Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Breast Cancer Reports
Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports 2/2018

01-06-2018 | Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)

Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy: Maximizing Margin-Negative Breast Cancer Resection Rates on the First Try

Authors: Lacey Stelle, Jennifer Wellington, Wen Liang, Robert Buras, Lorraine Tafra

Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of the review

Numerous strategies and technologies have been historically used, with new ones being rapidly introduced, to maximize the chance of obtaining clear margins at the first lumpectomy. The goal of this review was to summarize the data on each, illustrate their strengths and weaknesses, and equip the surgeon to determine which best fits into their center or practice.

Recent Findings

There is no technology or device currently that always results in negative margins. Many of the studies reviewed (including frozen sections, shave margins, specimen radiography, intraoperative ultrasound, imprint cytology, and new devices) show excellent negative margin rates, but many of the comparison studies have conflicting results and reasons for this are discussed. Newer emerging technologies hold great promise but there is a tendency to overinflate positive results.

Summary

It is important for surgeons to review their own re-excision rates to determine the need for further technology and strategies. Most of the investigative technologies are still years away from widespread acceptance.
Literature
1.
2.
McCahill L, Single R, Aiello Bowles E, et al. Variability in Reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467–75.CrossRefPubMed
3.
•• Moran M, Schnitt S, Giuliano A, Harris JR, Khan SA, Horton J, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1507–15. This landmark paper established no ink on tumor as an acceptable standard.
4.
• Morrow M, Van Zee K, Solin L, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6(5):287–95. References 3 and 4 established a consensus on management of margins. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Rosenberger L, Mamtani A, Fuzesi S, et al. Early adoption of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: initial experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3239–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Kurniawan E, Wong M, Windle I, et al. Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2542–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Smitt M, Horst K. Association of clinical and pathologic variables with lumpectomy surgical margin status after preoperative diagnosis or excisional biopsy of invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1040–4.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Houssami N, Macaskill P, Luke Marinovich M, Morrow M. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):717–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Uematsu T, Yuen S, KasamiM Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;112:461–474.
10.
Vanderwalde L, Dang CM, Bresee C, Phillips EH. Discordance between pathologic and radiologic tumor size on breast MRI may contribute to increased re-excision rates. Am Surg. 2011;77(10):1361–3.PubMed
11.
McGhan L, Wasif N, Gray R, et al. Use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for invasive lobular cancer: good, better, but maybe not the best? Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(S3):255–62.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Mann R, Hoogeveen Y, Blickman J, Boetes C. MRI compared to conventional diagnostic work-up in the detection and evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a review of existing literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;107(1):1–14.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Vos E, Voogd A, Verhoef C, et al. Benefits of preoperative MRI in breast cancer surgery studied in a large population-based cancer registry. Br J Surg. 2015;102(13):1649–57.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Lai H, Chen C, Lin Y, et al. Does breast magnetic resonance imaging combined with conventional imaging modalities decrease the rates of surgical margin involvement and reoperation? Medicine. 2016;95(22):e3810.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Sung J, Li J, Costa G, et al. Preoperative breast MRI for early-stage breast cancer: effect on surgical and long-term outcomes. Am J Roent. 2014;202(6):1376–82.CrossRef
16.
Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hwang N, Schiller D, Crystal P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the planning of initial lumpectomy for invasive breast carcinoma: its effect on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conservation therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(11):3000–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Davis K, Barth R, Gui J, et al. Use of MRI in preoperative planning for women with newly diagnosed DCIS: risk or benefit? Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3270–4.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Fancellu A, Soro D, Castiglia P, Marras V, Melis M, Cottu P, et al. Usefulness of magnetic resonance in patients with invasive cancer eligible for breast conservation: a comparative study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14(2):114–21.
20.
Bleicher R, Ciocca R, Egleston B, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(2):180–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.
22.
Peters N, van Esser S, van den Bosch M, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET-randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(6):879–86.CrossRefPubMed
23.
De Felice C, Cipolla V, Stagnitti A, et al. The impact of presurgical magnetic resonance in early breast cancer: an observational study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2012;33(2):193–9.PubMed
24.
Grobmyer S, Mortellaro V, Marshall J, et al. Is there a role for routine use of MRI in selection of patients for breast-conserving cancer therapy? J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(5):1045–50; discussion 1050-2.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Bilimoria K, Cambic A, Hansen N, Bethke KP. Evaluating the impact of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical management of newly diagnosed breast cancers. Arch Surg. 2007;142(5):441.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Clough K, Kaufman G, Nos C, et al. Reply to comments on: improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(5):1375–91.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Fitoussi A, Berry M, Famà F, et al. Oncoplastic breast surgery for cancer: analysis of 540 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):454–62.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Clough K, Ihrai T, Oden S, et al. Oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer based on tumour location and a quadrant-per-quadrant atlas. Br J Surg. 2012;99(10):1389–95.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Haloua M, Krekel N, Winters H, et al. A systematic review of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg. 2013;257(4):609–20.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Jeevan R, Cromwell D, Trivella M, et al. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;345(122):e4505-e4505.
32.
33.
Campbell E, Romics L. Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer: Targets Ther. 2017;9:521–30.
34.
Losken A, Dugal C, Styblo T, et al. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plas Surg. 2014;72(2):145–9.CrossRef
35.
Clough K, van la Parra R, Thygesen H, et al. Long-term results after oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer: a 10-year follow-up. Ann Surg 2017: Apr 26. [Epub ahead of print], 1.
36.
Yoon J, Green W, Kim S, et al. Oncoplastic breast surgery in the setting of breast-conserving therapy: a systematic review. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2016;1(4):205–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Shah C, Vicini F, Shaitelman S, et al. The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for accelerated partial-breast irradiation. Brachytherapy. 2017. S1538–4721(17)30462–30462.
38.
Cross M, Lebovic G, Stubbs J, Ross J, Jones S, Beck T. Identifying the surgical cavity following oncoplastic breast surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(26 suppl):81–1.
39.
•• St John E, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):300–10. Landmark article on how to assess new technology that looks at detecting disease at the margin of breast cancers CrossRefPubMed
40.
• Gray R, Pockaj B, Garvey E, Blair S. Intraoperative margin management in breast-conserving surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;25(1):18–27. A recent review of standardly used techniques to evaluate margins on lumpectomy specimens CrossRefPubMed
41.
Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, Butler M, Stavris K, Li F, et al. A randomized controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):503–10.
42.
Janes S, Stankhe M, Singh S, et al. Systematic cavity shaves reduces close margins and re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery. Breast. 2006;15(3):326–30.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Huston TL, Pigalarga M, Osborne MP, et al. The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;192(4):509–12.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Fizzy M, Iyengar R, Gabram S. The effects of additional tumor cavity sampling at the time of breast-conserving surgery on final margin status, volume of resection, and pathologist workload. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(1):228–34.CrossRef
45.
Héquet D, Bricou A, Koual M, Ziol M, Feron JG, Rouzier R, et al. Systematic cavity shaving: modifications of breast cancer management and long-term local recurrence, a multicentre study. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO). 2013;39(8):899–905.
46.
Malik H, George W, Mallon E, et al. Margin assessment by cavity shaving after breast-conserving surgery: analysis and follow-up of 543 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO). 1999;25(5):464–9.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Schwartz G, Goldberg B, Rifkin M, D’Orazio SE. Ultrasonography: an alternative to X-ray guided needle localization of non-palpable breast masses. Surgery. 1988;104:870–3.PubMed
48.
Harlow S, Krag D, Ames S, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound localization to guide surgical excision of nonpalpable breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189(3):241–6.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Kaufman C, Jacobson L, Bachman B, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound facilitates surgery for early breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(10):988–93.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Hargreaves A, Mohamed M, Audisio R. Intra-operative guidance: methods for achieving negative margins in breast conserving surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(1):21–5.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Tummel E, Betzold R, Gallagher K, Klimberg VS. The CUBE technique: continuous ultrasound-guided breast excision. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(10):3354–5.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Tan K, Tan S, Chiang S, et al. Breast specimen ultrasound and mammography in the prediction of tumour free margins. Anns J Surg. 2006;76(12):1064–7.
53.
Olsha O, Shemesh D, Carmon M, Sibirsky O, Abu Dalo R, Rivkin L, et al. Resection margins in ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;18(2):447–52.
54.
