Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 3931–3938 | Cite as

The Impact of Margin Status on Breast Conservation Rates

  • Edibaldo SilvaEmail author
  • Mona Tan
Breast Oncology



Contemporary data indicate that breast conservation treatment (BCT) results in superior survival outcomes compared with mastectomy. However, positive margins after lumpectomy have implications for local control, and re-excisions are recommended to achieve negative margins. The need for reoperations after an initial attempt at BCT is associated with higher chance of conversion to mastectomy. Achieving negative margins at the first therapeutic surgical procedure is therefore critical to optimise BCT rates and survival outcomes.


A compilation of scientific reports on BCT, margin status, rates of reoperation, and the impact on BCT rates was reviewed. Re-excision rates after initial lumpectomy is variable to a staggering degree and reported to be between 0 and 100%. High reoperation rates (ROR) are associated with higher likelihood of conversion to mastectomy, which may not confer favourable treatment outcomes. Although widely agreed that decreasing ROR is a desirable objective, there is controversy regarding the need for its urgent implementation as a quality metric. Critics of this cite challenges related to how this can be achieved and its attendant ramifications. On the other hand, without the appropriate incentive for quality improvement of surgical treatment of breast cancer, patients may be subject to poorer overall outcomes.


Techniques and approaches are discussed in this article to enable a reduction in positive margin status, and therefore ROR. The rationale for achieving ROR of 10–20% are explicated, as well as the impact this would have on BCT rates, which translates to better survival outcomes for women with breast cancer.



The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomised trial comparing mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poggi MM, Danforth DN, Sciuto LC, et al. Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy. Cancer. 2003;98:697–702.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    NIH Consensus Conference. (No authors listed) JAMA. 1991;265:391–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P, et al. Are mastectomies on the rise? A 13-year trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2683–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garcia-Etienne CA, Tomatis M, Heil J, et al. Mastectomy trends for early-stage breast cancer: a report from the EUSOMA multi-institutional European database. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1947–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hwang ES, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, Fowble B, Clarke CA. Survival after lumpectomy and mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: the effect of age and hormone receptor status. Cancer. 2013;119:1402–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agarwal S, Pappas L, Neumayer L, et al. Effect of breast conservation therapy vs mastectomy on disease-specific survival for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:267–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Hezewijk M, Bastiaannet E, Putter H, et al. Effect of local therapy on locoregional recurrence in postmenopausal women with breast cancer in the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial. Radiother Oncol. 2013;108:190–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin MA, Meyricke R, O’Neill T, Roberts S. Breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy for survival from breast cancer: the Western Australian Experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:157–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofvind S, Holen A, Aas T, Roman M, Sebuødegård S, Akslen LA. Women treated with breast conserving surgery do better than those with mastectomy independent of detection mode, prognostic and predictive tumour characteristics. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:1417–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA. Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population-based study in 173,797 patients. BMJ. 2015;351:h4901 Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Heiden-van der Loo M, Siesling S, Wouters MWJM, van Dalen T, Rutgers EJT, Peeters PHM. The value of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence as a quality indicator: hospital variation in the Netherlands. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22(Suppl 3):S522–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Maaren MC, de Munck L, de Bock GH et al. 10 year survival after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in early breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study. Lancel Oncol. 2016;17:1158–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plichta JK, Rai U, Tong R, et al. Factors associated with recurrence rates and long-term survival in women diagnosed with breast cancer ages 40 and younger. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3212–20. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nandakumar A, Rath GK, Kataki AC, Bapay PP, Gupta PC, Gangadharan P, et al. Decreased survival with mastectomy vis-à-vis breast-conserving surgery in stage II and III breast cancers: a comparative treatment effectiveness study. J Glob Oncol. 2017;3:304–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Christiansen P, Carstensen SL, Ejlertsen, Kroman N, Offersen B, Bodilsen A, Jensen MB. Breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy: overall and relative survival—a population-based study by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Acta Oncol. 2018;57:19–25.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang JY, Wang SL, Tang Y, Jing H, Sun GY, Jin J, et al. Comparison of treatment outcomes with breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy versus mastectomy for patients with stage I breast cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:e975-84.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Corradini S, Reitz D, Pazos M, Schonecker S, Braun M, Harbeck N, et al. Mastectomy or breast-conserving therapy for early breast cancer in real-life clinical practice: outcome comparison of 7565 cases. Cancers. 2019;11:160. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lazow SP, Riba L, Alapati A, James TA (2019) Comparison of breast-conserving therapy vs mastectomy in women under age 40: national trends and potential implications. Breast J. 2019. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lagendijk M, van Maaren MC, Saadatmand S, Strobbe LJA, Poortmans PM, Koppert LB et al. Breast conserving therapy and mastectomy revisited: breast cancer-specific survival and the influence of prognostic factors in 129,692 patients. Int J Cancer. 2018;142:165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gentilini OD, Cardoso MJ, Poortmans P. Less is more: breast conservation might be even better than mastectomy in early breast cancer patients. Breast. 2017;35:32–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johns N, Dixon JM. Should patients with early breast cancer still be offered the choice of breast conserving surgery or mastectomy? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1636–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silva E. Breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer: could patient choice lead to an inferior outcome? Breast J. 2014;20:97–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fancellu A. Considerations arising from requests from patients for a bilateral mastectomy who are eligible for breast-conserving surgery: factors weighing for and against performing the operation. Oncol Lett. 2016;12:764–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) Standards Manual 2018 Edition. Page 27. Accessed 2018.
  27. 27.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cellini C, Huston TL, Martins D, et al. Multiple re-excisions versus mastectomy in patients with persistent residual disease following breast conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2005;189:662–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2158–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brooks JM, Chrischilles EA, Landrum MB, et al. Survival implications associated with variation in mastectomy rates for early-staged breast cancer. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012; Scholar
  31. 31.
    Keating NL, Landrum MB, Brooks JM, et al. Outcomes following local therapy for early-stage breast cancer in non-trial populations. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;125:803–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chagpar AB, Wilke LG. Should re-excision rates in breast cancer care be a quality measure? Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2818–22. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morrow M, Katz SJ. The challenges of developing quality measures for breast cancer surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:509–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Obedian E, Haffty BG. Negative margin status improves local control in conservatively managed breast cancer patients. Cancer J Sci Am. 2000;6:328–35.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boyages J, Delaney G, Taylor R. Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Cancer. 1999;85:616–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:383–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dunham AL, Ramirez LD, Vang CA, et al. Profiling surgeon performance for breast cancer lumpectomy by composite measurement of reoperations, cosmetic outcomes, and patient preferences. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(7):1943–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cody HS, van Zea KJ. Re-excision. The other breast cancer epidemic. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):568–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello EJ, et al. Variability in re-excision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012; 307(5):467–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Isaacs AJ, Gemignani ML, Pusic A, et al. Association of breast conservation surgery for cancer with 90-day reoperation rates in New York state. JAMA. 2016;151(7):648–55.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    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. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:804–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morrow M, Katz SJ. The challenge of developing quality measures for breast cancer surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:509–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim SHH, Cornacchi SD, Heller B, Farrokhyar F, Babra M Lovrics PJ. An evaluation of intraoperative digital specimen mammography versus conventional specimen radiography of the excision of non-palpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2013;205:703.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bathla L, Harris A, Davey M, Sharma P, Silva E. High resolution intraoperative 2-dimensional specimen mammography and its positive impact on second operation for re-excision of positive margins at final pathology after BCT. Am J Surg. 2010;202:387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kaufman CS, Zacharia K, Rogers A, Nix S, et al. View for view, 3D specimen tomosynthesis provides more data than 2D specimen mammography. Abstract ID: 256719; SABS 2018.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AHT, et al. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:994–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Moore MM, Whitney LA, Cerilli L, Imbrie JZ, Bunch M, Simpson VB, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for palpable infiltrating ductal breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233:761–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Down SK, Jha PK, Burger A, Hussien MI. Oncologic advantages of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in treatment of early breast cancer. Breast J. 2013;19:56–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chagpar A, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A randomized controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:503–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chagpar AB, Horowitz NR, Killelea BK, Tsangaris T, Longley P, Grizzle S, et al. Economic impact of routine cavity margins versus standard partial mastectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2017;265:39–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Milligan R, Pieri A, Critchley A, Peace R, Lennard T, O’Donoghue JM, et al. Radioactive seed localisation compared with wire-guided localisation of non-palpable breast carcinoma in breast conservation surgery—the first experience in the United Kingdom. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20170268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ahmed M, Dovek M. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) in the treatment of non-palpable breast cancer. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast J. 2013;22:383–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weber WP, Engelberger S Viehk CT, Zanetti-Dallenbach R, Kuster S, Dirnhofer S, et al. Accuracy of frozen section analysis versus specimen radiography during breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable lesions. World J Surg. 2008;32:2599–606.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Osborn JB, Keeney GL, Jakub JW, Degnim AC, Boughey JC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3204–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Guidi AJ, Tworek JA, Mais AD, et al. Breast specimen processing and reporting with an emphasis on margin evaluation: a college of American Pathologists Survey of 866 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142(4):496–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Landercasper J, Bennie B, Parsons BM, et al. Fewer reoperations after lumpectomy for breast cancer with neoadjuvant rather than adjuvant chemotherapy: a report from the National Cancer Database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(6):1507–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mukhtar RA, Wong J, Piper M, et al. Breast conservation and negative margins in invasive lobular carcinoma: the impact of oncoplastic surgery and shave margins in 358 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(11):3165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tevis SE, Neuman HB, Mittendorf EA, et al. Multidisciplinary intraoperative assessment of breast specimens reduces number of positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2932–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, et al. Re-operation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;345:e4505. Scholar
  61. 61.
    Havel L, Naik H, Ramirez L, Morrow M, Landercasper J. Impact of the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline on rates of re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:1238–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jagsi R, Jiang J, Momoh AO, et al. Complications after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer: a claims-based analysis. Ann Surg. 2016;263:219–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gagliato A, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Lei X, et al. Clinical impact of delaying initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(8):735–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Grant Y, Al-Khudairi R, St John E, Barschkett M, Cunningham D, Al-Mufti R, et al. Patient-level costs in margin re-excision for breast-conserving surgery. Br J Surg. 2018;106:384–394. Scholar
  65. 65.
    Boughey JC, Keeney GL, Radensky P, Song CP, Habermann EB. Economic implications of widespread expansion of frozen section margin analysis to guide surgical resection in women with breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12:e413-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tan MP, Sitoh NY, Sim AS, The value of intraoperative frozen section analysis for margin status in breast conservation surgery in a non-tertiary institution. Int J Breast Cancer. 2014;2014:715404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jonczyk MM, Jean J, Graham R, Chatterjee A. Trending toward safer breast cancer surgeries? Examining acute complication rates from a 13-year NSQIP analysis. Cancers. 2019;11:253.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ejlertsen B, Offersen BV, Overgaard J, Christiansen P, Jensen MB, Kroman N, et al. Forty years of landmark trials undertaken by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) nationwide or in international collaboration. Acta Oncol. 2018;57:3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Guo FJ, Kuo YF, Shih YCT, Giordano SH, Berenson AB. Trends in breast cancer mortality by stage at diagnosis among young women in the United States. Cancer. 2018;124:3500–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Tan MP, Silva E. Addressing the paradox of increasing mastectomy rates in an era of de-escalation of therapy: communication strategies. Breast. 2018;38:136–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chagpar A. Defining why the re-excision rate dropped. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:1176–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Rubio I, Wyld L, Kovacs T, et al. Variability in breast cancer training across Europe: an ESSO-EUSOMA international survey Abst # 23. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:e9–e24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ong WL, Schouwenburg MG, von Brummel AC, et al. A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer. ICHOM initiative. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(5):677–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surgical OncologyUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  2. 2.MammoCare, Breast SurgerySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations