Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Supplement 3, pp 476–485 | Cite as

The Influence of Repeat Surgery and Residual Disease on Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Study

  • Anne Bodilsen
  • Karsten Bjerre
  • Birgitte V. Offersen
  • Pernille Vahl
  • Bent Ejlertsen
  • Jens Overgaard
  • Peer Christiansen
Breast Oncology



A significant proportion of women who have breast-conserving surgery (BCS) subsequently undergo re-excision or proceed to mastectomy. This study aimed to identify factors associated with residual disease after repeat surgery and to determine their effect on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and survival.


The study cohort was identified within the national population-based registry of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, including women who underwent BCS for unilateral invasive breast cancer between 2000 and 2009.


The study investigated 12,656 women. Within 2 months after initial BCS, 1342 (11 %) of these women had a re-excision, and 756 (6 %) of the women had a mastectomy. Residual disease was found in 20 % of re-excisions and 59 % of mastectomies. In adjusted analysis, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) outside the invasive tumor, positive initial margin, and age younger than 50 years were associated with increased risk of residual disease. In the adjusted analysis, patients with residual disease after re-excision had an increased risk of IBTR regardless whether residual findings were invasive carcinoma [hazard ratio (HR), 2.97; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.57–5.62] or DCIS (HR, 2.58; 95 % CI 1.50–4.45). However, no difference was seen in overall survival comparing patients receiving one excision with those having repeat surgery with or without residual disease (p = 0.96).


A higher risk of IBTR seen after re-excision was associated with residual disease. Overall survival was similar regardless of repeat surgery and residual findings.


Residual Disease Adjuvant Systemic Therapy Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence Multifocal Tumor Boost Treatment 
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.



There are no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10434_2015_4707_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)


  1. 1.
    O’Sullivan MJ, Li T, Freedman G, Morrow M. The effect of multiple reexcisions on the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3133–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA, et al. The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J. 2006;12:331–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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;13:333–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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;20:2250–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Brien J, Morrow M. Margin width is not predictive of residual disease on re-excision in breast-conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:507–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCahill LE, Single R, Ratliff J, Sheehey-Jones J, Gray A, James T. Local recurrence after partial mastectomy: relation to initial surgical margins. Am J Surg. 2011;201:374–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenup RA, Peppercorn J, Worni M, Hwang ES. Cost implications of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1512–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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;134:109–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groot G, Rees H, Pahwa P. Predicting local recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer: the significance of a narrow (2 mm) surgical resection margin. J Surg Oncol. 2011;103:212–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Menes TS, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss I, Godbold JH, Estabrook A, Smith SR. The consequence of multiple re-excisions to obtain clear lumpectomy margins in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:881–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chism DB, Freedman GM, Li T, Anderson PR. Re-excision of margins before breast radiation: diagnostic or therapeutic? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:1416–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kouzminova NB, Aggarwal S, Aggarwal A, Allo MD, Lin AY. Impact of initial surgical margins and residual cancer upon re-excision on outcome of patients with localized breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2009;198:771–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ali AN, Vapiwala N, Guo M, Hwang W-T, Harris EE, Solin LJ. The impact of re-excision and residual disease on local recurrence after breast conservation treatment for patients with early-stage breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2011;11:400–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    DBCG Guidelines 2004. Retrieved at Accessed 10 July 2015.
  17. 17.
    Blichert-Toft M, Christiansen P, Mouridsen HT. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group–DBCG: history, organization, and status of scientific achievements at 30-year anniversary. Acta Oncol. 2008;47:497–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Møller S, Jensen M-B, Ejlertsen B, et al. The clinical database and the treatment guidelines of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG): its 30-years experience and future promise. Acta Oncol. 2008;47:506–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Overgaard M, Christensen JJ. Postoperative radiotherapy in DBCG during 30 years: techniques, indications, and clinical radiobiological experience. Acta Oncol. 2008;47:639–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friis E, Galatius H, Garne JP. Organized nation-wide implementation of sentinel lymph node biopsy in Denmark. Acta Oncol. 2008;47:556–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    StataCorp. 2011. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. StataCorp LP, College Station.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holland R, Veling S, Mravunac M, Hendriks J. Histologic multifocality of Tis, T1–2 breast carcinomas: implications for clinical trials of breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 1985;56:979–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gurdal SO, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, et al. Positive or close margins in breast-conserving surgery: is re-excision always necessary? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:399–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Halevy A, Lavy R, Pappo I, et al. Indication for relumpectomy: a useful scoring system in cases of invasive breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:376–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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;20:3831–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zavagno G, Goldin E, Mencarelli R, et al. Role of resection margins in patients treated with breast conservation surgery. Cancer. 2008;112:1923–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sabel MS, Rogers K, Griffith K, et al. Residual disease after re-excision lumpectomy for close margins. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Atalay C, Irkkan C. Predictive factors for residual disease in re-excision. Breast J. 2012;18:339–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bartelink H, Maingon P, Poortmans P, et al. Whole-breast irradiation with or without a boost for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:47–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Christiansen P, Bjerre K, Ejlertsen B, et al. Mortality rates among early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: a population-based cohort study in Denmark. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1363–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ejlertsen B, Jensen M-B, Mouridsen HT. Excess mortality in postmenopausal high-risk women who only receive adjuvant endocrine therapy for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2014;53:174–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Romestaing P, Lehingue Y, Carrie C, et al. Role of a 10-Gy boost in the conservative treatment of early breast cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial in Lyon, France. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:963–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Csaba P, Fodor J, Orosz Z, et al. Electron and high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in the conservative treatment of stage I–II breast cancer. Strahlentherapie und Onkol. 2002;178:615–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bartelink H, Horiot J-C, Poortmans PM, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3259–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Murphy C, Anderson P, Li T. Impact of the radiation boost on outcomes after breast-conserving surgery and radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:69–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lyngholm CD, Christiansen PM, Damsgaard TE, Overgaard J. Long-term follow-up of late morbidity, cosmetic outcome, and body image after breast-conserving therapy: a study from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Acta Oncol. 2013;52:259–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grantzau T, Mellemkjær L, Overgaard J. Second primary cancers after adjuvant radiotherapy in early breast cancer patients: a national population-based study under the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Radiother Oncol. 2013;106:42–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Penault-Llorca F, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(Suppl 6):vi7–vi23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    NCCN, Breast Cancer Guidelines, 2015. 2015;41:440.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Graham RA, Homer MJ, Katz J, Rothschild J, Safaii H, Supran S. The pancake phenomenon contributes to the inaccuracy of margin assessment in patients with breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2002;184:89–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zaidi M, Khan S, Farooqi NB, Abbas K, Idrees R. Effect of formalin fixation on surgical margins in breast cancer surgical specimen. Int J Breast Cancer. 2014. doi: 10.1155/2014/121838.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Bodilsen
    • 1
  • Karsten Bjerre
    • 2
  • Birgitte V. Offersen
    • 3
  • Pernille Vahl
    • 4
  • Bent Ejlertsen
    • 2
    • 5
  • Jens Overgaard
    • 6
  • Peer Christiansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Breast and Endocrine SurgeryAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative GroupCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of OncologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  4. 4.Department of PathologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  5. 5.Department of OncologyCopenhagen University Hospital, RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  6. 6.Department of Experimental Clinical OncologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations