Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 7/2018

01-07-2018 | Breast Oncology

Predictors of Residual Disease After Breast Conservation Surgery

Authors: Lisa J. Findlay-Shirras, HBSc, MBBS, Oussama Outbih, BSc Med, MD, Charlene N. Muzyka, MSc, Katie Galloway, MSc, Pamela C. Hebbard, MD, FRCSC, Maged Nashed, MD, PhD, FRCPC

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 7/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Breast-conserving therapy is the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer. In the era of multimodality therapy, the debate on the value of revision surgery for compromised margins continues, and high re-excision rates persist despite updated guidelines. Our study sought to identify the local re-excision rate for compromised margins after lumpectomy, and identify predictors of residual disease at re-excision.

Methods

This population-based retrospective cohort study included women with breast cancer who underwent a lumpectomy between 2009 and 2012 in Manitoba, with close (≤ 2 mm) or positive margins that led to re-excision. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics were identified through provincial cancer registries and chart reviews. For patients with invasive cancer, the six anatomical margins were reported for margin status, width, and pathology type at the margin.

Results

Of the 2494 patients identified, 556 women underwent re-excision, yielding a re-excision rate of 22.29%. Of our 311 patients with invasive cancer who underwent re-excision, 62.7% had residual disease identified on revision. On univariable analysis, the size and grade of the invasive component, nodal stage, and the number of positive margins were associated with residual disease on re-excision (p < 0.05). With the exception of nodal stage, the same variables remained statistically significant on multivariable analysis.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that even in the absence of ‘no ink on tumor’, the cancer size and grade in lumpectomy specimens are high-risk factors for residual disease, and this subgroup of patients may benefit from re-excision. Long-term follow-up of this cohort is required to determine their risk of recurrence after adjuvant treatment.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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; 17:558–63.CrossRefPubMed 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; 17:558–63.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer—bigger is not better. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(1): 79–82.CrossRefPubMed Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer—bigger is not better. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(1): 79–82.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, 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(18): 3219–32.CrossRefPubMed Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, 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(18): 3219–32.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012; 307(5): 467–75.CrossRefPubMed McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012; 307(5): 467–75.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Adams BJ, Zoon CK, Stevenson C, Chitnavis P, Wolfe L, Bear HD. The role of margin status and reexcision in local recurrence following breast conservation surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20(7): 2250–5.CrossRefPubMed Adams BJ, Zoon CK, Stevenson C, Chitnavis P, Wolfe L, Bear HD. The role of margin status and reexcision in local recurrence following breast conservation surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20(7): 2250–5.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Fitzgerald S, Romanoff A, Cohen A, et al. Close and positive lumpectomy margins are associated with similar rates of residual disease with additional surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23(13): 4270–6.CrossRefPubMed Fitzgerald S, Romanoff A, Cohen A, et al. Close and positive lumpectomy margins are associated with similar rates of residual disease with additional surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23(13): 4270–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Hadzikadic Gusic L, Mcguire KP, Ozmen T, et al. Margin width is not predictive of residual disease on re-excision in breast conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol. 2014; 109: 426–30.CrossRefPubMed Hadzikadic Gusic L, Mcguire KP, Ozmen T, et al. Margin width is not predictive of residual disease on re-excision in breast conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol. 2014; 109: 426–30.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Margenthaler JA, Gao F, Klimberg VS. Margin index: a new method for prediction of residual disease after breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17:2696–701.CrossRefPubMed Margenthaler JA, Gao F, Klimberg VS. Margin index: a new method for prediction of residual disease after breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17:2696–701.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Skripenova S, Layfield LJ. Initial margin status for invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and subsequent identification of carcinoma in reexcision specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 124: 109–14. Skripenova S, Layfield LJ. Initial margin status for invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and subsequent identification of carcinoma in reexcision specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 124: 109–14.
10.
go back to reference Jaffré I, Campion L, Dejode M, et al. Margin width should not still enforce a systematic surgical re-excision in the conservative treatment of early breast infiltrative ductal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20(12): 3831–8.CrossRefPubMed Jaffré I, Campion L, Dejode M, et al. Margin width should not still enforce a systematic surgical re-excision in the conservative treatment of early breast infiltrative ductal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20(12): 3831–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
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(3): 717–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
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. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(14): 1507–15.CrossRefPubMed 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. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(14): 1507–15.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Buchholz TA, Somerfield MR, Griggs JJ, et al. Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(14): 1502–6.CrossRefPubMed Buchholz TA, Somerfield MR, Griggs JJ, et al. Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(14): 1502–6.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Hunt KK, Sahin AA. Too much, too little, or just right? Tumor margins in women undergoing breast-conserving surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(14): 1401–6.CrossRefPubMed Hunt KK, Sahin AA. Too much, too little, or just right? Tumor margins in women undergoing breast-conserving surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(14): 1401–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Shah C, Verma V, Sayles H, Recht A, Vicini. Appropriate margins for breast conserving surgery in patients with early stage breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Oral presentation at the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 5–9 Dec 2017; San Antonio, TX. Shah C, Verma V, Sayles H, Recht A, Vicini. Appropriate margins for breast conserving surgery in patients with early stage breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Oral presentation at the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 5–9 Dec 2017; San Antonio, TX.
16.
go back to reference Minister of Health. Reporting of diseases and conditions—règlement sur la déclaration de maladies et d’affections; 2009: 1–24. Minister of Health. Reporting of diseases and conditions—règlement sur la déclaration de maladies et d’affections; 2009: 1–24.
17.
go back to reference Singh H, De CC, Shu E, et al. Wait times from presentation to treatment for colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Can J Gastroenterol. 2010; 24(1):33–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Singh H, De CC, Shu E, et al. Wait times from presentation to treatment for colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Can J Gastroenterol. 2010; 24(1):33–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Cramer Harald. Mathematical methods of statistics. Chapter 21: the two-dimensional case. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1946. p. 282. Cramer Harald. Mathematical methods of statistics. Chapter 21: the two-dimensional case. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1946. p. 282.
19.
go back to reference Canadian Institute for Health Information. Breast Cancer Surgery in Canada, 2007–2008 to 2009–2010. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2012. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Breast Cancer Surgery in Canada, 2007–2008 to 2009–2010. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2012.
20.
go back to reference Aguilar B, Sheikh F, Pockaj B, Wasif N, Gray R. The effect of junior residents on surgical quality: a study of surgical outcomes in breast surgery. Am J Surg. 2011; 202: 654–8.CrossRefPubMed Aguilar B, Sheikh F, Pockaj B, Wasif N, Gray R. The effect of junior residents on surgical quality: a study of surgical outcomes in breast surgery. Am J Surg. 2011; 202: 654–8.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Merrill AL, Coopey SB, Tang R, et al. Implications of new lumpectomy margin guidelines for breast- conserving surgery: changes in reexcision rates and predicted rates of residual tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 729–34.CrossRefPubMed Merrill AL, Coopey SB, Tang R, et al. Implications of new lumpectomy margin guidelines for breast- conserving surgery: changes in reexcision rates and predicted rates of residual tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 729–34.CrossRefPubMed
22.
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
23.
go back to reference Dillon MF, Hill ADK, Quinn CM, McDermott EW, O’Higgins N. A pathologic assessment of adequate margin status in breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13(3): 333–9.CrossRefPubMed Dillon MF, Hill ADK, Quinn CM, McDermott EW, O’Higgins N. A pathologic assessment of adequate margin status in breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13(3): 333–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Cellini C, Hollenbeck ST, Christos P, et al. Factors associated with residual breast cancer after re-excision for close or positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004; 11(10): 915–20.CrossRefPubMed Cellini C, Hollenbeck ST, Christos P, et al. Factors associated with residual breast cancer after re-excision for close or positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004; 11(10): 915–20.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Baliski CR, Pataky RE. Influence of the SSO/ASTRO margin reexcision guidelines on costs associated with breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24(3): 632–7.CrossRefPubMed Baliski CR, Pataky RE. Influence of the SSO/ASTRO margin reexcision guidelines on costs associated with breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24(3): 632–7.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference 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: 3797–801.CrossRefPubMed 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: 3797–801.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Gwin JL, Eisenberg BL, Hoffman JP, Ottery FD, Boraas M, Solin LJ. Incidence of gross and microscopic carcinoma in specimens from patients with breast cancer after re-excisions lumpectomy. Ann Surg. 1993; 218(6): 729–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gwin JL, Eisenberg BL, Hoffman JP, Ottery FD, Boraas M, Solin LJ. Incidence of gross and microscopic carcinoma in specimens from patients with breast cancer after re-excisions lumpectomy. Ann Surg. 1993; 218(6): 729–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Jardines L, Fowble B, Schultz D, et al. Factors associated with a positive re-excision after excisional biopsy for invasive breast cancer. Surgery. 1995; 118(5): 803–9.CrossRefPubMed Jardines L, Fowble B, Schultz D, et al. Factors associated with a positive re-excision after excisional biopsy for invasive breast cancer. Surgery. 1995; 118(5): 803–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Predictors of Residual Disease After Breast Conservation Surgery
Authors
Lisa J. Findlay-Shirras, HBSc, MBBS
Oussama Outbih, BSc Med, MD
Charlene N. Muzyka, MSc
Katie Galloway, MSc
Pamela C. Hebbard, MD, FRCSC
Maged Nashed, MD, PhD, FRCPC
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6454-1

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

Annals of Surgical Oncology 7/2018 Go to the issue