Ignatov A, Ignatov T, Costa S, et al. Accuracy of ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery in the determination of adequate surgical margins. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(01):129–36.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Krekel N, Haloua M, Lopes Cardozo A, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(1):48–54.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Rahusen F, Bremers A, Fabry H, et al. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(10):994–8.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Barentsz M, van Dalen T, Gobardhan P, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for excision of non-palpable invasive breast cancer: a hospital based series and an overview of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135:209–19.CrossRefPubMed
58.
• Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, Beitsch P, Bosserman L, Boughey J, et al. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: the American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3174–83. A review of how to maximize negative margins
59.
Sajid M, Parampalli U, Haider Z, Bonomi R. Comparison of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and wire localization for non-palpable breast cancers: a meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2011;105(8):852–8.
60.
Chadwick D, Shorthouse A. Wire-directed localization biopsy of the breast: an audit of results and analysis of factors influencing therapeutic value in the treatment of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1997;23(2):128–33.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Giacalone P, Bourdon A, Trinh P, et al. Radioguided occult lesion localization plus sentinel node biopsy (SNOLL) versus wire-guided localization plus sentinel node detection: a case control study of 129 unifocal pure invasive non-palpable breast cancers. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;23(2):128–33.
62.
Kim S, Cornacch S, Heller B, et al. An evaluation of intraoperative digital specimen mammography versus conventional specimen radiography for the excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2013;205(6):703–10.CrossRefPubMed
63.
McCormick J, Keleher A, Tikhomirov V, et al. Analysis of the use of specimen mammography in breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2004;188(4):433–6.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Ihrai T, Quaranta D, Fouche Y, Machiavello JC, Raoust I, Chapellier C, et al. Intraoperative radiological margin assessment in breast-conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(4):449–53.
65.
Muttalib M, Tisdall M, Scawn R, Shousha S, Cummins RS, Sinnett HD. Intra-operative specimen analysis using faxitron microradiography for excision of mammographically suspicious, non-palpable breast lesions. Breast. 2004;13(4):307–15.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Bathla L, Harris A, Davey M, Sharma P, Silva E. High resolution intra-operative two-dimensional specimen mammography and its impact on second operation for re-excision of positive margins at final pathology after breast conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2011;202(4):387–94.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Weber W, Engelberger S, Viehl C, et al. Accuracy of frozen section analysis versus specimen radiography during breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable lesions. World J Surg. 2008;32(12):2599–606.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Esbona K, Li Z, Wilke L. Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3236–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Rusby J, Paramanathan N, Laws S, et al. Immediate latisimuss dorsi mini flap volume replacement for partial mastectomy: use of intra-operative frozen sections to confirm negative margins. Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):512–8.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G, Cannata I, Marziani A, Polino C, et al. Therapeutic mammaplasties: full local control of breast cancer in one surgical stage with frozen sections. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:871–5.
71.
Jorns J, Daignault S, Sabel M, et al. Frozen sections in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery at a single ambulatory surgical center: 5 year experience. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(7):1273–81.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Osako T, Nishimura R, Nishiyama Y, Okumura Y, Tashima R, Nakano M, et al. Efficacy of intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis of lumpectomy margins during breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20(6):1093–101.
73.
Boughey JC, Keeney GL, Radensky P, Song CP, Habermann EB. Economic implications of widespread expansion of frozen section margin analysis to guide surgical resection in women with breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(4):e413–22.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Cendán J, Coco D, Copeland EM 3rd. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-bed margins. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(2):194–8.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Olson TP, Harter J, Munoz A, et al. Frozen section analysis for intraoperative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgery results in low rates of re-excision and local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2953–60.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Sahin A, et al. Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1458–71.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Reidl O, Fitzal F, Mader N, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis for breast-conserving therapy in 1016 patients with breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:264–70.CrossRef
78.
D’Halluin F, Tas P, Rouquette S, Bendavid C, Foucher F, Meshba H, et al. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology following lumpectomy for breast cancer: a series of 400 procedures. Breast. 2009;18(4):248–53.
79.
Cox C, Ku N, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HM, Nicosia SV, Wangensteen S. Touch preparation cytology of breast lumpectomy margins with histologic correlation. Arch Surg. 1991;126:490–3.CrossRefPubMed
80.
Cortes-Mateos M, Martin D, Sandoval S, et al. Automated microscopy to evaluate surgical specimens via touch prep in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(3):709–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
81.
• Wang Y, Reder N, Kang S, et al. Raman-encoded molecular imaging with topically applied SERS nanoparticles for intraoperative guidance of lumpectomy. Canc Res. 2017;77(16):4506–16. Innovative new technology to look at tumor biology at the margin CrossRef
82.
• Dixon J, Renshaw L, Keys J, et al. Intra-operative assessment of excision margins in breast conserving surgery for breast cancer using ClearEdge imaging device. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015:41:S54. Advanced technology that could be practically used in the operating room.
83.
St John E, Al-Khudairi R, Balog J, et al. Rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry towards real time intraoperative oncological margin status determination in breast conserving surgery. Cancer Res 2016:76(4 suppl):P2-12-20.
84.
Erickson-Bhatt S, Nolan R, Shemonski N, et al. Real-time imaging of the resection bed using a handheld probe to reduce incidence of microscopic positive margins in cancer surgery. Cancer Res. 2015;75(18):3706–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
85.
Zysk A, Chen K, Gabrielson E, et al. Intraoperative assessment of final margins with a handheld optical imaging probe during breast-conserving surgery may reduce the reoperation rate: results of a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3356–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
86.
Chang T, Leff D, Shousha S, et al. Imaging breast cancer morphology using probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy: towards a real-time intraoperative imaging tool for cavity scanning. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153:299–310.CrossRefPubMed
87.
Whitley M, Cardona D, Lazarides A, et al. A mouse-human phase 1 co-clinical trial of a protease-activated fluorescent probe for imaging cancer. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(320):320ra4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
88.
Tang R, Coopey S, Buckley J, Aftreth OP, Fernandez LJ, Brachtel EF, et al. A pilot study evaluating shaved cavity margins with micro-computed tomography: a novel method for predicting lumpectomy margin status intraoperative. Breast J. 2013;19:485–9.
89.
Omer R, Soensen K, Neumayer L, et al. High-frequency ultrasound for evaluating margins during breast conservation surgery: results from a 17-patient pilot study. J Acoustic Sock Am. 2015;138:1746.CrossRef
90.
Moshe P, Allweis T, Karni T, et al. An intraoperative MRI system for margin assessment in breast conserving surgery: initial results from a novel technique. J Surg Onc. 2016;114:22–6.CrossRef
91.
Grootendorst M, Cariati M, Pinder S, et al. Intraoperative assessment of tumor resection margins in breast-conserving surgery using 18F-FDG cerenkov luminescence imaging: a first-in-human feasibility study. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:891–8.CrossRefPubMed
92.
Coble J, Reid V. Achieving clear margins. Directed shaving using MarginProbe, as compared to a full cavity shave approach. Amer J Surg. 2017;213:627–30.CrossRefPubMed
93.
Blohmer J, Tanko J, Keuper J, et al. MarginProbe reduces the rate of re-excision following breast conserving surgery for breast cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;294:361–7.CrossRefPubMed
94.
• Schnabel F, Boolbol S, Gittleman M, et al. A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21:1589-95. This showed that the take back rate did not change significantly.
95.
Allweis T, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled multi-center study of real-time intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2008;196:483–9.CrossRefPubMed
96.
Klein J, Kong I, Paszat L, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Thiruchelvam D, et al. Close or positive resection margins are not associated with an increased risk of chest wall recurrence in women with DCIS treated by mastectomy: a population-based analysis. Spring. 2015;4:335.
97.
Al-Himdani S, Timbrell S, Tan K, et al. Prediction of margin involvement and local recurrence after skin-sparing and simple mastectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(7):935–41.CrossRefPubMed
98.
Childs S, Chen Y, Duggan M, et al. Impact of margin status on local recurrence after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(4):948–52.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy: Maximizing Margin-Negative Breast Cancer Resection Rates on the First Try
Authors
Lacey Stelle
Jennifer Wellington
Wen Liang
Robert Buras
Lorraine Tafra
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Breast Cancer Reports / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1943-4588
Electronic ISSN: 1943-4596
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-018-0273-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Current Breast Cancer Reports 2/2018 Go to the issue

Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)

Individualizing Local-Regional Therapy of Breast Cancer in the Elderly

Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)

Breast Density and the Importance of Supplemental Screening

Translational Research (RL Aft, Section Editor)

HER2 Activating Mutations in Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer

Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)

Choosing Wisely: Optimizing Routine Workup for the Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patient

Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)

Managing Patient with Mutations in PALB2, CHEK2, or ATM

Translational Research (RL Aft, Section Editor)

Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer: the New Frontier
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits