Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy: Maximizing Margin-Negative Breast Cancer Resection Rates on the First Try
- 42 Downloads
Purpose of the review
Numerous strategies and technologies have been historically used, with new ones being rapidly introduced, to maximize the chance of obtaining clear margins at the first lumpectomy. The goal of this review was to summarize the data on each, illustrate their strengths and weaknesses, and equip the surgeon to determine which best fits into their center or practice.
There is no technology or device currently that always results in negative margins. Many of the studies reviewed (including frozen sections, shave margins, specimen radiography, intraoperative ultrasound, imprint cytology, and new devices) show excellent negative margin rates, but many of the comparison studies have conflicting results and reasons for this are discussed. Newer emerging technologies hold great promise but there is a tendency to overinflate positive results.
It is important for surgeons to review their own re-excision rates to determine the need for further technology and strategies. Most of the investigative technologies are still years away from widespread acceptance.
KeywordsBreast cancer Local-regional evaluation Margins Technology Margin devices
The authors thank Stephanie Parlacoski, BS, for clerical assistance.
Compliance With Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 3.•• Moran M, Schnitt S, Giuliano A, Harris JR, Khan SA, Horton J, 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. This landmark paper established no ink on tumor as an acceptable standard.Google Scholar
- 4.• Morrow M, Van Zee K, Solin L, 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. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6(5):287–95. References 3 and 4 established a consensus on management of margins. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Rosenberger L, Mamtani A, Fuzesi S, et al. Early adoption of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: initial experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3239–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Uematsu T, Yuen S, KasamiM Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;112:461–474.Google Scholar
- 19.Fancellu A, Soro D, Castiglia P, Marras V, Melis M, Cottu P, et al. Usefulness of magnetic resonance in patients with invasive cancer eligible for breast conservation: a comparative study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14(2):114–21.Google Scholar
- 21.Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.Google Scholar
- 26.• National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2017 NCCN guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2018. This established national guidelines for MRI.
- 31.Jeevan R, Cromwell D, 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(122):e4505-e4505.Google Scholar
- 33.Campbell E, Romics L. Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer: Targets Ther. 2017;9:521–30.Google Scholar
- 35.Clough K, van la Parra R, Thygesen H, et al. Long-term results after oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer: a 10-year follow-up. Ann Surg 2017: Apr 26. [Epub ahead of print], 1.Google Scholar
- 37.Shah C, Vicini F, Shaitelman S, et al. The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for accelerated partial-breast irradiation. Brachytherapy. 2017. S1538–4721(17)30462–30462.Google Scholar
- 38.Cross M, Lebovic G, Stubbs J, Ross J, Jones S, Beck T. Identifying the surgical cavity following oncoplastic breast surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(26 suppl):81–1.Google Scholar
- 39.•• St John E, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):300–10. Landmark article on how to assess new technology that looks at detecting disease at the margin of breast cancers CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, Butler M, Stavris K, Li F, et al. A randomized controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):503–10.Google Scholar
- 45.Héquet D, Bricou A, Koual M, Ziol M, Feron JG, Rouzier R, et al. Systematic cavity shaving: modifications of breast cancer management and long-term local recurrence, a multicentre study. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO). 2013;39(8):899–905.Google Scholar
- 52.Tan K, Tan S, Chiang S, et al. Breast specimen ultrasound and mammography in the prediction of tumour free margins. Anns J Surg. 2006;76(12):1064–7.Google Scholar
- 53.Olsha O, Shemesh D, Carmon M, Sibirsky O, Abu Dalo R, Rivkin L, et al. Resection margins in ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;18(2):447–52.Google Scholar
- 58.• Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, Beitsch P, Bosserman L, Boughey J, et al. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: the American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3174–83. A review of how to maximize negative margins Google Scholar
- 59.Sajid M, Parampalli U, Haider Z, Bonomi R. Comparison of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and wire localization for non-palpable breast cancers: a meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2011;105(8):852–8.Google Scholar
- 61.Giacalone P, Bourdon A, Trinh P, et al. Radioguided occult lesion localization plus sentinel node biopsy (SNOLL) versus wire-guided localization plus sentinel node detection: a case control study of 129 unifocal pure invasive non-palpable breast cancers. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;23(2):128–33.Google Scholar
- 64.Ihrai T, Quaranta D, Fouche Y, Machiavello JC, Raoust I, Chapellier C, et al. Intraoperative radiological margin assessment in breast-conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(4):449–53.Google Scholar
- 66.Bathla L, Harris A, Davey M, Sharma P, Silva E. High resolution intra-operative two-dimensional specimen mammography and its impact on second operation for re-excision of positive margins at final pathology after breast conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2011;202(4):387–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 70.Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G, Cannata I, Marziani A, Polino C, et al. Therapeutic mammaplasties: full local control of breast cancer in one surgical stage with frozen sections. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:871–5.Google Scholar
- 72.Osako T, Nishimura R, Nishiyama Y, Okumura Y, Tashima R, Nakano M, et al. Efficacy of intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis of lumpectomy margins during breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20(6):1093–101.Google Scholar
- 78.D’Halluin F, Tas P, Rouquette S, Bendavid C, Foucher F, Meshba H, et al. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology following lumpectomy for breast cancer: a series of 400 procedures. Breast. 2009;18(4):248–53.Google Scholar
- 82.• Dixon J, Renshaw L, Keys J, et al. Intra-operative assessment of excision margins in breast conserving surgery for breast cancer using ClearEdge imaging device. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015:41:S54. Advanced technology that could be practically used in the operating room. Google Scholar
- 83.St John E, Al-Khudairi R, Balog J, et al. Rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry towards real time intraoperative oncological margin status determination in breast conserving surgery. Cancer Res 2016:76(4 suppl):P2-12-20.Google Scholar
- 88.Tang R, Coopey S, Buckley J, Aftreth OP, Fernandez LJ, Brachtel EF, et al. A pilot study evaluating shaved cavity margins with micro-computed tomography: a novel method for predicting lumpectomy margin status intraoperative. Breast J. 2013;19:485–9.Google Scholar
- 94.• Schnabel F, Boolbol S, Gittleman M, 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. This showed that the take back rate did not change significantly. Google Scholar
- 96.Klein J, Kong I, Paszat L, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Thiruchelvam D, et al. Close or positive resection margins are not associated with an increased risk of chest wall recurrence in women with DCIS treated by mastectomy: a population-based analysis. Spring. 2015;4:335.Google Scholar