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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2015

Open Access 01-10-2015 | Breast Oncology

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

Authors: Jeffrey Landercasper, MD, FACS, Deanna Attai, MD, Dunya Atisha, MD, Peter Beitsch, MD, FACS, Linda Bosserman, MD, FACP, Judy Boughey, MD, FACS, Jodi Carter, MD, PhD, Stephen Edge, MD, Sheldon Feldman, MD, FACS, Joshua Froman, MD, Caprice Greenberg, MD, MPH, Cary Kaufman, MD, FACS, Monica Morrow, MD, FACS, Barbara Pockaj, MD, FACS, Melvin Silverstein, MD, FACS, Lawrence Solin, MD, FACR, FASTRO, Alicia Staley, Frank Vicini, MD, Lee Wilke, MD, FACS, Wei Yang, MBBS, FRCR, Hiram Cody III, MD, FACS

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–75.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, Lapin B, Liederbach E, Winchester DP, Yao K. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004-2010. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:1296–305.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, 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:e4505.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
Landercasper J, Whitacre E, Degnim AC, Al-Hamadani M. Reasons for re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery(SM) database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3185–91.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, 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;21:717–30.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, 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. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:704–16.PubMedCrossRef
9.
American College of Surgeons Clinical Research Program, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Nelson HD, Hunt KK. Partial mastectomy. In: Blair S, El Tamer M, Khan S, et al. (eds). Operative standards cancer surg. Vol. 1. Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia, 2015.
10.
11.
Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Core needle and open surgical biopsy for diagnosis of breast lesions: an update to the 2009 report [Internet]. Comparative effectiveness reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 2014, p. 139. http://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​books/​NBK246878/​. Accessed 21 May 2015.
13.
Esbona K, Li Z, Wilke LG. Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3236–45.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, et al. Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(8):1533–46. doi:10.​1093/​annouc/​mdv221.CrossRef
15.
Bruening W, Schoelles K, Treadwell J, Launders J, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K. Comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy for the diagnosis of breast lesions [internet]. Comparative effectiveness reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 2009, p. 19. http://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​books/​NBK45220/​. Accessed 21 May 2015.
16.
Fancellu A, Turner RM, Dixon JM, Pinna A, Cottu P, Houssami N. Meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative breast MRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg. 2015;102(8):883–93. doi:10.​1002/​bjs.​9797.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:145–9.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Pouw B, de Wit-van der Veen LJ, Stokkel MP, Loo CE, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Valdes Olmos RA. Heading toward radioactive seed localization in non-palpable breast cancer surgery? A meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111:185–91.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Ahmed M, Douek M. Radioactive seed localisation (RSL) in the treatment of non-palpable breast cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2013;22:383–8.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Ahmed M, van Hemelrijck M, Douek M. Systematic review of radioguided vs wire localization in the treatment of non-palpable breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:214–52.
21.
Butler-Henderson K, Lee AH, Price RI, Waring K. Intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conserving therapy: a systematic review. Breast. 2014;23:112–9.PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
24.
25.
Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015.
26.
27.
Boughey JC, Hieken TJ, Jakub JW, et al. Impact of analysis of frozen-section margin on reoperation rates in women undergoing lumpectomy for breast cancer: evaluation of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Surgery. 2014;156:190–7.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Schnabel F, Boolbol SK, 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
29.
Sebastian M, Akbari S, Anglin B, Lin EH, Police AM. The impact of use of an intraoperative margin assessment device on re-excision rates. SpringerPlus. 2015;4:198.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
Tummers QR, Verbeek FP, Schaafsma BE, et al. Real-time intraoperative detection of breast cancer using near-infrared fluorescence imaging and Methylene Blue. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:850–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
31.
Keller MD, Majumder SK, Kelley MC, et al. Autofluorescence and diffuse reflectance spectroscopy and spectral imaging for breast surgical margin analysis. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42:15–23.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Keller MD, Vargis E, de Matos Granja N, et al. Development of a spatially offset Raman spectroscopy probe for breast tumor surgical margin evaluation. J Biomed Opt. 2011;16:077006.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
33.
Martin DT, Sandoval S, Ta CN, et al. Quantitative automated image analysis system with automated debris filtering for the detection of breast carcinoma cells. Acta Cytol. 2011;55:271–80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
34.
Nguyen FT, Zysk AM, Chaney EJ, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of breast tumor margins with optical coherence tomography. Cancer Res. 2009;69:8790–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
Allweis TM, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of a real-time, intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2008;196:483–9.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Karni T, Pappo I, Sandbank J, et al. A device for real-time, intraoperative margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2007;194:467–73.PubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
39.
40.
Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1269–70.CrossRef
41.
Morrow M, Katz SJ. The challenge of developing quality measures for breast cancer surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:509–10.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Schwartz T, Degnim AC, Landercasper J. Should re-excision lumpectomy rates be a quality measure in breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3180–3.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Mook J, Klein R, Kobbermann A, et al. Volume of excision and cosmesis with routine cavity shave margins technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:886–91.PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
Silverstein MJ, Mai T, Savalia N, Vaince F, Guerra L. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery: the new paradigm. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:82–9.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Clough KB, Benyahi D, Nos C, Charles C, Sarfati I. Oncoplastic surgery: pushing the limits of breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2015;21:140–6.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Rezai M, Knispel S, Kellersmann S, Lax H, Kimmig R, Kern P. Systematization of oncoplastic surgery: selection of surgical techniques and patient-reported outcome in a cohort of 1035 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015. doi:10.​1245/​s10434-015-4396-4.PubMedCentral
48.
Losken A, Pinell-White X, Hart AM, Freitas AM, Carlson GW, Styblo TM. The oncoplastic reduction approach to breast conservation therapy: benefits for margin control. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:1185–91.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, et al. International consensus conference II. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:586–97.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Silverstein MJ, Recht A., Lagios MD, et al. Consensus conference III. Image-detected breast cancer: state-of-the-art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:504–20.PubMedCrossRef
51.
52.
American College of Radiology. Appropriateness criteria for Stage I breast cancer: initial workup and surveillance for local recurrence and distant metastases in asymptomatic women. https://​acsearch.​acr.​org/​list. Accessed 20 May 2015.
53.
Fisher CS, Mushawah FA, Cyr AE, Gao F, Margenthaler JA. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy for palpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3198–203.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Davis KM, Hsu CH, Bouton ME, Wilhelmson KL, Komenaka IK. Intraoperative ultrasound can decrease the re-excision lumpectomy rate in patients with palpable breast cancers. Am Surg. 2011;77:720–5.PubMed
55.
Pezner RD, Tan MC, Clancy SL, Chen YJ, Joseph T, Vora NL. Radiation therapy for breast cancer patients who undergo oncoplastic surgery: localization of the tumor bed for the local boost. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36:535–9.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Down SK, Jha PK, Burger A, Hussien MI. Oncological advantages of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in treatment of early breast cancer. Breast J. 2013;19:56–63.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AH, Boom RP, Meijer S. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:994–8.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Krekel NM, Haloua MH, Lopes Cardozo AM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:48–54.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Moore MM, Whitney LA, Cerilli L, Imbrie JZ, Bunch M, Simpson VB, Hanks JB. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for palpable infiltrating ductal breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233:761–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
60.
Ahmed M, Douek M. Intra-operative ultrasound vs wire localization in the surgical management of non-palpable breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;140:435–46.CrossRef
61.
Gray RJ, Salud C, Nguyen K, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:711–5.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Lovrics PJ, Goldsmith CH, Hodgson N, et al. A multicentered, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3407–14.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Murphy JO, Moo TA, King TA, et al. Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4121–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
64.
Postma EL, Koffijberg H, Verkooijen HM, Witkamp AJ, van den Bosch MA, van Hillegersberg R. Cost-effectiveness of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided localization (WGL) in breast conserving surgery for nonpalpable breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2219–26.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Medina-Franco H, Abarca-Perez L, Garcia-Alvarez MN, Ulloa-Gomez JL, Romero-Trejo C, Sepulveda-Mendez J. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided lumpectomy for non-palpable breast lesions: a randomized prospective evaluation. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:108–11.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Sajid MS, 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. 2012;105:852–8.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Landheer ML, Veltman J, van Eekeren R, Zeillemaker AM, Boetes C, Wobbes T. MRI-guided preoperative wire localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Clin Imaging. 2006;30:229–33.PubMedCrossRef
68.
van der Ploeg IM, Hobbelink M, van den Bosch MA, Mali WP, Borel Rinkes IH, van Hillegersberg R. Radioguided occult lesion localisation’ (ROLL) for non-palpable breast lesions: a review of the relevant literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1–5.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Barentsz MW, van Dalen T, Gobardhan PD, 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.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Fortunato L, Penteriani R, Farina M, Vitelli CE, Piro FR. Intraoperative ultrasound is an effective and preferable technique to localize non-palpable breast tumors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1289–92.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Vora R, Goldsmith CH, Kahnamoui K. Systematic review of radioguided surgery for non-palpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:388–97.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Olsha O, Shemesh D, Carmon M, et al. Resection margins in ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:447–52.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Cox CE, Furman B, Stowell N, et al. Radioactive seed localization breast biopsy and lumpectomy: can specimen radiographs be eliminated? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1039–47.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Jakub JW, Gray RJ, Degnim AC, Boughey JC, Gardner M, Cox CE. Current status of radioactive seed for localization of non palpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2010;199:522–8.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Fine RE, Schwalke MA, Pellicane JV, Attai DJ. A novel ultrasound-guided electrosurgical loop device for intra-operative excision of breast lesions; an improvement in surgical technique. Am J Surg. 2009;198:283–6.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Eichler C, Hubbel A, Zarghooni V, Thomas A, Gluz O, Stoff-Khalili M, Warm M. Intraoperative ultrasound: improved resection rates in breast-conserving surgery. Anticancer Res. 2012;32:1051–6.PubMed
77.
Barentsz MW, van den Bosch MA, Veldhuis WB, et al. Radioactive seed localization for non-palpable breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100:582–8.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Gobardhan PD, de Wall LL, van der Laan L, et al. The role of radioactive iodine-125 seed localization in breast-conserving therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:668–73.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Hughes JH, Mason MC, Gray RJ, et al. A multi-site validation trial of radioactive seed localization as an alternative to wire localization. Breast J. 2008;14:153–7.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Donker M, Drukker CA, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. Guiding breast-conserving surgery in patients after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer: a comparison of radioactive seed localization with the ROLL technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2569–75.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Belloni E, Canevari C, Panizza P, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: preoperative radiological guidance in radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL). Radiol Med. 2011;116:564–74.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Duarte GM, Cabello C, Torresan RZ, et al. Radioguided intraoperative margins evaluation (RIME): preliminary results of a new technique to aid breast cancer resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:1150–7.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Lavoue V, Nos C, Clough KB, et al. Simplified technique of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) plus sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNOLL) in breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2556–61.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Nadeem R, Chagla LS, Harris O, Desmond S, Thind R, Titterrell C, Audisio RA. Occult breast lesions: a comparison between radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) vs. wire-guided lumpectomy (WGL). Breast. 2005;14:283–9.PubMedCrossRef
85.
Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman B, Kaufman LB. Intraoperative ultrasonography guidance is accurate and efficient according to results in 100 breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2003;186:378–82.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman B, Kaufman L. Intraoperative ultrasound facilitates surgery for early breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:988–93.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Molina MA, Snell S, Franceschi D, et al. Breast specimen orientation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:285–8.PubMedCrossRef
88.
89.
Moo TA, Choi L, Culpepper C, et al. Impact of margin assessment method on positive margin rate and total volume excised. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:86–92.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
90.
Hequet D, Bricou A, Koual M, et al. Systematic cavity shaving: modifications of breast cancer management and long-term local recurrence, a multicentre study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:899–905.PubMedCrossRef
91.
Camp ER, McAuliffe PF, Gilroy JS, Morris CG, Lind DS, Mendenhall NP, Copeland EM III. Minimizing local recurrence after breast conserving therapy using intraoperative shaved margins to determine pathologic tumor clearance. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:855–61.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Janes SE, Stankhe M, Singh S, Isgar B. Systematic cavity shaves reduces close margins and re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery. Breast. 2006;15:326–30.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Hewes JC, Imkampe A, Haji A, Bates T. Importance of routine cavity sampling in breast conservation surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96:47–53.PubMedCrossRef
94.
Keskek M, Kothari M, Ardehali B, Betambeau N, Nasiri N, Gui GP. Factors predisposing to cavity margin positivity following conservation surgery for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:1058–64.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Kobbermann A, Unzeitig A, Xie XJ, et al. Impact of routine cavity shave margins on breast cancer re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1349–55.PubMedCrossRef
96.
Malik HZ, George WD, Mallon EA, Harnett AN, Macmillan RD, Purushotham AD. Margin assessment by cavity shaving after breast-conserving surgery: analysis and follow-up of 543 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1999;25:464–9.PubMedCrossRef
97.
Rizzo M, Iyengar R, Gabram SG, Park J, Birdsong G, Chandler KL, Mosunjac MB. 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;17:228–34.PubMedCrossRef
98.
Britton PD, Sonoda LI, Yamamoto AK, Koo B, Soh E, Goud A. Breast surgical specimen radiographs: how reliable are they? Eur J Radiol. 2011;79:245–9.PubMedCrossRef
99.
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;202:387–94.PubMedCrossRef
100.
Ciccarelli G, Di Virgilio MR, Menna S, et al. Radiography of the surgical specimen in early stage breast lesions: diagnostic reliability in the analysis of the resection margins. Radiol Med. 2007;112:366–76.PubMedCrossRef
101.
Kim SH, Cornacchi SD, Heller B, Farrokhyar F, Babra M, Lovrics PJ. An evaluation of intraoperative digital specimen mammography versus conventional specimen radiography for the excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2013;205:703–10.PubMedCrossRef
102.
Layfield DM, May DJ, Cutress RI, Richardson C, Agrawal A, Wise M, Yiangou C. The effect of introducing an in-theatre intra-operative specimen radiography (IOSR) system on the management of palpable breast cancer within a single unit. Breast. 2012;21:459–63.PubMedCrossRef
103.
McCormick JT, Keleher AJ, Tikhomirov VB, Budway RJ, Caushaj PF. Analysis of the use of specimen mammography in breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2004;188:433–6.PubMedCrossRef
104.
Carmichael AR, Ninkovic G, Boparai R. The impact of intra-operative specimen radiographs on specimen weights for wide local excision of breast cancer. Breast. 2004;13:325–8.PubMedCrossRef
105.
Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman BA, et al. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: rapid, accurate results expedite surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1478–85.PubMedCrossRef
106.
Kaufman CS, Bachman BA, Jacobson L, Kaufman LB, Mahon C, Gambrell L. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: prompt image review speeds surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;192:513–5.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Jorns JM, Visscher D, Sabel M, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis of margins in breast conserving surgery significantly decreases reoperative rates: one-year experience at an ambulatory surgical center. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138:657–69.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
108.
Olson TP, Harter J, Munoz A, Mahvi DM, Breslin T. 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.PubMedCrossRef
109.
Osborn JB, Keeney GL, Jakub JW, Degnim AC, Boughey JC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3204–9.PubMedCrossRef
110.
Sable MS, Jorns JM, Wu A, Myers J, Newman LA, Breslin T. Development of an intraoperative pathology consultation service at a free-standing ambulatory surgical center: clinical and economic impact for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Am J Surg. 2012;204:66–77.CrossRef
111.
Cox CE, Pendas S, Ku NN, Reintgen DS, Greenberg HS, Nicosia SV. Local recurrence of breast cancer after cytological evaluation of lumpectomy margins. Am Surg. 1998;64:533–7; discussion 537–8.
112.
D’Halluin F, Tas P, Rouquette S, et al. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology following lumpectomy for breast cancer: a series of 400 procedures. Breast. 2009;18:248–53.PubMedCrossRef
113.
Weinberg E, Cox C, Dupont E, et al. Local recurrence in lumpectomy patients after imprint cytology margin evaluation. Am J Surg. 2004;188:349–54.PubMedCrossRef
114.
Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G, et al. Therapeutic mammaplasties: full local control of breast cancer in one surgical stage with frozen section. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:871–5.PubMedCrossRef
115.
Cendan JC, Coco D, Copeland EM III. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-bed margins. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:194–8.PubMedCrossRef
116.
Chen K, Zeng Y, Jia H, et al. Clinical outcomes of breast-conserving surgery in patients using a modified method for cavity margin assessment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3386–94.PubMedCrossRef
117.
Noguchi M, Minami M, Earashi M, Taniya T, Miyazaki I, Mizukami Y, Nonomura A. Intraoperative histologic assessment of surgical margins and lymph node metastasis in breast-conserving surgery. J Surg Oncol. 1995;60:185–90.PubMedCrossRef
118.
Riedl 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.PubMedCrossRef
119.
Weber S, Storm FK, Stitt J, Mahvi DM. The role of frozen section analysis of margins during breast conservation surgery. Cancer J Sci Am. 1997;3:273–7.PubMed
120.
Cox CE, Hyacinthe M, Gonzalez RJ, et al. Cytologic evaluation of lumpectomy margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:644–9.PubMedCrossRef
121.
Creager AJ, Shaw JA, Young PR, Geisinger KR. Intraoperative evaluation of lumpectomy margins by imprint cytology with histologic correlation: a community hospital experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:846–8.PubMed
122.
Mannell A. Breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients: a 12-year experience. S Afr J Surg. 2005;43:28–30; discussion 30, 32.
123.
Valdes EK, Boolbol SK, Cohen JM, Feldman SM. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology; does it have a role in re-excision lumpectomy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1045–50.PubMedCrossRef
124.
Fukamachi K, Ishida T, Usami S, Takeda M, Watanabe M, Sasano H, Ohuchi N. Total-circumference intraoperative frozen section analysis reduces margin-positive rate in breast-conservation surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40:513–20.PubMedCrossRef
125.
Landercasper J, Linebarger JH. Contemporary breast imaging and concordance assessment: a surgical perspective. Surg Clin North Am. 2011;91:33–58.PubMedCrossRef
126.
127.
Jagsi R, Li Y, Morrow M, et al. Patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes after breast conservation and mastectomy with and without reconstruction: results of a survey of breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg. 2015;213(6):1198–206.CrossRef
128.
Atisha DM, Rushing CN, Samsa GP, et al. A national snapshot of satisfaction with breast cancer procedures. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:361–9.PubMedCrossRef
129.
Waljee JF, Rogers MA, Alderman AK. Decision aids and breast cancer: do they influence choice for surgery and knowledge of treatment options? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1067–73.PubMedCrossRef
130.
Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Correlates of patient satisfaction and provider trust after breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 2008;112:1679–87.PubMedCrossRef
131.
van der Steeg AF, De Vries J, Roukema JA. The value of quality of life and health status measurements in the evaluation of the well-being of breast cancer survivors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1225–30.PubMedCrossRef
132.
Sackey H, Sandelin K, Frisell J, Wickman M, Brandberg Y. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Long-term follow-up of health-related quality of life, emotional reactions and body image. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:756–62.PubMedCrossRef
133.
De Gournay E, Bonnetain F, Tixier H, Loustalot C, Dabakuyo S, Cuisenier J. Evaluation of quality of life after breast reconstruction using an autologous latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:520–7.PubMedCrossRef
134.
Waljee JF, Hawley S, Alderman AK, Morrow M, Katz SJ. Patient satisfaction with treatment of breast cancer: does surgeon specialization matter? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3694–8.PubMedCrossRef
135.
Chen CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, et al. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Breast J. 2010;16:587–97.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Toolbox to Reduce Lumpectomy Reoperations and Improve Cosmetic Outcome in Breast Cancer Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference
Authors
Jeffrey Landercasper, MD, FACS
Deanna Attai, MD
Dunya Atisha, MD
Peter Beitsch, MD, FACS
Linda Bosserman, MD, FACP
Judy Boughey, MD, FACS
Jodi Carter, MD, PhD
Stephen Edge, MD
Sheldon Feldman, MD, FACS
Joshua Froman, MD
Caprice Greenberg, MD, MPH
Cary Kaufman, MD, FACS
Monica Morrow, MD, FACS
Barbara Pockaj, MD, FACS
Melvin Silverstein, MD, FACS
Lawrence Solin, MD, FACR, FASTRO
Alicia Staley
Frank Vicini, MD
Lee Wilke, MD, FACS
Wei Yang, MBBS, FRCR
Hiram Cody III, MD, FACS
Publication date
01-10-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2015
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4759-x

Other articles of this Issue 10/2015

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2015 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Breast Surgery in 2015: Advances in Recent Years

Breast Oncology

Breast-Conserving Surgery in Bilateral Breast Cancer

Breast Oncology

The Importance of Applying ACOSOG Z0011 Criteria in the Axillary Management of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Multi-institutional Cohort Study

Breast Oncology

Normal Axillary Ultrasound Excludes Heavy Nodal Disease Burden in Patients with Breast Cancer

Breast Oncology

Performance and Practice Guideline for the Use of Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in the Management of Breast Cancer

Breast Oncology

Oncoplastic Split Reduction with Intraoperative Radiation Therapy