nach oben

Erschienen in:

04.07.2020 | Breast Oncology

Intraoperative Pathologic Margin Analysis and Re-Excision to Minimize Reoperation for Patients Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery

verfasst von: Jennifer M. Racz, MD, Amy E. Glasgow, MHA, Gary L. Keeney, MD, Amy C. Degnim, MD, Tina J. Hieken, MD, James W. Jakub, MD, John C. Cheville, MD, Elizabeth B. Habermann, PhD, Judy C. Boughey, MD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 13/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Reoperation rates following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) range from 10 to 40%, with marked surgeon and institutional variation.

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with intraoperative margin re-excision, evaluate for any differences in local recurrence based on margin re-excision and determine reoperation rates with use of intraoperative margin analysis.

Patients and Methods

We analyzed consecutive patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer who underwent BCS at our institution between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2016. Routine intraoperative frozen section margin analysis was performed and positive or close margins were re-excised intraoperatively. Univariate analysis was used to compare margin status and the Kaplan–Meier method was used to compare recurrence. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to analyze factors associated with re-excision.

Results

We identified 3201 patients who underwent BCS—688 for DCIS and 2513 for invasive carcinoma. Overall, 1513 (60.2%) patients with invasive cancer and 434 (63.1%) patients with DCIS had close or positive margins that underwent intraoperative re-excision. Margin re-excision was associated with larger tumor size in both groups. The permanent pathology positive margin rate among all patients was 1.2%, and the 30-day reoperation rate for positive margins was 1.1%. Five-year local recurrence rates were 0.6% and 1.2% for patients with DCIS and invasive cancer, respectively. There was no difference in recurrence between patients with and without intraoperative margin re-excision (p = 0.92).

Conclusion

Both DCIS and invasive carcinoma had similar rates of intraoperative margin re-excision. Although intraoperative margin re-excision was common, the reoperation rate was extremely low and there was no difference in recurrence between those with or without intraoperative re-excision.

Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: a meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomized trials. Lancet. 2011; 378(9804):1707–16.PubMed

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 the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(16):1233–41.PubMed

Bernardi S, Bertozzi S, Londero AP, Gentile G, Angione V, Petri R. Influence of surgical margins on the outcome of breast cancer patients: a retrospective analysis. World J Surg. 2014; 38(9):2279–87.PubMed

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(3):717–30.PubMedPubMedCentral

O’Kelly Priddy CM, Forte VA, Lang JE. The importance of surgical margins in breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2016; 113(3):256–63.PubMed

McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012; 307:467–75.PubMed

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.PubMedPubMedCentral

Margenthaler JA, Gao F, Klimberg VS. Margin index: a new method for prediction of residual disease after breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17:2696–701.PubMed

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(1):22–7; discussion 27–8.

10.

Landercasper J, Whitacre E, Degnim AC, Al-Hamadani M. Reasons for re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery (SM) database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21(10):3185–91.PubMed

11.

Rivere AE, Chiasson KF, Corsetti RL, Fuhrman GM. An assessment of margins after lumpectomy in breast cancer management. Am Surg. 2016; 82(2):156–60.PubMed

12.

Sheikh F, Pockaj B, Wasif N, Dueck A, Gray RJ. Positive Margins After breast-conserving therapy: localization technique or tumor biology. Am J Surg. 2011; 202(3):281–5.PubMed

13.

Jorns JM, Visscher D, Sabel M, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis of margins in breast conserving surgery significantly decreases re-operative rates: one-year experience at an Ambulatory Surgical Center. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012; 138(5):657–69.PubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Sahin AA, et al. Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007; 14(4):1458–71.PubMed

15.

Camp ER, McAulifee PG, Gilroy JS, et al. Minimizing local recurrence after breast conserving therapy using intraoperative shaved margins to determine pathologic tumor clearance. J Am Coll Surg. 2005; 201(6):855–61.PubMed

16.

Chagpar A, Yen T, Sahin AA, et al. Intraoperative margin assessment reduces reexcision rates in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2003; 186(4):371–7.PubMed

17.

Fukamachi K, Ishida T, Usami S, et al. Total-circumference intraoperative frozen section analysis reduces margin-positive rate in breast-conservation surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010; 40(6):513–20.PubMed

18.

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(1):190–7.PubMed

19.

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(11):3204–9.PubMed

20.

