Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2016

01-03-2016 | Breast Oncology

Does Mammographic Density have an Impact on the Margin Re-excision Rate After Breast-Conserving Surgery?

Authors: Brandy L. Edwards, MD, MS, Christopher A. Guidry, MD, MS, Krista N. Larson, BS, Wendy M. Novicoff, PhD, Jennifer A. Harvey, MD, Anneke T. Schroen, MD, MPH

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Limited and conflicting data exist on an association between mammographic density (MD) and re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Additionally, the correlation of MD with resection of unnecessary margins during initial BCS is unknown.

Methods

All women with a diagnosis of breast cancer from 2003 to 2012 and enrolled in a larger study on MD were evaluated. Operative and pathology reports were reviewed to determine margin resection and involvement. Mammographic density was determined both by breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI-RADS) classification and by an automated software program (Volpara Solutions). Additional margins were deemed unnecessary if the lumpectomy specimen margin was free of invasive tumor [≥2 mm for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)] or if further re-excision was needed.

Results

Of 655 patients, 398 (60.8 %) had BCS, whereas 226 (34.5 %) underwent initial mastectomy. The women with denser breasts (BI-RADS 3 or 4) underwent initial mastectomy more frequently than the women with less dense breasts (40.0 vs. 30.5 %, respectively; p = 0.0118). Of the patients with BCS, 166 (41.7 %) required separate re-excision. Additional margins were taken during BCS in 192 (48.2 %) patients, with 151 (78.6 %) proving to be unnecessary. In the bivariable analysis, the patients with denser breasts according to BI-RADS classification and volumetric density showed a trend toward requiring more frequent re-excision, but this association was not seen in the multivariable analysis. The rate of unnecessary margins did not differ by breast density. In the multivariate analysis, the re-excision rates increased with DCIS (p < 0.0003) and decreased with resection of additional margins (p = 0.0043).

Conclusions

Mammographic density is not associated with an increased need for re-excision or resection of unnecessary margins at initial BCS.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:1707–16.CrossRefPubMed Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:1707–16.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.CrossRefPubMed Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Bani MR, Lux MP, Heusinger K, et al. Factors correlating with re-excision after breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:32–7.CrossRefPubMed Bani MR, Lux MP, Heusinger K, et al. Factors correlating with re-excision after breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:32–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference MacDonald H, Silverstein MJ, Lee LA, et al. Margin width as the sole determinant of local recurrence after breast conservation in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg. 2006;192:420–2.CrossRefPubMed MacDonald H, Silverstein MJ, Lee LA, et al. Margin width as the sole determinant of local recurrence after breast conservation in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg. 2006;192:420–2.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Martin-Dunlap TM, Cyr AE, Mushawah FA, Fao F, Margenthaler JA. Does the volume of ductal carcinoma in situ impact the positive margin rate in patients undergoing breast conservation for invasive breast cancer? J Surg Res. 2013;84:228–33.CrossRef Martin-Dunlap TM, Cyr AE, Mushawah FA, Fao F, Margenthaler JA. Does the volume of ductal carcinoma in situ impact the positive margin rate in patients undergoing breast conservation for invasive breast cancer? J Surg Res. 2013;84:228–33.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Wang SY. Shamliyan T, Virnig BA, Kane RL. Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:1–14.CrossRefPubMed Wang SY. Shamliyan T, Virnig BA, Kane RL. Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:1–14.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Wang SY, Chu H, Samliyan T, Jalal H, Kuntz HM, Kane RL, Virnig BA. Network meta-analysis of margin threshold for women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:507–16.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Wang SY, Chu H, Samliyan T, Jalal H, Kuntz HM, Kane RL, Virnig BA. Network meta-analysis of margin threshold for women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:507–16.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Reedijk M, Hodgson N, Gohla G, Boylan C, et al. A prospective study of tumor and technical factors associated with positive margins in breast-conservation therapy for nonpalpable malignancy. Am J Surg. 2012;204:263–8.CrossRefPubMed Reedijk M, Hodgson N, Gohla G, Boylan C, et al. A prospective study of tumor and technical factors associated with positive margins in breast-conservation therapy for nonpalpable malignancy. Am J Surg. 2012;204:263–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Smitt MC, Nowels K, Carlson RW, Jeffrey SS. Predictors of re-excision findings and recurrence after breast conservation. Int J Rad Oncol. 2003;57:979–85.CrossRef Smitt MC, Nowels K, Carlson RW, Jeffrey SS. Predictors of re-excision findings and recurrence after breast conservation. Int J Rad Oncol. 2003;57:979–85.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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;209:608–13.CrossRefPubMed 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;209:608–13.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in re-excision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–75.CrossRefPubMed McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in re-excision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–75.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference 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. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:553–64.CrossRef 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. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:553–64.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Sabel MS, Rogers K,Griffith K, et al. Residual disease after re-excision lumpectomy for close margins. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:99–103.CrossRefPubMed Sabel MS, Rogers K,Griffith K, et al. Residual disease after re-excision lumpectomy for close margins. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:99–103.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Shin H, Han E, Moon H, et al. Nomogram for predicting positive resection margins after breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134:1115–23.CrossRefPubMed Shin H, Han E, Moon H, et al. Nomogram for predicting positive resection margins after breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134:1115–23.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Mullen R, Macaskill EJ, Khalil A, et al. Involved anterior margins after breast conserving surgery: Is re-excision required? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012; 38:302–6.CrossRefPubMed Mullen R, Macaskill EJ, Khalil A, et al. Involved anterior margins after breast conserving surgery: Is re-excision required? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012; 38:302–6.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Balch GC, Mithani SK, Simpson JF, Kelley MC. Accuracy of intraoperative gross examination of surgical margin status in women undergoing partial mastectomy for breast malignancy. Am Surg. 2005;71:22–7.PubMed Balch GC, Mithani SK, Simpson JF, Kelley MC. Accuracy of intraoperative gross examination of surgical margin status in women undergoing partial mastectomy for breast malignancy. Am Surg. 2005;71:22–7.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Beron PJ, Horwitz EM, Martinez AA, et al. Pathologic and mammographic findings predicting the adequacy of tumor excision before breast-conserving therapy. Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1409–14.CrossRef Beron PJ, Horwitz EM, Martinez AA, et al. Pathologic and mammographic findings predicting the adequacy of tumor excision before breast-conserving therapy. Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1409–14.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Dillon MF, Maguire AA, McDermott EW, Myers C, Hill AD, O’Doherty A, Quinn CM. Needle core biopsy characteristics identify patients at risk of compromised margins in breast conservation surgery. Mod Pathol. 2008;21:39–45.CrossRefPubMed Dillon MF, Maguire AA, McDermott EW, Myers C, Hill AD, O’Doherty A, Quinn CM. Needle core biopsy characteristics identify patients at risk of compromised margins in breast conservation surgery. Mod Pathol. 2008;21:39–45.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Fadare O, Clement NF, Ghofrani M. High- and intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a comparison of pathologic features in core biopsies and excisions and an evaluation of core biopsy features that may predict a close or positive margin in the excision. Diagn Pathol. 2009. DOI:10.1186/1746-1596-4-26.PubMedCentralPubMed Fadare O, Clement NF, Ghofrani M. High- and intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a comparison of pathologic features in core biopsies and excisions and an evaluation of core biopsy features that may predict a close or positive margin in the excision. Diagn Pathol. 2009. DOI:10.​1186/​1746-1596-4-26.PubMedCentralPubMed
22.
go back to reference Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, 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 Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, 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
23.
go back to reference Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Garnett A, Chen V, Franic S, Simunovic M. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast conservation surgery for early stage cancer. Am J Surg. 2009;197:740–6.CrossRefPubMed Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Garnett A, Chen V, Franic S, Simunovic M. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast conservation surgery for early stage cancer. Am J Surg. 2009;197:740–6.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Melstrom LG, Melstrom KA, Wang EC, Pilewskie M, Winchester DJ. Ductal carcinoma in situ: size and resection volume predict margin status. Am J Clin Oncol. 2010;33:438–42.CrossRefPubMed Melstrom LG, Melstrom KA, Wang EC, Pilewskie M, Winchester DJ. Ductal carcinoma in situ: size and resection volume predict margin status. Am J Clin Oncol. 2010;33:438–42.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Neushatz AC, DiPetrillo T, Steinhoff M, et al. The value of breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor burden in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 2002;94:1917–24.CrossRef Neushatz AC, DiPetrillo T, Steinhoff M, et al. The value of breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor burden in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 2002;94:1917–24.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Sakr RA, Poulet B, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Clough KB. Clear margins for invasive lobular carcinoma: a surgical challenge. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:350–6.CrossRefPubMed Sakr RA, Poulet B, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Clough KB. Clear margins for invasive lobular carcinoma: a surgical challenge. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:350–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Wazer DE, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Schmid CH, Ruthazer R, Kramer B, Safaii H, Graham R. The value of breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor burden. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38:291–9.CrossRefPubMed Wazer DE, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Schmid CH, Ruthazer R, Kramer B, Safaii H, Graham R. The value of breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor burden. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38:291–9.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Kapoor NS, Eaton A, King TA, et al. Should breast density influence patient selection for breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:600–6.CrossRefPubMed Kapoor NS, Eaton A, King TA, et al. Should breast density influence patient selection for breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:600–6.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, Bovjerg VE, Petroni GR, Harvey JA. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. Acad Radiol. 2006;13:1143–9.CrossRefPubMed Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, Bovjerg VE, Petroni GR, Harvey JA. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. Acad Radiol. 2006;13:1143–9.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) atlas. 4th edition. American College of Radiology, Reston, 2013. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) atlas. 4th edition. American College of Radiology, Reston, 2013.
31.
go back to reference Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds). AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. Springer, New York, 2010. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds). AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. Springer, New York, 2010.
32.
go back to reference Huston TL, Pigalarga R, Osborne MP, Tousimis E. The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;192:509–12.CrossRefPubMed Huston TL, Pigalarga R, Osborne MP, Tousimis E. The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;192:509–12.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Does Mammographic Density have an Impact on the Margin Re-excision Rate After Breast-Conserving Surgery?
Authors
Brandy L. Edwards, MD, MS
Christopher A. Guidry, MD, MS
Krista N. Larson, BS
Wendy M. Novicoff, PhD
Jennifer A. Harvey, MD
Anneke T. Schroen, MD, MPH
Publication date
01-03-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4917-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2016 Go to the issue