 0.36-0.86). Low tumour grade was associated with re-excision (OR = 1.31, CI: 0.63-2.71), while ER negative disease was associated with SOM (OR = 2.24, CI: 1.21-4.14).

DISCUSSION

Inadequate pathologic margins following BCS, and subsequent re-excision rates are common in patients with DCIS, and consistent with the literature. Tumour size is the dominant factor driving this occurrence, with patient age and tumour grade also impacting outcomes.

Imaging of lumpectomy surface with large field-of-view confocal laser scanning microscope for intraoperative margin assessment - POLARHIS study

INTRODUCTION

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in case of breast cancer and/or in-situ-carcinoma lesions (DCIS) intends to completely remove breast cancer while saving healthy tissue as much as possible to achieve better aesthetic and psychological outcomes for the patient. Such modality should result in postoperative tumor-free margins of the surgical resection in order to carry on with the next therapeutical steps of the patient care. However, 10-40% of patients undergo more than one procedure to achieve acceptable cancer-negative margins. A 2nd operation or further operation (re-operation) has physical, psychological, and economic consequences. It also delays the administration of adjuvant therapy, and has been associated with an elevated risk of local and distant disease relapse. In addition, a high re-operation rate can have significant economic effects - both for the service provider and for the payer. A more efficient intraoperative assessment of the margin may address these issues. Recently, a large field-of-view confocal laser scanning microscope designed to allow real-time intraoperative margin assessment has arrived on the market - the Histolog Scanner. In this paper, we present the first evaluation of lumpectomy margins assessment with this new device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

40 consecutive patients undergoing BCS with invasive and/or DCIS were included. The whole surface of the surgical specimens was imaged right after the operation using the Histolog Scanner (HLS). The assessment of all the specimen margins was performed intraoperatively according to the standard-of-care of the center which consists of combined ultrasound (IOUS) and/or conventional specimen radiography (CSR), and gross surgical inspection. Margin assessment on HLS images was blindly performed after the surgery by 5 surgeons and one pathologist. The capabilities to correctly determine margin status in HLS images was compared to the final histopathological assessment. Furthermore, the potential reduction of positive-margin and re-operation rates by utilization of the HLS were extrapolated.

RESULTS

The study population included 7/40 patients with DCIS (17.5%), 17/40 patients with DCIS and invasive ductal cancer (IDC NST) (42.5%), 10/40 patients with IDC NST (25%), 4/40 with invasive lobular cancer (ILC) (10%), and 1/40 patients with a mix of IDC NST, DCIS, and ILC. Clinical routine resulted in 13 patients with positive margins identified by final histopathological assessment, resulting in 12 re-operations (30% re-operation rate). Amongst these 12 patients, 10 had DCIS components involved in their margin, confirming the importance of improving the detection accuracy of this specific lesion. Surgeons, who were given a short familiarization on HLS images, and a pathologist were able to detect positive margins in 4/12 and 7/12 patients (33% and 58%), respectively, that were missed by the intraoperative standard of care. In addition, a retrospective analysis of the HLS images revealed that cancer lesions can be identified in 9/12 (75%) patients with positive margins.

CONCLUSION

The present study presents that breast cancer can be detected by surgeons and pathologists in HLS images of lumpectomy margins leading to a potential reduction of 30% and 75% of the re-operations. The Histolog Scanner is easily inserted into the clinical workflow and has the potential to improve the intraoperative standard-of-care for the assessment of breast conserving treatments. In addition, it has the potential to increase oncological safety and cosmetics by avoiding subsequent resections and can also have a significant positive economic effect for service providers and cost bearers. The data presented in this study will have to be further confirmed in a prospective phase-III-trial.

Oncoplastic surgery: A suitable alternative to conventional breast conserving surgery in low - Middle income countries; a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) with whole breast radiation is now standard of care as a safer alternative to Mastectomy in terms of loco-regional recurrence and long-term survival. Despite this, a frequent pitfall of conventional BCS is positive surgical margins and need for second surgery with a reported frequency of 12-59 % in literature. Oncoplastic Surgery can be a safer, more cost effective alternate to conventional BCS owing to its higher rate of negative surgical margins (4-6% vs 12-59 %) and better cosmetic results. We aim to prove utility of Oncoplastic surgery for Low-Middle income countries.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine Oncoplastic Surgery as a more appropriate alternative to Conventional Breast Conserving Surgery for Low-Middle Income countries in terms of its lower positive margins and re-excision rates.

Methodology

A retrospective comparative single center study by reviewing patient's medical records from August 2016 to June 2020 was conducted. Rate of positive margins and re-excisions along with mean volume of resection specimen, mean tumor size and quadrant dealt by both surgical procedures were compared.

Results

Out of 421 patients 249 patients underwent oncoplastic surgery and were compared with 173 patients who had conventional breast conserving surgery. Positive margins were seen in 5 patients (2 %) in OPS group whereas in 31 (17.9 %) patients in BCS group (p value < 0.001). Therefore, 2 from OPS group and 17 from BCS group underwent re-excision (p value < 0.002).None in OPS group while 7 out of 17 patients in BCS group underwent mastectomy as second procedure. Mean tumor size in OPS group was 2.26 cm ± SD 1.66 and in BCS group was 1.94 cm ± SD 1.28. Majority of Lobular carcinoma and Ductal carcinoma in-situ, multifocal, upper inner and central quadrant tumors and those unresponsive to neo-adjuvant therapy were treated by Oncoplastic techniques.

