Annals of Surgical Oncology

, 18:3061 | Cite as

Variability in the Quality of Pathology Reporting of Margin Status Following Breast Cancer Surgery

  • Sarah Persing
  • Ted A. James
  • John Mace
  • Andrew Goodwin
  • Berta Geller



Accurately determining margin status is important for breast cancer treatment. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed guidelines to standardize reporting of margin status. The aim of this study is to determine statewide concordance with CAP breast cancer reporting guidelines for margin status.


The Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (VBCSS) tracks mammography-related services provided to all women treated for breast cancer at hospitals in Vermont. These data include accompanying pathology reports, which were analyzed for descriptions of margin status. The CAP protocols have both requirements and recommendations for margin status reporting. Reports were “minimally compliant” if they adhered to the requirements stated in the CAP protocols or “maximally compliant” if they included the recommended protocols in addition to those required.


There were 2,016 reports that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 71.1% were minimally compliant and 37.3% were maximally compliant with the CAP guideline standards. There was a statistically significant rise in compliant reports, with minimally compliant reports increasing from 55.7% in 1998 to 79.3% in 2006, and maximally compliant reports rising from 4.7% in 1998 to 53.7% in 2006 (χ2 trend test, P < 0.001) for both cohorts.


Reporting of margin status in breast-conserving surgery varies widely. There is a significant rise in guideline compliance with margin status reporting from 1998 to 2006; however, overall compliance remains suboptimal. This study provides evidence to support the need for quality improvement measures in the implementation of CAP guidelines for reporting margin status following breast-conserving surgery.


Local Recurrence Rate Margin Status Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Negative Margin Surgical Margin Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank Dr. Takamaru Ashikaga for providing his support and statistical expertise during the preparation of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zavagano G, Goldin E, Mencarelli R, et al. Role of resection margins in patients treated with breast conservation surgery. Am Cancer Soc. 2008;76:259–67.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fitzgibbons PL, Connolly JL, Page DL. The College of American Pathologists (2005). Breast: Protocol applies to all invasive carcinomas of the breast. Available: Accessed 24 Jan 2011.
  4. 4.
    Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, et al. Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(8):1668–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz S, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast conserving surgery? Surgery attitudes and correlates. Soc Surg Oncol. 2009;17:558–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gage I, Schnitt S, Silver B, et al. Pathologic margin involvement and the risk fo recurrence in patients treated with breast conserving therapy. Cancer. 1996;78:1921–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peterson ME, Schultz DJ, Reynolds C, et al. Outcomes in breast cancer patients relative to margin status after treatment with breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:1029–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:1515–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Connolly JC. Specimen processing and margin evaluation. Paper presented at Breast pathology: current concepts and controversies, Boston, MA, June 4–5 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilkinson NW, Shahryarinejad A, Winston JS, Watroba N, Edge SB. Concordance with breast cancer pathology reporting practice guidelines. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;196:38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Apple SK. Variability in gross and microscopic pathology reporting in excisional biopsies of breast cancer tissue. Breast J. 2006;12:145–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Winchester DP, Cox JD. Standards for diagnosis and management of invasive breast carcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998;48:83–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bijker N, Duchateau L, Petterse J, et al. Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10853. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2263–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Persing
    • 1
  • Ted A. James
    • 1
  • John Mace
    • 1
  • Andrew Goodwin
    • 2
  • Berta Geller
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of Vermont College of MedicineBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Fletcher Allen Health CareBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations