Standardized and reproducible methodology for the comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer

Stephen P. Povoski, Rafael E Jimenez, Wenle P. Wang, Ronald X. Xu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The primary goal of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to completely excise the tumor and achieve "adequate" or "negative" surgical resection margins while maintaining an acceptable level of postoperative cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, precise determination of the adequacy of BCS has long been debated. In this regard, the aim of the current paper was to describe a standardized and reproducible methodology for comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during BCS. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 204 BCS procedures performed for invasive breast cancer from August 2003 to June 2007, in which patients underwent a standard BCS resection and systematic sampling of nine standardized re-resection margins (superior, superior-medial, superior-lateral, medial, lateral, inferior, inferior-medial, inferior-lateral, and deep-posterior). Multiple variables (including patient, tumor, specimen, and follow-up variables) were evaluated. Results: 6.4% (13/204) of patients had positive BCS specimen margins (defined as tumor at inked edge of BCS specimen) and 4.4% (9/204) of patients had close margins (defined as tumor within 1 mm or less of inked edge but not at inked edge of BCS specimen). 11.8% (24/204) of patients had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease, independent of the status of the BCS specimen margins. 7.1% (13/ 182) of patients with negative BCS specimen margins (defined as no tumor cells seen within 1 mm or less of inked edge of BCS specimen) had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease. Thus, 54.2% (13/24) of patients with additional disease in a re-resection margin would not have been recognized by a standard BCS procedure alone (P < 0.001). The nine standardized resection margins represented only 26.8% of the volume of the BCS specimen and 32.6% of the surface area of the BCS specimen. Conclusion: Our methodology accurately assesses the adequacy of surgical resection margins for determination of which individuals may need further resection to the affected breast in order to minimize the potential risk of local recurrence while attempting to limit the volume of additional breast tissue excised, as well as to determine which individuals are not realistically amendable to BCS and instead need a completion mastectomy to successfully remove multifocal disease.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number254
JournalBMC Cancer
Volume9
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 27 2009

Fingerprint

Segmental Mastectomy
Breast Neoplasms
Margins of Excision
Neoplasms
Breast
Mastectomy
Cosmetics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research
  • Genetics

Cite this

@article{3b0171e1ceaa4e1da13bc5048e466d5e,
title = "Standardized and reproducible methodology for the comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer",
abstract = "Background: The primary goal of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to completely excise the tumor and achieve {"}adequate{"} or {"}negative{"} surgical resection margins while maintaining an acceptable level of postoperative cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, precise determination of the adequacy of BCS has long been debated. In this regard, the aim of the current paper was to describe a standardized and reproducible methodology for comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during BCS. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 204 BCS procedures performed for invasive breast cancer from August 2003 to June 2007, in which patients underwent a standard BCS resection and systematic sampling of nine standardized re-resection margins (superior, superior-medial, superior-lateral, medial, lateral, inferior, inferior-medial, inferior-lateral, and deep-posterior). Multiple variables (including patient, tumor, specimen, and follow-up variables) were evaluated. Results: 6.4{\%} (13/204) of patients had positive BCS specimen margins (defined as tumor at inked edge of BCS specimen) and 4.4{\%} (9/204) of patients had close margins (defined as tumor within 1 mm or less of inked edge but not at inked edge of BCS specimen). 11.8{\%} (24/204) of patients had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease, independent of the status of the BCS specimen margins. 7.1{\%} (13/ 182) of patients with negative BCS specimen margins (defined as no tumor cells seen within 1 mm or less of inked edge of BCS specimen) had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease. Thus, 54.2{\%} (13/24) of patients with additional disease in a re-resection margin would not have been recognized by a standard BCS procedure alone (P < 0.001). The nine standardized resection margins represented only 26.8{\%} of the volume of the BCS specimen and 32.6{\%} of the surface area of the BCS specimen. Conclusion: Our methodology accurately assesses the adequacy of surgical resection margins for determination of which individuals may need further resection to the affected breast in order to minimize the potential risk of local recurrence while attempting to limit the volume of additional breast tissue excised, as well as to determine which individuals are not realistically amendable to BCS and instead need a completion mastectomy to successfully remove multifocal disease.",
author = "Povoski, {Stephen P.} and Jimenez, {Rafael E} and Wang, {Wenle P.} and Xu, {Ronald X.}",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2407-9-254",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "BMC Cancer",
issn = "1471-2407",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Standardized and reproducible methodology for the comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer

AU - Povoski, Stephen P.

AU - Jimenez, Rafael E

AU - Wang, Wenle P.

AU - Xu, Ronald X.

PY - 2009/7/27

Y1 - 2009/7/27

N2 - Background: The primary goal of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to completely excise the tumor and achieve "adequate" or "negative" surgical resection margins while maintaining an acceptable level of postoperative cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, precise determination of the adequacy of BCS has long been debated. In this regard, the aim of the current paper was to describe a standardized and reproducible methodology for comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during BCS. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 204 BCS procedures performed for invasive breast cancer from August 2003 to June 2007, in which patients underwent a standard BCS resection and systematic sampling of nine standardized re-resection margins (superior, superior-medial, superior-lateral, medial, lateral, inferior, inferior-medial, inferior-lateral, and deep-posterior). Multiple variables (including patient, tumor, specimen, and follow-up variables) were evaluated. Results: 6.4% (13/204) of patients had positive BCS specimen margins (defined as tumor at inked edge of BCS specimen) and 4.4% (9/204) of patients had close margins (defined as tumor within 1 mm or less of inked edge but not at inked edge of BCS specimen). 11.8% (24/204) of patients had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease, independent of the status of the BCS specimen margins. 7.1% (13/ 182) of patients with negative BCS specimen margins (defined as no tumor cells seen within 1 mm or less of inked edge of BCS specimen) had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease. Thus, 54.2% (13/24) of patients with additional disease in a re-resection margin would not have been recognized by a standard BCS procedure alone (P < 0.001). The nine standardized resection margins represented only 26.8% of the volume of the BCS specimen and 32.6% of the surface area of the BCS specimen. Conclusion: Our methodology accurately assesses the adequacy of surgical resection margins for determination of which individuals may need further resection to the affected breast in order to minimize the potential risk of local recurrence while attempting to limit the volume of additional breast tissue excised, as well as to determine which individuals are not realistically amendable to BCS and instead need a completion mastectomy to successfully remove multifocal disease.

AB - Background: The primary goal of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to completely excise the tumor and achieve "adequate" or "negative" surgical resection margins while maintaining an acceptable level of postoperative cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, precise determination of the adequacy of BCS has long been debated. In this regard, the aim of the current paper was to describe a standardized and reproducible methodology for comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during BCS. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 204 BCS procedures performed for invasive breast cancer from August 2003 to June 2007, in which patients underwent a standard BCS resection and systematic sampling of nine standardized re-resection margins (superior, superior-medial, superior-lateral, medial, lateral, inferior, inferior-medial, inferior-lateral, and deep-posterior). Multiple variables (including patient, tumor, specimen, and follow-up variables) were evaluated. Results: 6.4% (13/204) of patients had positive BCS specimen margins (defined as tumor at inked edge of BCS specimen) and 4.4% (9/204) of patients had close margins (defined as tumor within 1 mm or less of inked edge but not at inked edge of BCS specimen). 11.8% (24/204) of patients had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease, independent of the status of the BCS specimen margins. 7.1% (13/ 182) of patients with negative BCS specimen margins (defined as no tumor cells seen within 1 mm or less of inked edge of BCS specimen) had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease. Thus, 54.2% (13/24) of patients with additional disease in a re-resection margin would not have been recognized by a standard BCS procedure alone (P < 0.001). The nine standardized resection margins represented only 26.8% of the volume of the BCS specimen and 32.6% of the surface area of the BCS specimen. Conclusion: Our methodology accurately assesses the adequacy of surgical resection margins for determination of which individuals may need further resection to the affected breast in order to minimize the potential risk of local recurrence while attempting to limit the volume of additional breast tissue excised, as well as to determine which individuals are not realistically amendable to BCS and instead need a completion mastectomy to successfully remove multifocal disease.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68949196785&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=68949196785&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2407-9-254

DO - 10.1186/1471-2407-9-254

M3 - Article

C2 - 19635166

AN - SCOPUS:68949196785

VL - 9

JO - BMC Cancer

JF - BMC Cancer

SN - 1471-2407

M1 - 254

ER -