Conclusion

Oncoplastic surgery has shown promising results as a safer tool to deal with large, complex tumors, lesions in difficult anatomical locations, multifocal or progressing on neo-adjuvant therapy. With its low Re-excision rates, it is a better alternative to traditional Breast Conserving approach for overburdened and resource limited health care system of Low-Middle Income countries. Multi-center, prospective trials are needed to determine its feasibility.

Factors predicting residual disease on re-excision after breast conserving surgery

INTRODUCTION

Breast conserving surgery is the standard of care for early breast cancer, however in a quarter of patients, satisfactory margins are not achieved, usually leading to re-excision. Residual disease is found in less than half of these re-excisions, leading to increased morbidity, poorer cosmesis and increased cost, possibly with no oncological benefit. Our study aimed to identify a group of patients with unsatisfactory margins but a low risk of residual disease, who may be able to avoid re-excision.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All patients from our unit undergoing re-excision for unsatisfactory margins after breast conserving surgery between January 2013 and October 2019 were identified. Pathological factors predicting residual disease were investigated using univariable and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

220 patients were included. 90 (41 %) had residual disease. Residual disease was more likely in those having mastectomy than cavity shaves (61 % vs 32 %, p < 0.0001). Residual disease increased in a linear fashion with number of involved margins and with increasing tumour size. Tumour size <20 mm (p = 0.045), a pathological to radiological tumour size ratio less than 1.5 (p < 0.0001) and disease-free cavity shaves taken at initial surgery (p = 0.041) were all independent predictors of a low chance of residual disease on multivariable analysis. Patients with all three factors had a 14 % chance of residual disease.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of patients undergo potentially unnecessary re-excision, and patients with small, radiologically obvious tumours are less likely to have residual disease. The decision on re-excision should include these factors in addition to the margin status.

Risk factors for the presence of residual disease in women after partial mastectomy for invasive breast cancer: A single institution experience

BACKGROUND

We hypothesize that in addition to specimen margin widths other clinical variables may help predict the presence of residual disease in the lumpectomy bed.

METHODS

Patients with Stage I-III invasive breast cancer (BC) who underwent partial mastectomy (PM) and re-excision from July 2010-June 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Bivariate analyses were conducted using two-sample t-tests for continuous variables and Fisher's Exact tests for categorical variables. A multivariate logistic regression was then performed on significant bivariate analyses variables.

RESULTS

ne-hundred and eighty-four patients were included in our analysis; 47% had residual disease on re-excision, while 53% had no residual disease. Tumor and nodal stage, operation type, type of disease present at margin, and number of positive margins were significantly associated with residual disease. On multivariate logistic regression, DCIS alone at the margin (p = 0.02), operation type (PM with cavity margins) (p = 0.003), and number of positive margins (3 or more) (p < 0.001) remained predictive of residual disease at re-excision.

CONCLUSION

Based on a more comprehensive review of the initial pathology, there are additional factors that can help predict the likelihood of finding residual disease and help guide the surgeon in the decision for re-excision.

Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with low re-excision rates following breast conserving surgery for non-palpable invasive breast cancers

BACKGROUND

Wire localized breast biopsy (WLB) is the most commonly performed procedure for the removal of non-palpable breast cancer. It is associated with patient discomfort and high re-excision rates. Intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) is an alternative technique that may improve patient experience and have lower re-excision rates.

METHODS

A retrospective, single surgeon experience with IOUS is compared with WLB. Case matching for variables known to impact re-excision rates is performed. Fisher's exact test was performed for categorical variables, and a T-test for continuous variables.

RESULTS

28 patients underwent IOUS and WLB. Re-excision rates were the same in patients undergoing IOUS and WLB (10.7% vs 0%; p = 0.24). The calculated resection ratio was lower with IOUS than WLB (2.99 vs 3.46; p = 0.37), but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, intra-operative ultrasound can be performed with a favourable re-excision rate, and comparable amounts of tissue compared to wire localized breast biopsy.

Routine cavity shaves following breast conserving surgery; friend or foe?

BACKGROUND

Radial margin status is considered one of the most important prognostic predictor for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCT), not only related to regional recurrence but also to 5y survival, especially in patients with invasive disease.

AIM

While our primary aim was to evaluate whether doing routine radial cavity shaves following at the time of primary conservative breast surgery will decrease the need for a second operation or not, our secondary aim was to assess time added to the operation to resect and mark the radial shaves, as well as patients' satisfaction with the results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We have conducted a case series prospective analysis, including158 patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery looking into the histological status of resection margins and radial shaves, added time taken to take and mark the shaves as well as patients' satisfaction.

RESULTS

158 female breast cancer patients have been included in our analysis, the mean age was 56 years; total number of lesions was 160. While 89.3% of lesions were palpable, 10.6% were not requiring wire-guided localisation. Mean tumour size was 24 mm SD 7, final histology revealed that 86.8% lesion was invasive ductal carcinoma, 5.6% invasive lobular carcinoma, 1.2% medullary carcinoma. 12.4% had invasive disease as well as DCIS, and 1.8% had DCIS only with no invasive disease. Mean preoperative breast volume was 723 ml, Mean wide local excision specimen weight was 73 g, and mean shave weight was 1.6 g. Total number of radial margins was 640, 81.8% was clear, 14.6% was close, and 3.4% was involved. Total number of shaves was 640 out of which 98.7% was clear 0.7% was close and 0.4% was involved. Out of the 160 lesions, 3.7% required a second procedure to clear margins, out of which 2.5% had re-excision for close or involved single shaves each while 1.2% had mastectomy due to close or involved two shaves each. Average time utilised in resection of radial shaves and marking was 7 min 0.6% of patients developed a haematoma, 1.8% had a Seroma, and 1.2% had wound infection. Mean hospital stay was 1day SD 1.

CONCLUSION

Routine radial cavity shaves not only ensure microscopic clearance, reduce the need for re-excision with no significant added operating time but also has no impact on patients' satisfaction.

Benign and borderline phyllodes tumors of the breast: Clinicopathologic analysis of 205 cases with emphasis on the surgical margin status and local recurrence rate

BACKGROUND

The management of benign and borderline phyllodes tumors of the breast with a positive surgical margin is still controversial. Our aim in this study was to evaluate the impact of surgical margin status on the local recurrence rate of benign and borderline phyllodes tumors.

METHODS

We reviewed 205 phyllodes tumors (191 benign, 14 borderline) that were surgically excised at our hospital between 2005 and 2019. Follow-up information extending to at least 6 months after surgery was retrieved from the clinical, radiology, and pathology records.

RESULTS

The initial surgical margin was negative in 54 (26%) cases, close (≤ 1 mm) in 29 (14%) cases, and positive in 122 (60%) cases. Approximately half of the cases with a close margin and two-third of the cases with a positive margin underwent re-excision to obtain negative margins. Three (2.3%) local recurrences were observed among 131 cases with follow-up information, all three with benign phyllodes tumor. Of these three patients, one had a positive final margin, and two had negative final margins. There was no significant difference in the rate of local recurrence between PT with a positive surgical margin versus a close and negative margin.

CONCLUSION

The study results suggest that close clinical and radiologic follow-up may provide a better course of management rather than re-excision when managing positive margins in benign and borderline phyllodes tumors.

The INTEND 1 randomized controlled trial of duct endoscopy as an indicator of margin excision in breast conservation surgery

PURPOSE

With early detection, breast conservation surgery with adequate surgical margins is the standard of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of pre-operative duct endoscopy (DE) to target surgical resection, improve adequate margins and reduce re-excision operations.

METHODS

Women with DCIS, stage I and II breast cancer suitable for breast conservation were randomized to DE-assisted wide local excision versus standard wide local excision (without DE). The primary endpoint was margin re-excision rates between the two groups. Secondary end points were: (i) volume differences of the surgical specimen; (ii) whether an extensive in situ component (EIC) influenced successful DE-guided resection.

RESULTS

78 women were randomized: 44 patients to no-DE and 34 patients to the DE group. The median age was 59 (49-65) and 56 (48-64) years in the two groups respectively with mean follow-up of 9.1 (4.2-11.1) years. There were 23 positive findings in 17 women in 30 successful DE procedures (17/30 = 56.7%). The surgical specimen volume, no-DE (17 [IQR 10-29] cm³) and DE 20 [IQR 12-28] cm³), did not differ, p = 0.377. The overall re-excision rate was 20/78 (26%), 9 (20%) and 11 (32% in the no-DE and DE groups, respectively, p = 0.233.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized clinical trial was limited by incomplete accrual. DE did not contribute to improved margin excision rates whether a target lesion was visualized or not. The presence of EIC did not improve efficacy of DE.

Use of MarginProbe as an adjunct to standard operating procedure does not significantly reduce re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery

PURPOSE

A positive margin after breast conserving surgery has consistently been shown to be a significant predictor for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence. Currently, there is no standard for intraoperative margin assessment during lumpectomy, and up to 20% of cases result in positive margins. MarginProbe is a device that provides real-time evaluation of lumpectomy margins during surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of MarginProbe as an adjunct to standard operating procedure (SOP).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with breast cancer scheduled for breast conserving surgery were consented for intraoperative use of MarginProbe. Shaved margins were excised based on margin assessment using the surgeon's SOP which included specimen radiography and gross pathologic examination, and feedback from the device. The primary endpoint was re-excision rate. Secondary endpoints included sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and negative rates.

RESULTS

Of the 60 breast cancers, initial histologically close/positive margins were identified in 18 patients (30%). The re-excision rate in the overall cohort was 6.6%, compared to a historical re-excision rate of 8.6% (p < 0.01). Based on 360 measurement sites, MarginProbe demonstrated a sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 60%, with a positive predictive value of 16%, and of negative predictive value of 94%, which was similar to the accuracy of SOP.

CONCLUSIONS

MarginProbe performs equally as well as specimen radiography and gross pathologic examination. In this setting where the baseline re-excision rate was low, the use of MarginProbe as an adjunct to SOP resulted in a small 2% absolute reduction in re-excision rate.

