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
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 6/2019

01-06-2019 | Breast Oncology

The Relationship of Breast Density and Positive Lumpectomy Margins

Authors: Jessica C. Gooch, MD, Esther Yoon, MD, Jennifer Chun, MPH, Elianna Kaplowitz, MPH, Talia Jubas, BA, Amber Guth, MD, Deborah Axelrod, MD, Richard Shapiro, MD, Farbod Darvishian, MD, Freya Schnabel, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 6/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A positive lumpectomy margin after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a significant predictor for ipsilateral cancer recurrence. The MarginProbe, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved device for intraoperative assessment of lumpectomy margins, is associated with a reduction in re-excision surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship of mammographic breast density (MBD) and clinicopathologic characteristics with margin status in women undergoing BCS with the MarginProbe.

Methods

The institutional database was queried for patients with breast cancer who had BCS with the MarginProbe from 2013 to 2017. Clinicopathologic characteristics were collected. The study defined MBD as less dense (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] A and B) and more dense (BI-RADS C and D). A positive margin was defined as smaller than 1 mm. Pearson Chi square and uni- and multivariate logistic regression were performed.

Results

Of 1734 patients, 341 met the study criteria. The median patient age was 63 years. The patients with higher mammographic density were younger (p < 0.0001) and had a lower body mass index (BMI) (p < 0.0001). The patients with higher MBD were more likely to present with a palpable mass (p = 0.0360). Of the 341 patients, 135 (39.6%) had one or more positive margins on the main specimen, and 101 (74.8%) were converted to final negative margins after the MarginProbe directed re-excisions. Positive final margins were associated with larger tumor size (p = 0.0242) and more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis (p = 0.0255).

Conclusions

In this study of patients undergoing BCS, breast density was not correlated with the likelihood of a positive margin. The presence of positive final lumpectomy margins was associated with older age and more extensive disease.
Literature
1.
Schnabel F, Boolbol SK, Gittleman M, Karni T, Tafra L, Feldman S 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
2.
A. C. Society. Breast cancer facts and figures 2017–2018. Atlanta: A.C. Society; 2017. p 1–44.
3.
Thill M, Dittmer C, Baumann K, Friedrichs K, Blohmer JU. MarginProbe(R): final results of the German post-market study in breast-conserving surgery of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast. 2014;23:94–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zysk AM, Chen K, Gabrielson E, Tafra L, May Gonzalez EA, Canner JK 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;22:3356–62.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
5.
Edwards BL, Guidry CA, Larson KN, Novicoff WM, Harvey JA, Schroen AT. Does mammographic density have an impact on the margin re-excision rate after breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:782–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Blohmer JU, Tanko J, Kueper J, Groß J, Völker R, Machleidt A. MarginProbe(c) reduces the rate of re-excision following breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;294:361–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Rivera RJ, Holmes DR, Tafra L. Analysis of the impact of intraoperative margin assessment with adjunctive use of MarginProbe versus standard of care on tissue volume removed. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:868623.PubMedCentralPubMed
8.
Allweis TM, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, Pappo I, Karni T, Schneebaum 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.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Radiology ACo. ACR BI-RADS atlas. In: Mammography. 5th ed. 2013, pp. 121–140.
10.
Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, Houssami N, Chavez-MacGregor M, Harris JR 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. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3801–10.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
11.
Schnabel FR, Allweis TA. Breast density and the risk for positive lumpectomy margins. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(28 Suppl):50.CrossRef
12.
Police A, Lin E, Lane K. Intraoperative margin assessment with the MarginProbe at different mammographic breast densities. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(28 Suppl):47.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Relationship of Breast Density and Positive Lumpectomy Margins
Authors
Jessica C. Gooch, MD
Esther Yoon, MD
Jennifer Chun, MPH
Elianna Kaplowitz, MPH
Talia Jubas, BA
Amber Guth, MD
Deborah Axelrod, MD
Richard Shapiro, MD
Farbod Darvishian, MD
Freya Schnabel, MD
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 6/2019
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07295-x

Other articles of this Issue 6/2019

Annals of Surgical Oncology 6/2019 Go to the issue

Pancreatic Tumors

Clinical Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Analysis of 884 Patients at Facilities Specializing in Pancreatic Surgery

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Systematic Review of Surgical and Percutaneous Irreversible Electroporation in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Endocrine Tumors

Long-Term Efficacy of Lymph Node Reoperation for Persistent Papillary Thyroid Cancer: 13-Year Follow-Up

Endocrine Tumors

Thyroid Antibody Status is Associated with Central Lymph Node Metastases in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Patients with Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis

Health Services Research and Global Oncology

Compliance with Cancer Quality Measures Over Time and Their Association with Survival Outcomes: The Commission on Cancer’s Experience with the Quality Measure Requiring at Least 12 Regional Lymph Nodes to be Removed and Analyzed with Colon Cancer Resections

Urologic Oncology

Development of a New Comorbidity Assessment Tool for Specific Prediction of Perioperative Mortality in Contemporary Patients Treated with Radical Cystectomy