Wilson LB. A method for the rapid preparation of fresh tissues for the microscope. JAMA. 1905; 45:1737.

21.

Ferreiro JA, Myers JL, Bostwick DG. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in surgical pathology: review of a 1-year experience with 24,880 cases at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Mayo Clin Proc. 1995; 70(12):1137–41.PubMed

22.

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(3):704–16.PubMed

23.

Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, 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. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23(12):3801–10.PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Agostinho JL, Zhao X, Sun W, et al. Prediction of positive margins following breast conserving surgery. Breast. 2015; 24(1):46–50.PubMed

25.

Barentsz MW, Potsma EL, van Dalen T, et al. Prediction of positive resection margins in patients with non-palpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41(1):106–12.PubMed

26.

Jia H, Jia W, Yang Y, et al. HER-2 positive breast cancer is associated with an increased risk of positive cavity margins after initial lumpectomy. World J Surg Oncol. 2014; 12:289.PubMedPubMedCentral

27.

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(2):153–7.PubMed

28.

Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, 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:e4505.PubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Talsma AK, Reedjik AM, Damhuis RA, Westenend PJ, Vles WJ. Re-resection rates after breast-conserving surgery as a performance indicator: introduction of a case-mix model to allow comparison between Dutch Hospitals. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011; 37(4):357–63.PubMed

30.

Murphy BL, Boughey JC, Keeney MG, et al. Factors associated with positive margins in women undergoing breast conservation surgery. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018; 93(4):429–35.PubMed

31.

Jorns JM, Daignault S, Sabel MS, Myers JL, Wu AJ. Frozen sections in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery at a single ambulatory surgical center: 5 year experience. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43(7):1273–81.PubMed

32.

Vos EL, Gaal J, Verhoef C, Brouwer K, van Deurzen CHM, Koppert LB. Focally positive margins in breast conserving surgery: predictors, residual disease, and local recurrence. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43(10):1846–54.PubMed

33.

Aziz D, Rawlison 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(4):331–7.PubMed

34.

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(11):3133–40.PubMed

35.

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(6):771–80.PubMed

36.

Ali AN, Vapiwala N, Guo M, Hwang WT, 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(6):400–5.PubMed

37.

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(9):711–5.PubMed

38.

Jakub JW, Gray RJ, Degnim AC, Boughey JC, Gardner M, Cox CE. Current status of radioactive seed for localization of non-palpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2010; 199(4):522–8.PubMed

39.

Murphy JO, Moo TA, Kina TA, et al. Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20(13):4121–7.PubMedPubMedCentral

40.

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(4):872–7.PubMed

41.

Langhans L, Tvedskov TF, Klausen TL, et al. Radioactive seed localization or wire-guided localization of nonpalpable invasive and in situ breast cancer: a randomized multicenter, open-label trial. Ann Surg. 2017; 266(1):29–35.PubMed

42.

Bloomquist EV, Ajkay N, Patil S, Collett AE, Frazier TG, Barrio AV. A randomized prospective comparison of patient-assessed satisfaction and clinical outcomes with radioactive seed localization versus wire localization. Breast J. 2016; 22(2):151–7.PubMed

43.

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(12):3407–14.PubMed

Titel: Intraoperative Pathologic Margin Analysis and Re-Excision to Minimize Reoperation for Patients Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery
verfasst von: Jennifer M. Racz, MD
Amy E. Glasgow, MHA
Gary L. Keeney, MD
Amy C. Degnim, MD
Tina J. Hieken, MD
James W. Jakub, MD
John C. Cheville, MD
Elizabeth B. Habermann, PhD
Judy C. Boughey, MD
Publikationsdatum: 04.07.2020
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 13/2020
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08785-z

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

28.05.2024 Häusliche Gewalt Nachrichten

In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

TAVI versus Klappenchirurgie: Neue Vergleichsstudie sorgt für Erstaunen

21.05.2024 TAVI Nachrichten

Bei schwerer Aortenstenose und obstruktiver KHK empfehlen die Leitlinien derzeit eine chirurgische Kombi-Behandlung aus Klappenersatz plus Bypass-OP. Diese Empfehlung wird allerdings jetzt durch eine aktuelle Studie infrage gestellt – mit überraschender Deutlichkeit.

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

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

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

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Intraoperative Pathologic Margin Analysis and Re-Excision to Minimize Reoperation for Patients Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery