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 10/2014

01-10-2014 | Breast Oncology

Reasons for Re-Excision After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer: Insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons MasterySM Database

Authors: Jeffrey Landercasper, MD, Eric Whitacre, MD, Amy C. Degnim, MD, Mohammed Al-Hamadani, MBChB, MPH

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is marked variability of re-excision rates after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer. Reasons for re-excision and variability across surgeons have not been well documented. We hypothesized the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) MasterySM Program can identify reasons for re-excision.

Methods

Data from January 1 to 7 November 2013 were evaluated in the ASBrS MasterySM Program to determine re-excision lumpectomy rate (RELR). On 1 June 2013, a tool to track reasons for re-excision was developed. Variation in re-excision rate by surgeon and patient characteristics was performed by Chi square test and Fisher’s test for univariate analysis, then logistic regression with backwards elimination method for multivariate analysis.

Results

For 6,725 patients undergoing initial lumpectomy for cancer, 328 surgeons reported 1,451 (21.6 %) patients had one or more re-excisions. The most common reasons for re-excision were ink positive margins in 783 (49.7 %), margin <1 mm (34.3 %), and margin 1–2 mm (7.2 %). By multivariate analysis, re-excision rates were lower in patients aged less than 35 years, with White (non-) Hispanic ethnicity, and, among surgeons in solo practice, more years in practice and higher-volume practice.

Conclusion

Half of re-excisions after initial lumpectomy were performed for margins that are positive. Most of the remainder were for negative close (<1–2 mm) margins. This information corroborates surgeon survey data regarding reasons for re-excision and provides proof of concept the MasterySM Program can capture surgical outcome data in real time, providing opportunity and a method for future performance improvement.
Literature
1.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines for breast cancer treatment. www.​nccn.​org. Accessed 5 Apr 2014.
2.
Coopey S, Smith BL, Hanson S, Buckley J, Hughes KS, Gadd M, et al. The safety of multiple re-excisions after lumpectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(13):3797–801.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Schwartz T, Degnim AC, Landercasper J. Should re-excision lumpectomy rates be a quality measure in breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(10):3180–3.PubMedCrossRef
4.
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(3):717–30.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Dixon JM, Irwig L, Brennan ME, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:3219.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, Kell MR. Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(10):1615–20.PubMedCrossRef
7.
McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467–5.PubMedCrossRef
8.
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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
9.
10.
Pleijhuis RG, Graafland M, de Vries J, Bart J, de Jong JS, van Dam GM. Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(10):2717–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
11.
12.
Hassett MJ, Hughes ME, Niland JC, et al. Selecting high priority quality measures for breast cancer quality improvement. Med Care. 2008;46(8):762–70.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
13.
Morrow M, Katz SJ. The challenge of developing quality measures for breast cancer surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):509–10.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Kaufman CS, Landercasper J. Can we measure the quality of breast surgical care?. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3053–60.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17(2):558–63.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
16.
Taghian A, Mohiuddin M, Jagsi R, Goldberg S, Ceilley E, Powell S. Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2005;241(4):629–39.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
17.
Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, Malcarne V, Beitsch PD, Ollila DW. Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(5):608–13.PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
20.
Clifford EJ, De Vol EB, Pockaj BA, Wilke LG, Boughey JC Early results from a novel quality outcomes program: the American Society Of Breast Surgeons’ Mastery of Breast Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(Suppl 3):233–41. doi:10.​1245/​s10434-010-1263-1.PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(13):2344–56.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Berry LL Discovering the soul of service: the nine drivers of sustainable business success. New York: Free Press; 1999. P. 12–13.
24.
Landercasper J, Tafra L. The relationship between quality and cost during the perioperative breast cancer episode of care. Breast. 2010;19(4):289–96.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health and cost. Health Aff. 2008;27(3):759–69.CrossRef
26.
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(10):3236–45.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Eck DL, Koonce SL, Goldberg RF, Bagaria S, Gibson T, Bowers SP, et al. Breast surgery outcomes as quality measures according to the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3212-7.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Brown JQ, Bydlon TM, Kennedy SA, et al. Optical spectral surveillance of breast tissue landscapes for detection of residual disease in breast tumor margins. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69906.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
29.
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(11):3204–9.PubMedCrossRef
30.
McGhan LJ, McKeever SC, Pockaj BA, Wasif N, Giurescu ME, Walton HA, et al. Radioactive seed localization for nonpalpable breast lesions: review of 1,000 consecutive procedures at a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3096–101.PubMedCrossRef
31.
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(1):86–92.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Coopey SB, Buckely JM, Smith B, et al. Lumpectomy cavity shaved margins do not impact re-excision rates in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3036–40.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Persing S, James TA, Mace J, Goodwin A, Geller B. Variability in the quality of pathology reporting of margin status following breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3061–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
34.
Smith TJ, Landercasper J, Gundrum JD, et al. Perioperative quality metrics for one step surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(1):34–8.PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
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(3):704–16.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, et al. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(15):1434–42.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Hu YY, Peyre SE, Arriaga AF, et al. Postgame analysis: using video-based coaching for continuous professional development. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(1):115–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Reasons for Re-Excision After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer: Insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons MasterySM Database
Authors
Jeffrey Landercasper, MD
Eric Whitacre, MD
Amy C. Degnim, MD
Mohammed Al-Hamadani, MBChB, MPH
Publication date
01-10-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2014
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3905-1

Other articles of this Issue 10/2014

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2014 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

The CUBE Technique: Continuous Ultrasound-Guided Breast Excision

Breast Oncology

Extent of Microinvasion in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ is not Associated with Sentinel Lymph Node Metastases

Breast Oncology

Margins: A Status Report from the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons

Breast Oncology

Implementing a Screening Tool for Identifying Patients at Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Statewide Initiative

Breast Oncology

Use of Hydrogel Breast Biopsy Tissue Markers Reduces the Need for Wire Localization

Breast Oncology

Increasing Mastectomy Rates—The Effect of Environmental Factors on the Choice for Mastectomy: A Comparative Analysis Between Canada and the United States