Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 1/2018

05.01.2017 | Breast Oncology

Intraoperative Margin Management in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature

verfasst von: Richard J. Gray, MD, Barbara A. Pockaj, MD, Erin Garvey, MD, Sarah Blair, MD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Breast surgeons have a wide variety of intraoperative techniques available to help achieve low rates for positive margins of excision, with variable levels of evidence.

Methods

A systematic review of the medical literature from 1995 to July 2016 was conducted, with 434 abstracts identified and evaluated. The analysis included 106 papers focused on intraoperative management of breast cancer margins and contained actionable data.

Results

Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy for palpable tumors, as an alternative to palpation guidance, can lower positive margin rates, but the effect when used as an alternative to wire localization (WL) for nonpalpable tumors is less certain. Localization techniques such as radioactive seed localization and radioguided occult lesion localization were found potentially to lower positive margin rates as alternatives to WL depending on baseline positive margin rates. Intraoperative pathologic methods including gross histology, frozen section analysis, and imprint cytology all have the potential to lower the rates of positive margins. Cavity-shave margins and the Marginprobe device both lower rates of positive margins, with some potential for negative cosmetic effects. Specimen radiography and multiple miscellaneous techniques did not affect positive margin rates or provided too little evidence for formation of a conclusion.

Conclusions

A systematic review of the literature showed evidence that several intraoperative techniques and actions can lower the rates of positive margins. These results are presented together with graded recommendations.
Literatur
1.
Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
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;21:704–16.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
St John ER, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2016;1–11. doi:10.​1097/​SLA.​0000000000001897​.
5.
Moschetta M, Telegrafo M, Introna T, et al. Role of specimen US for predicting resection margin status in breast conserving therapy. Giornale Chir. 2015;36:201–4.
6.
Scaranelo AM, Moshonov H, Escallon J. A prospective pilot study of analysis of surgical margins of breast cancers using high-resolution sonography. SpringerPlus. 2016;5:251.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Chan BK, Wiseberg-Firtell JA, Jois RH, Jensen K, Audisio RA. Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of non-palpable breast lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;CD009206.
8.
Janssen NN, Nijkamp J, Alderliesten T, Loo CE, Rutgers EJ, Sonke JJ, et al. Radioactive seed localization in breast cancer treatment. Br J Surg. 2016;103:70–80.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Balch GC, Mithani SK, Simpson JF, Kelley MC. Accuracy of intraoperative gross examination of surgical margin status in women undergoing partial mastectomy for breast malignancy. Am Surg. 2005;71:22–7 (discussion 27–8).
10.
Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Sahin AA, et al. Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1458–71.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fleming FJ, Hill AD, Mc Dermott EW, O’Doherty A, O’Higgins NJ, Quinn CM. Intraoperative margin assessment and re-excision rate in breast-conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:233–237.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Singh M, Singh G, Hogan KT, Atkins KA, Schroen AT. The effect of intraoperative specimen inking on lumpectomy re-excision rates. World J Surg Oncol. 2010;8:4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, Malcarne V, Beitsch PD, Ollila DW. Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:608–13.CrossRefPubMed
14.
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.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Jorns JM, Daignault S, Sabel MS, Wu AJ. Is intraoperative frozen section analysis of re-excision specimens of value in preventing reoperation in breast-conserving therapy? Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;142:601–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Ihrai T, Quaranta D, Fouche Y, et al. Intraoperative radiological margin assessment in breast-conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:449–53.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lange M, Reimer T, Hartmann S, Glass A, Stachs A. The role of specimen radiography in breast-conserving therapy of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast. 2016;26:73–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Chagpar AB, Butler M, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Stavris K, Lannin DR. Does three-dimensional intraoperative specimen imaging reduce the need for re-excision in breast cancer patients? A prospective cohort study. Am J Surg. 2015;210:886–90.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Allweis TM, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of a real-time, intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2008;196:483–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Karni T, Pappo I, Sandbank J, et al. A device for real-time, intraoperative margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2007;194:467–73.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Schnabel F, Boolbol SK, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Thill M, Dittmer C, Baumann K, Friedrichs K, Blohmer JU. MarginProbe(R): final results of the German post-market study in breast-conserving surgery of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast. 2014;23:94–6.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Blohmer JU, Tanko J, Kueper J, Gross J, Volker R, Machleidt A. MarginProbe(c) reduces the rate of re-excision following breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;294:361–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Agresti R, Trecate G, Ferraris C, et al. Ex vivo MRI evaluation of breast tumors: a novel tool for verifying resection of nonpalpable only MRI detected lesions. Breast J. 2013;19:659–63.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Tang R, Saksena M, Coopey SB, et al. Intraoperative micro-computed tomography (micro-CT): a novel method for determination of primary tumour dimensions in breast cancer specimens. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150581.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Hirose M, Kacher DF, Smith DN, Kaelin CM, Jolesz FA. Feasibility of MR imaging-guided breast lumpectomy for malignant tumors in a 0.5-T open-configuration MR imaging system. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:933–41.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Tafra L, Fine R, Whitworth P, et al. Prospective randomized study comparing cryo-assisted and needle-wire localization of ultrasound-visible breast tumors. Am J Surg. 2006;192:462–70.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Dauphine C, Reicher JJ, Reicher MA, Gondusky C, Khalkhali I, Kim M. A prospective clinical study to evaluate the safety and performance of wireless localization of nonpalpable breast lesions using radiofrequency identification technology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:W720–3.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Cortes-Mateos MJ, Martin D, Sandoval S, et al. Automated microscopy to evaluate surgical specimens via touch prep in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:709–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Cuntz MC, Levine EA, O’Dorisio TM, et al. Intraoperative gamma detection of 125I-lanreotide in women with primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6:367–72.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Fine RE, Schwalke MA, Pellicane JV, Attai DJ. A novel ultrasound-guided electrosurgical loop device for intraoperative excision of breast lesions; an improvement in surgical technique. Am J Surg. 2009;198:283–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Haka AS, Volynskaya Z, Gardecki JA, et al. In vivo margin assessment during partial mastectomy breast surgery using Raman spectroscopy. Cancer Res. 2006;66:3317–22.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Keller MD, Majumder SK, Kelley MC, Meszoely IM, Boulos FI, Olivares GM, et al. Autofluorescence and diffuse reflectance spectroscopy and spectral imaging for breast surgical margin analysis. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42:15–23.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Keller MD, Vargis E, de Matos Granja N, Wilson RH, Mycek MA, Kelley MC, et al. Development of a spatially offset Raman spectroscopy probe for breast tumor surgical margin evaluation. J Biomed Opt. 2011;16:077006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Martin DT, Sandoval S, Ta CN, et al. Quantitative automated image analysis system with automated debris filtering for the detection of breast carcinoma cells. Acta Cytologica. 2011;55:271–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Nguyen FT, Zysk AM, Chaney EJ, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of breast tumor margins with optical coherence tomography. Cancer Res. 2009;69:8790–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Blair SL, Wang-Rodriguez J, Cortes-Mateos MJ, et al. Enhanced touch preps improve the ease of interpretation of intraoperative breast cancer margins. Am Surg. 2007;73:973–6.PubMed
38.
Zysk AM, Chen K, Gabrielson E, et al. Intraoperative assessment of final margins with a handheld optical imaging probe during breast-conserving surgery may reduce the reoperation rate: results of a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3356–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Chang TP, Leff DR, Shousha S, et al. Imaging breast cancer morphology using probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy: towards a real-time intraoperative imaging tool for cavity scanning. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153:299–310.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Erickson-Bhatt SJ, Nolan RM, Shemonski ND, et al. Real-time imaging of the resection bed using a handheld probe to reduce incidence of microscopic positive margins in cancer surgery. Cancer Res. 2015;75:3706–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Losken A, Pinell-White X, Hart AM, Freitas AM, Carlson GW, Styblo TM. The oncoplastic reduction approach to breast-conservation therapy: benefits for margin control. Aesth Surg J. 2014;34:1185–91.CrossRef
42.
Bamford R, Sutton R, McIntosh J. Therapeutic mammoplasty allows for clear surgical margins in large and multifocal tumours without delaying adjuvant therapy. Breast. 2015;24:171–4.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Rubio IT, Landolfi S, Molla M, Cortes J, Xercavins J. Breast-conservative surgery followed by radiofrequency ablation of margins decreases the need for a second surgical procedure for close or positive margins. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14:346–51.CrossRefPubMed
44.
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. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:553–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Varkey P, Reller MK, Resar RK. Basics of quality improvement in health care. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2007;82:735–9.CrossRef
46.
Rahusen FD, Pijpers R, Van Diest PJ, Bleichrodt RP, Torrenga H, Meijer S. The implementation of the sentinel node biopsy as a routine procedure for patients with breast cancer. Surgery. 2000;128:6–12.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Krekel NM, Haloua MH, Lopes Cardozo AM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:48–54.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Davis KM, Hsu CH, Bouton ME, Wilhelmson KL, Komenaka IK. Intraoperative ultrasound can decrease the re-excision lumpectomy rate in patients with palpable breast cancers. Am Surg. 2011;77:720–5.PubMed
50.
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. 2011;18:447–52.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Eichler C, Hubbel A, Zarghooni V, Thomas A, Gluz O, Stoff-Khalili M, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound: improved resection rates in breast-conserving surgery. Anticancer Res. 2012;32:1051–6.PubMed
52.
Barentsz MW, van Dalen T, Gobardhan PD, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for excision of nonpalpable invasive breast cancer: a hospital-based series and an overview of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135:209–19.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Harlow SP, Krag DN, Ames SE, Weaver DL. Intraoperative ultrasound localization to guide surgical excision of nonpalpable breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189:241–6.CrossRefPubMed
54.
James TA, Harlow S, Sheehey-Jones J, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1164–9.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Morris OJ, Knight V, Logan D. Intraoperative ultrasound versus wire-guided localization in the surgical management of nonpalpable breast cancer. Breast Dis. 2014;34:157–63.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Eggemann H, Ignatov T, Costa SD, Ignatov A. Accuracy of ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery in the determination of adequate surgical margins. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:129–36.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Gray RJ, Salud C, Nguyen K, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:711–5.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Lovrics PJ, Goldsmith CH, Hodgson N, et al. A multicentered, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3407–14.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Ahmed M, Douek M. Radioactive seed localisation (RSL) in the treatment of nonpalpable breast cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2013;22:383–8.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Cox CE, Furman B, Stowell N, et al. Radioactive seed localization breast biopsy and lumpectomy: can specimen radiographs be eliminated? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1039–47.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Gobardhan PD, de Wall LL, van der Laan L, et al. The role of radioactive iodine-125 seed localization in breast-conserving therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:668–73.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Gray RJ, Pockaj BA, Karstaedt PJ, Roarke MC. Radioactive seed localization of nonpalpable breast lesions is better than wire localization. Am J Surg. 2004;188:377–80.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Hughes JH, Mason MC, Gray RJ, et al. A multi-site validation trial of radioactive seed localization as an alternative to wire localization. Breast J. 2008;14:153–7.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Murphy JO, Moo TA, King TA, et al. Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4121–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Donker M, Drukker CA, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. Guiding breast-conserving surgery in patients after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer: a comparison of radioactive seed localization with the ROLL technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2569–75.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Chiu JC, Ajmal S, Zhu X, Griffith E, Encarnacion T, Barr L. Radioactive seed localization of nonpalpable breast lesions in an academic comprehensive cancer program community hospital setting. Am Surg. 2014;80:675–9.PubMed
67.
van der Noordaa ME, Pengel KE, Groen E, et al. The use of radioactive iodine-125 seed localization in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: a comparison with the radioguided occult lesion localization with 99 m technetium. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:553–8.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Sharek D, Zuley ML, Zhang JY, Soran A, Ahrendt GM, Ganott MA. Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for lumpectomies: a comparison of outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:872–7.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Postma EL, Koffijberg H, Verkooijen HM, Witkamp AJ, van den Bosch MA, van Hillegersberg R. Cost effectiveness of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided localization (WGL) in breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2219–26.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Medina-Franco H, Abarca-Perez L, Garcia-Alvarez MN, Ulloa-Gomez JL, Romero-Trejo C, Sepulveda-Mendez J. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided lumpectomy for nonpalpable breast lesions: a randomized prospective evaluation. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:108–11.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Sajid MS, Parampalli U, Haider Z, Bonomi R. Comparison of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and wire localization for nonpalpable breast cancers: a meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:852–8.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Audisio RA, Nadeem R, Harris O, Desmond S, Thind R, Chagla LS. Radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) is available in the UK for impalpable breast lesions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005;87:92–5.CrossRef
73.
Belloni E, Canevari C, Panizza P, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: preoperative radiological guidance in radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL). Radiol Med. 2011;116:564–74.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Duarte GM, Cabello C, Torresan RZ, et al. Radioguided intraoperative margins evaluation (RIME): preliminary results of a new technique to aid breast cancer resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:1150–57.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Lavoue V, Nos C, Clough KB, et al. Simplified technique of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) plus sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNOLL) in breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2556–61.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Nadeem R, Chagla LS, Harris O, Desmond S, Thind R, Titterrell C, et al. Occult breast lesions: s comparison between radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) vs wire-guided lumpectomy (WGL). Breast. 2005;14:283–9.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Zgajnar J, Hocevar M, Frkovic-Grazio S, Hertl K, Schweiger E, Besic N. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) of the nonpalpable breast lesions. Neoplasma. 2004;51:385–9.PubMed
78.
Takacs T, Paszt A, Simonka Z, et al. Radioguided occult lesion localisation versus wire-guided lumpectomy in the treatment of nonpalpable breast lesions. POR Pathol Oncol Res. 2013;19:267–73.CrossRefPubMed
79.
Esbona K, Li Z, Wilke LG. Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3236–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
80.
Camp ER, McAuliffe PF, Gilroy JS, Morris CG, Lind DS, Mendenhall NP, et al. Minimizing local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy using intraoperative shaved margins to determine pathologic tumor clearance. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:855–61.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G, et al. Therapeutic mammaplasties: Full local control of breast cancer in one surgical stage with frozen section. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:871–5.CrossRefPubMed
82.
Cendan JC, Coco D, Copeland EM III. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-bed margins. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:194–8.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Chen K, Zeng Y, Jia H, et al. Clinical outcomes of breast-conserving surgery in patients using a modified method for cavity margin assessment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3386–94.CrossRefPubMed
84.
Noguchi M, Minami M, Earashi M, Taniya T, Miyazaki I, Mizukami Y, et al. Intraoperative histologic assessment of surgical margins and lymph node metastasis in breast-conserving surgery. J Surg Oncol. 1995;60:185–90.CrossRefPubMed
85.
Riedl O, Fitzal F, Mader N, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis for breast-conserving therapy in 1016 patients with breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:264–70.CrossRefPubMed
86.
Weber S, Storm FK, Stitt J, Mahvi DM. The role of frozen section analysis of margins during breast-conservation surgery. Cancer J Sci Am. 1997;3:273–7.PubMed
87.
Cox CE, Hyacinthe M, Gonzalez RJ, et al. Cytologic evaluation of lumpectomy margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:644–9.CrossRefPubMed
88.
Creager AJ, Geisinger KR, Shiver SA, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes for metastatic breast carcinoma by imprint cytology. Mod Pathol. 2002;15:1140–7.CrossRefPubMed
89.
Mannell A. Breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients: a 12-year experience. S Afr J Surg. 2005;43:28–30.
90.
Valdes EK, Boolbol SK, Ali I, Feldman SM, Cohen JM. Intraoperative touch preparation cytology for margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery: does it work for lobular carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2940–5.CrossRefPubMed
91.
Boughey JC, Hieken TJ, Jakub JW, et al. Impact of analysis of frozen section margin on reoperation rates in women undergoing lumpectomy for breast cancer: evaluation of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Surgery. 2014;156:190–7.CrossRefPubMed
92.
Chagpar AB, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
93.
Fukamachi K, Ishida T, Usami S, Takeda M, Watanabe M, Sasano H, et al. Total-circumference intraoperative frozen section analysis reduces margin-positive rate in breast-conservation surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40:513–20.CrossRefPubMed
94.
Janes SEJ, Stankhe M, Singh S, Isgar B. Systematic cavity shaves reduces close margins and re-excision rates in breast-conserving surgery. Breast. 2006;15:326–30.CrossRefPubMed
95.
Hequet D, Bricou A, Koual M, et al. Systematic cavity shaving: modifications of breast cancer management and long-term local recurrence: a multicentre study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:899–905.CrossRefPubMed
96.
Hewes JC, Imkampe A, Haji A, Bates T. Importance of routine cavity sampling in breast-conservation surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96:47–53.CrossRefPubMed
97.
Keskek M, Kothari M, Ardehali B, Betambeau N, Nasiri N, Gui GP. Factors predisposing to cavity margin positivity following conservation surgery for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:1058–64.CrossRefPubMed
98.
Kobbermann A, Unzeitig A, Xie XJ, et al. Impact of routine cavity-shave margins on breast cancer re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1349–55.CrossRefPubMed
99.
Malik HZ, George WD, Mallon EA, Harnett AN, Macmillan RD, Purushotham AD. Margin assessment by cavity shaving after breast-conserving surgery: analysis and follow-up of 543 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1999;25:464–9.CrossRefPubMed
100.
Rizzo M, Iyengar R, Gabram SG, Park J, Birdsong G, Chandler KL, et al. The effects of additional tumor cavity sampling at the time of breast-conserving surgery on final margin status, volume of resection, and pathologist workload. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:228–34.CrossRefPubMed
101.
Tengher-Barna I, Hequet D, Reboul-Marty J, et al. Prevalence and predictive factors for the detection of carcinoma in cavity margin performed at the time of breast lumpectomy. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:299–305.CrossRefPubMed
102.
Pata G, Bartoli M, Bianchi A, Pasini M, Roncali S, Ragni F. Additional cavity shaving at the time of breast-conserving surgery enhances accuracy of margin status examination. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2802–08.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Intraoperative Margin Management in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature
verfasst von
Richard J. Gray, MD
Barbara A. Pockaj, MD
Erin Garvey, MD
Sarah Blair, MD
Publikationsdatum
05.01.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5756-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Annals of Surgical Oncology 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Head and Neck Oncology

Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography: Clinical Impact for Patients with Primary Hyperparathyroidism

Breast Oncology

Pre-operative Axillary Ultrasound-Guided Needle Sampling in Breast Cancer: Comparing the Sensitivity of Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology and Core Needle Biopsy

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Impact of Proximal Vascular Ligation on Survival of Patients with Colon Cancer

Colorectal Cancer

Long-Term Outcomes After R0 Resection of Synchronous Peritoneal Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer Without Cytoreductive Surgery or Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

Health Services Research and Global Oncology

The Eighth Edition of TNM: Implications for the Surgical Oncologist

Health Services Research and Global Oncology

Celebrating the Annals of Surgical Oncology’s 25-Year Anniversary: One of the Most Cited Surgical Journals in the World

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.
Bildnachweise