Efficacy and Safety of Glandular Flap Techniques in Surgical Treatment of Large Ductal Carcinoma in situ

Background

It is well known that full segmentary resection can be performed using oncoplastic surgery (OPS) techniques, and the anatomic resection of the ductal system is possible. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of OPS should be investigated in the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Patients and Methods

Patients who were diagnosed as pure DCIS and underwent surgical treatment and follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Patients who underwent OPS and conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were included in the study. The number of patients who required an intervention after the surgery and had a relapse during the follow-up period was determined in both groups.

Results

There were 45 patients in the OPS group and 138 patients in the BCS group. The mean tumor size was larger in patients in the OPS group (36 ± 12 mm vs. 24 ± 8 mm, p = 0.02). Six (12.7%) patients were reoperated in the OPS group. Of these, 4 were re-excisions and 2 were mastectomies. In this group, breast conservation was possible in 45 (95.7%) patients. Thirty-nine (27%) patients were reoperated in the BCS group. Of these, 23 were re-excisions, and 16 were mastectomies. In this group, breast conservation was possible in 126 (88.7%) patients (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of 5-year cumulative local recurrence rates. While the 5-year local recurrence-free survival rate was 93.3% in the OPS group, it was 90.8% in the BCS group.

Conclusion

This study provided evidence that OPS can be used safely in the surgical treatment of DCIS by reducing re-excision and completion mastectomy rates compared to BCS.

Involved margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer: Always to be re-excised?

BACKGROUND

The oncologic benefit of upfront re-excision of involved margins after breast-conserving surgery in the context of current multimodal clinical management of breast cancer is unclear. The aim of the present study was to assess the 5-years locoregional recurrence (LRR)-free and distant metastases (DM)-free survival probabilities in patients not undergoing re-excision of positive margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer.

METHODS

A cohort of 104 patients with positive margins not undergoing re-excision was matched by propensity score with a cohort of 2006 control patients with clear margins after breast-conserving surgery, treated between 2008 and 2018. A multivariate survival analysis was performed accounting for all variables related to LRR and DM, including adjuvant treatments.

RESULTS

After adjusting for potential confounders, avoiding to re-excise a positive margin after lumpectomy had no effect on 5-years LRR-free survival probability (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.36-2.67, p = 0.96) or 5-years DM-free survival probability (HR 0.37, 95%CI 0.08-1.61, p = 0.18). No correlation was found between occurrence of LRR and number of involved margins (HR 1.28, 95%CI 0.10-12.4, Log-rank p = 0.83), or extension of infiltrating disease (HR 1.21, 95%CI 0.20-7.40, Log-rank p = 0.83), but a trend toward higher LRR probability was found for invasive ductal (HR 6.92, 95%CI 0.7-68.8, Log-rank p = 0.10) and invasive lobular cancer (HR 12.95, 95%CI 0.79-213.6, Log-rank p = 0.07) on positive margins.

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of multimodal treatment of breast cancer and accurate strategies to reduce the probability of residual disease in the post-lumpectomy cavity, re-excision of positive margins might be omitted in selected patients with low-risk breast cancers.

Comparative analysis of margin status in breast conservation surgery and its correlation with subsequent re-excision findings

Purpose

Breast-conservation surgery (BCS) has become a standard treatment option for invasive breast carcinoma (IBC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The strongest predictor of local recurrence remains the surgical margin status. We evaluated the margin positivity by quantifying the tumor on positive margins and analyzing the histologic factors including type and extent in determining the likelihood of residual disease upon re-excision.

Method

Retrospective analysis of 210 BCS performed at Mount Sinai Medical Center from the period of January 2011 - December 2017 revealed that 58 had IBC, DCIS, or both, with positive margins that were followed by re-excision.

Result

The margins had IBC in 18 (31%), DCIS in 32 (55.2%) and both in 8 (13%) cases. Thirty-eight cases (65.5%) were free of carcinoma on re-excision. Of 40 cases with margins positive for DCIS, 16 (40%) had residual DCIS. Of 26 cases with IBC at the margins, and 5 had residual disease (19%). This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Of 21 cases with extensive DCIS, 12 had residual disease (p = 0.02) as compared to only 4 out of 19 without extensive DCIS. None of the cases with clinging/micro-papillary DCIS had residual disease, while 51% of the other types (solid, cribriform, come-do) had residual disease (p = 0.02). The area of DCIS as measured on the involved margin correlated with the amount of residual disease on re-excision (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Margins positive for DCIS are more likely to have residual disease on re-excision in comparison to margins positive for only IBC. The type and extent of DCIS appears to influence the likelihood of residual disease.

Role of adjuvant radiation or re-excision for early stage vulvar squamous cell carcinoma with positive or close surgical margins

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate whether re-excision or adjuvant radiation for stage I vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with either a close or positive surgical margin improves recurrence-free survival.

METHODS

Patients with pathologically confirmed FIGO stage I vulvar SCC who underwent primary surgical management between January 1, 1995 and September 30, 2017 and had positive or close (<8 mm) surgical margins were included. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated and compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of 150 patients with stage I vulvar SCC, 47 (31.3%) had positive or close margins. Median follow-up time was 25 months (IQR 13-59 months). Twenty-one (44.6%) patients received additional treatment with re-excision (n = 17) or vulvar radiation (n = 4); 26 (55.3%) patients received no additional therapy. Patients with positive margins were more likely to receive additional therapy compared to patients with close margins (80% vs 35.1%, p = 0.03). The 2-year recurrence rates were similar between the no further therapy and the re-excision/vulvar radiation groups (11.5% vs 4.8%, p = 0.62). Local recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between patients who received re-excision/vulvar radiation and patients who received no further therapy (p = 0.10 and p = 0.16, respectively). Subgroup analysis of the 37 patients with close margins demonstrated no difference in RFS or OS when patients received re-excision or adjuvant vulvar radiation compared to no additional therapy (p = 0.74 and p = 0.82, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, any additional treatment following primary surgical resection did not improve RFS or OS in stage IA and IB vulvar SCC. Larger studies are warranted in order to definitively determine the role of re-excision and adjuvant radiation in early stage disease.

Re-excision and survival following breast conserving surgery in early stage breast cancer patients: a population-based study

Background

Increasing population-based evidence suggests that patients who receive breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy have superior survival than those who receive mastectomy. It is unclear, however, how BCS followed by re-excision is associated with all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality, and whether the BCS survival advantage is maintained if re-excision is needed. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical, patient, provider and geographic variation associated with receipt of re-excision surgery, and to examine the relationship between re-excision and all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality.

Methods

All women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in Alberta, Canada from 2002 to 2009 were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry, of which 11,626 were eligible for study inclusion. Type of first breast cancer surgery after diagnosis, subsequent re-excisions within 1 year, surgeon (anonymized), and hospital were obtained from provincial physician claims data. Multilevel logistic regression with surgeons and hospitals as crossed random effects was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios of re-excision by the factors of interest. Poisson regression models were fitted to compare all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality by surgical pattern.

Results

Re-excision surgery was received by 19% (N = 5659) of patients who initially received BCS. The adjusted odds of re-excision varied significantly by geography of surgery, and by individual surgeon among stage I and II patients beyond the variation explained by the factors investigated (Stage I OR standard deviation (SD) = 0.43; stage II OR SD = 0.39). Patients who were treated with BCS plus re-excision surgery with either mastectomy or further BCS had similar all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality as those treated with BCS without re-excision.

Conclusion

These results suggest that breast cancer patients who are treated with BCS plus re-excision surgery by either mastectomy or further BCS have similar survival as those treated with BCS without re-excision. The significant variation in the likelihood of re-excision by geography and by individual surgeon is concerning, especially given the costs to the patient associated with additional surgery and the financial costs to the health system.

Current margin practice and effect on re-excision rates following the publication of the SSO-ASTRO consensus and ABS consensus guidelines: a national prospective study of 2858 women undergoing breast-conserving therapy in the UK and Ireland

INTRODUCTION

There is variation in margin policy for breast conserving therapy (BCT) in the UK and Ireland. In response to the Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society for Radiation Oncology (SSO-ASTRO) margin consensus ('no ink on tumour' for invasive and 2 mm for ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]) and the Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) consensus (1 mm for invasive and DCIS), we report on current margin practice and unit infrastructure in the UK and Ireland and describe how these factors impact on re-excision rates.

METHODS

A trainee collaborative-led multicentre prospective study was conducted in the UK and Ireland between 1st February and 31st May 2016. Data were collected on consecutive BCT patients and on local infrastructure and policies.

RESULTS

A total of 79 sites participated in the data collection (75% screening units; average 372 cancers annually, range 70-900). For DCIS, 53.2% of units accept 1 mm and 38% accept 2-mm margins. For invasive disease 77.2% accept 1 mm and 13.9% accept 'no ink on tumour'. A total of 2858 patients underwent BCT with a mean re-excision rate of 17.2% across units (range 0-41%). The re-excision rate would be reduced to 15% if all units applied SSO-ASTRO guidelines and to 14.8% if all units followed ABS guidelines. Of those who required re-operation, 65% had disease present at margin.

CONCLUSION

There continues to be large variation in margin policy and re-excision rates across units. Altering margin policies to follow either SSO-ASTRO or ABS guidelines would result in a modest reduction in the national re-excision rate. Most re-excisions are for involved margins rather than close margins.

Re-excision after unplanned resection of nonmetastatic nonrhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma in children: Comparison with planned excision

BACKGROUND

It is not exceptional to come by children with initial unplanned surgical intervention for nonrhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas (NRSTS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of residual disease in these patients after re-excision and compare the treatment outcomes with patients who had planned upfront excision.

METHODS

The data of patients with primary nonmetastatic NRSTS with initially unplanned excision who underwent re-excision between March 2006 and December 2014 were analyzed and the results compared with patients having planned upfront excision in the similar period.

RESULTS

Of the 84 patients, 40 (48%) had an unplanned excision elsewhere; 35 of these patients had a re-excision. Twenty-one of the remaining 44 patients underwent upfront planned excision. A residual tumor was present in 16 (45.7%) patients. There was no significant difference in the local recurrence, distant metastases, or deaths in patients with re-excision or planned excision. The 5-year overall, disease-free survival and local control rates were, respectively, 93.5%, 90.2% and 96.6% for the re-excision group and 84.9%, 65.2% and 88.5% in the planned excision group (p=NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The probability of residual disease following unplanned excision of NRSTS is high. The outcomes following re-excision are similar to that with planned excision.

PROGNOSIS STUDY

Level II evidence.

Focally positive margins in breast conserving surgery: Predictors, residual disease, and local recurrence

BACKGROUND

Re-excision after breast conserving surgery (BCS) for invasive breast cancer (IBC) can be omitted for focally positive margins in the Netherlands, but this guideline is not routinely followed. Focally positive and extensively positive margins have rarely been studied separately and compared to negative margins regarding clinicopathological predictors, residual disease incidence, and local recurrence.

METHODS

All females with BCS for Tis-T3, without neo-adjuvant chemotherapy between 2005 and 2014 at one university hospital were included. Clinicopathological and follow-up information was collected from electronic patient records. Index tumor samples from all patients with re-excision were reviewed by one pathologist. Margins were classified as negative (≥2 mm width), close (<2 mm width), focally positive (≤4 mm length of tumor touching inked margin), or extensively positive (>4 mm length).

RESULTS

From 499 patients included, 212 (43%) had negative, 161 (32%) had close, 59 (12%) had focally positive, and 67 (13%) had extensively positive margins. Increasingly involved margins were associated with lobular type, tumor size, and adjacent DCIS in IBC patients and lesion size in purely DCIS patients. In IBC patients, 17%, 49%, and 77% had re-excision after close, focally positive, and extensively positive margins and residual disease incidence was 55%, 50%, and 70% respectively. In purely DCIS patients, 26 (65%), 13 (87%), and 16 (94%) had re-excision after close, focally positive, and extensively positive margins and residual disease incidence was 39%, 46%, and 90% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of residual disease after focally positive margins was not different from close margins, but was significantly higher after extensively positive margins. We recommend quantifying extent of margin involvement in all pathology reports.

Omitting re-excision for focally positive margins after breast-conserving surgery does not impair disease-free and overall survival

Purpose

In contrast to other countries, the Dutch breast cancer guideline does not recommend re-excision for focally positive margins after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in invasive tumor and does recommend whole-breast irradiation including boost. We investigated whether omitting re-excision as compared to performing re-excision affects prognosis with a retrospective population-based cohort study.

Methods

The total cohort included 32,119 women with primary BCS for T1–T3 breast cancer diagnosed between 2003 and 2008 from the nationwide Netherlands cancer registry. The subcohort included 10,433 patients in whom the resection margins were registered. Outcome measures were 5-year ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rate, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate, and 10-year overall survival (OS) rate.

Results

In the total cohort, 25,878 (80.6%) did not have re-excision, 2368 (7.4%) had re-excision by BCS, and 3873 (12.1%) had re-excision by mastectomy. Five-year IBTR rates were 2.1, 2.8, and 2.9%, respectively (p = 0.001). In the subcohort, 7820 (75.0%) had negative margins without re-excision, 492 (4.7%) had focally positive margins without re-excision, 586 (5.6%) had focally positive margins and underwent re-excision, and 1535 (14.7%) had extensively positive margins and underwent re-excision. Five-year IBTR rate was 2.3, 2.9, 1.1, and 2.9%, respectively (p = 0.099). Compared to omitting re-excision, performing re-excision for focally positive margins was associated with lower risk of IBTR (adjusted HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11–0.82), but not with DFS (adjusted HR 0.83 95% CI 0.59–1.17) nor with OS (adjusted HR 1.17 95% CI 0.87–1.59).

Conclusion

Omitting re-excision in breast cancer patients for focally positive margins after BCS does not impair DFS and OS, provided that whole-breast irradiation including boost is given.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4232-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reoperations after primary breast conserving surgery in women with invasive breast cancer in Catalonia, Spain: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although complete tumor resection is accepted as the best means to reduce recurrence, reoperations after lumpectomy are a common problem in breast cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the reoperation rates after primary breast conserving surgery in invasive breast cancer cases diagnosed in Catalonia, Spain, between 2005 and 2011 and to identify variations based on patient and tumour characteristics.

METHODS

Women with invasive incident breast cancer identified from the Patient's Hospital Discharge Database [174.0-174.9 codes of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) as the primary diagnosis] and receiving primary breast conserving surgery were included in the study and were followed up to 3 and 12 months by collecting information about repeat breast cancer surgery.

RESULTS

Reoperation rates after primary breast conserving surgery decreased from 13.0 % in 2005 to 11.7 % in 2011 at 3 months and from 14.2 % in 2005 to 12.9 % in 2011 at 12 months' follow-up. While breast conservation reoperations saw a slight, non-significant increase in the same period (from 5.7 to 7.3 % at 3 months, and from 6.0 to 7.5 % at 12 months), there was a significant decrease in radical reoperation (from 7.3 to 4.4 % at 3 months and from 8.2 to 5.4 % at 12 months). Overall, additional breast surgeries decreased among younger women.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the rise of breast conserving surgery, reoperation rates following initial lumpectomy in Catalonia decreased by 10 % at 3 and 12 months' follow-up, remaining low and almost unchanged. Ultimately, there was also a significant decrease in mastectomies.

Intra-operative assessment of excised breast tumour margins using ClearEdge imaging device

INTRODUCTION

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) aims to remove a breast cancer completely and obtain clear margins. Complete excision is essential to reduce the risk of local recurrence. The ClearEdge™ (CE) imaging device examines margins of excised breast tissue intra-operatively. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of the device in detecting margin involvement in patients having BCS.

METHODS

In Phase-1 58 patients underwent BCS and had 334 margins assessed by the device. In Phase-2 the device was used in 63 patients having BCS and 335 margins were assessed. Patients with margins considered close or involved by the CE device were re-excised.

RESULTS

The margin assessment accuracies in Phase-1 and Phase-2 compared to permanent section pathology were very similar: sensitivity (84.3% and 87.3%), specificity (81.9% and 75.6%), positive predictive value (67.2% and 63.6%), and negative predictive value (92.2% and 92.4%). The false positive rate (18.1% and 24.4%) and false negative rate (15.7% and 12.7%) were low in both phases. In Phase-2 re-excision rate was 37%, but in the 54 where the CE device was used appropriately the re-excision rate was 17%. Had all surgeons interpreted all images appropriately and re-excised margins detected as abnormal by the device in Phase-2 then the re-excision rate would have been 7%.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the CE device has potential to reduce re-excision after BCS and further randomized studies of its value are warranted.

Importance of Surgical Margin Status in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to identify the effect of final surgical margin (SM) status and re-excision on outcomes in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who underwent breast conservation therapy (BCT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study population consisted of women diagnosed with DCIS who underwent BCT between 1989 and 2014. All women received adjuvant whole breast radiation and a boost. The primary end point was local control (LC). Final SMs were defined according to margin width: negative SM was defined as > 2 mm, close SM was defined as > 0 to ≤ 2 mm, and a positive SM was defined as tumor on ink. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine predictors of outcomes on multivariable analysis. Actuarial incidence of LC was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 498 patients were included; 400 patients had a final negative SM, 87 had a close SM, and 11 had a positive SM. A total of 172 patients received adjuvant hormonal therapy, 265 patients required ≥ 1 re-excision. Patients with positive or close SMs were more likely to receive a radiation dose > 60 Gy (P < .001) and undergo re-excision (P < .01). The 10-year LC rates were not significantly different between patients with a negative (93.5%), close (91.8%), or positive (100%) SM (P = .57). There was no difference in LC in patients who underwent re-excision for initial close or positive SMs (P = .55).

CONCLUSION

This single-institution experience showed that risks of local recurrence remain poorly characterized. Re-excision and whole breast radiation with boost resulted in excellent LC for women with DCIS. Trials aimed at personalized deintensified local therapy are warranted.

Surgical margin reporting in breast conserving surgery: Does compliance with guidelines affect re-excision and mastectomy rates?

PURPOSE

Margin status is important in guiding decisions to re-excise following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed guidelines to standardize pathology reporting; however, compliance with margin documentation guidelines has been shown to vary. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether compliance with CAP guidelines affects re-excision and mastectomy rates.

METHODS

We identified 1423 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2006 who underwent BCS with negative margins. CAP compliance was categorized as maximal, minimal, or non-compliant. Statistical analyses were performed comparing the frequency of re-excision and mastectomy after initial BCS according to CAP margin reporting guideline compliance. Data were adjusted for provider facility by including a clustering variable within the regression model.

RESULTS

Patients with non-compliant margin reporting were 1.7 times more likely to undergo re-excision and/or mastectomy than those with maximally compliant reporting. Level of compliance was most strongly associated with the frequency of mastectomy; non-compliant margin reporting was associated with a 2.5-fold increase in mastectomy rates compared to maximally compliant reporting. The results did not substantially change when the analyses accounted for clustering at the provider facility level.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that compliance with CAP guidelines in pathology reporting may be associated with variation in re-excision and mastectomy rates following BCS.

Reexcision for positive margins in breast cancer: A predictive score of residual disease

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend re-excision if resection margins are positive in lumpectomy for breast cancer. However, residual disease (RD) is not always found. The aim of our study was to develop a score to predict RD in re-excision specimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a multicenter, retrospective study with two population groups. The 'modeling' group was composed of 148 patients treated in the Centre Hospitalier Poissy-St-Germain or the Georges Pompidou European Hospital and the 'validation' group was composed of 67 patients treated in Curie Institute. The score was built with a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Factors independently associated with RD were: a cumulative length of all positive margins>5 mm, invasion by ductal carcinoma in situ only, a pathological tumor size>30 mm and a pathological tumor size<30 mm with a discrepancy of >50% between pathological and radiological tumor size. The 7-point score allowed the classification of patients into three risk groups for RD: low (16% of patients experienced RD), moderate (65%) and high (100%). The areas under the ROC curve of the score and the logistic model were 0.72(95%CI:0.68-0.75,p = 0.60). The proportion of RD in each group of the validation population (25%, 48%, and 100% in the low, moderate and high group, respectively) confirmed the accuracy of the score in an independent population.

CONCLUSIONS

This score enables the identification of patients at high risk of RD but it cannot provide guidance for the decision to undertake re-excision surgery in the low-risk group. Further studies are needed to test the score in extensive datasets and better identify low-risk patients.

Overall survival in patients with a re-excision following breast conserving surgery compared to those without in a large population-based cohort

AIM

To investigate the overall survival of invasive breast cancer patients with primary breast conserving surgery (BCS) followed by re-excision compared to those with primary BCS only. The Dutch re-excision indications are less stringent compared to other European and Northern American countries (Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology (SSO/ASTRO) guideline).

METHODS

Retrospective analyses in women <75years with breast cancer stage pT1-T3 treated by BCS and radiotherapy between 1999 and 2012 from a population-based database. The national guideline recommends to reserve re-excision for invasive tumours showing 'more than focally positive' margin since 2002. Patients were divided into 'primary BCS only', 're-excision by BCS', and 're-excision by mastectomy'. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was adjusted for patient and systemic treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 11,695 patients were included of which 2156 (18.4%) underwent re-excision. Median time of follow-up was 61months (interquartile range (IQR) 26-101). The 5-year overall survival rates in the 'primary BCS only', 're-excision by BCS' and 're-excision by mastectomy' group were 92%, 95% and 91%, respectively. The 10-year overall survival rates were 81%, 82% and 79%, respectively (P=0.20). After multivariable analyses no significant association was observed between use of and type of re-excision and overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall survival of breast cancer patients with a re-excision did not significantly differ from the survival of women who underwent primary BCS only. Advising re-excision only for those tumours showing 'more than focally positive' resection margin appears safe, supposing the long-term safety of the recent SSO/ASTRO guideline that more cautiously recommended re-excision for tumours showing 'ink on tumour'.

Close/positive margins after breast-conserving therapy: additional resection or no resection?

The primary goal of breast conserving surgery or mastectomy is the prevention of recurrent breast cancer. The distinguishing goal of breast conserving surgery is preservation of a breast as normal in appearance as possible. If the margins of the excised breast cancer extend to the border of the excised specimen one cannot determine the amount of gross tumor that was not excised. Retrospective analyses of surgical series show a 2-3 fold increase in local recurrence of the breast tumor if the margin is positive under the microscope, even when the surgeon believed it to be clear on gross examination. This fact has led to a variety of techniques attempting to ensure that the margins of the excised specimen are free of obvious tumor including pre-operative and specimen imaging and mapping, neo-adjuvant therapy to shrink the primary tumor, touch-prep and frozen section of the specimen margins during the procedure, shaving additional margins about the specimen at the closest aspects grossly or on all six surfaces, and examinations of the in situ walls of the remaining breast with new instrumentation. An obvious approach to diminishing the likelihood of positive specimen margins is taking a wider margin of normal tissue. As the volume of resected breast increases by the cube of the radius of excised tissue, this tracks all too well with diminishing cosmetic results and patient approval of the conserved breast. The question posed regards the finding of a positive or close margin after the surgical procedure. The finding of a positive margin can be parsed to a microscopic focus of tumor at the margin vs. the margin inking on a tumor surface. The latter demands re-excision despite the morbidity involved barring an extraordinary contra-indication or patient refusal. It represents the very real possibility of sufficient residual gross tumor in the breast that even with systemic therapy and breast irradiation the tumor will be un-controlled. A microscopic focus separated from the bulk of the primary tumor and adjacent to a margin has not been shown to carry such risk. The margin of normal tissue beyond the primary tumor that significantly reduces the risk of local recurrence remains undefined. Sufficient data are available to say that in the era of systemic therapy, excellent radiation therapy techniques, and boost doses when indicated, no margin of normal breast tissue beyond the tumor has been shown to be clearly superior to a layer of cells between the ink and the tumor. The larger the tumor and the more aggressive its biology is judged to be the lower the confidence that a single layer of cells at the point of histologic study accurately represents a clear margin. As in all medical decisions wise judgment must integrate all of the known factors to reach the best recommendation. There are few circumstances that would warrant a second surgical procedure for a close but clear margin today.

Low re-excision rate for positive margins in patients treated with ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

Re-excision is a necessary procedure in obtaining clean margins for breast-conserving surgery (BCS)-treated patients. Re-excision rates vary widely among different breast cancer management procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided BCS to decrease the re-excision rate in patients with US-detectable breast cancer, as well as the relationship between positive margins and ultrasonographic characteristics of tumor.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2009, we identified consecutive patients who underwent initial US-guided BCS for breast in situ or invasive carcinoma, which was preoperatively detected using US examination and on the basis of image-guided biopsy findings. The margins achieved after BCS were separately assessed by performing frozen section analysis of shaved margins. The negative margin and positive margin groups were compared for clinicopathological features and ultrasonographic findings.

RESULTS

Of 381 patients undergoing US-guided BCS, 126 (33.1%) had palpable tumors and 255 (66.9%) had nonpalpable tumors. Positive margins were noted in 35 patients (9.2%). These patients underwent re-excision and were margin-free; no further surgery was required for these patients. There were no significant intergroup differences in clinicopathological features and ultrasonographic findings.

CONCLUSION

Breast US is an effective modality for intraoperative tumor localization and can thus help obtain clean margins and reduce the re-excision rate in cases in which breast-conserving therapy has been performed. Furthermore, frozen section analysis of cavity shaved margins is a feasible method for minimizing the need for further surgery.