Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors of margin status after breast-conserving operations in an underscreened population

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Negative margins after lumpectomy remain a prominent issue in breast surgery. The current study was performed to evaluate patient-related variables that affect risk for positive margins in an underscreened population.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent breast-conserving operations from 2001 to 2010. Sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment variables were evaluated. One millimeter from tumor to inked margin was considered a negative margin. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify variables which affect margin status after a lumpectomy.

Results

Over the time period evaluated, 69 patients had positive margins (31 %) and 155 (69 %) had negative margins. Overall use of screening mammography was poor (36 %). In unadjusted analysis, patients with positive margins were less likely to have undergone screening mammography (p = 0.003) and presented with a palpable mass (p = 0.01). Histopathologic variables which predicted increased risk for positive margins included larger pathologic size, greater number of pathologically involved lymph nodes, higher pathologic stage, presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and extensive intraductal component (EIC), p < 0.05. In multivariate analysis, clinical stage, poor histologic grade, LVI, and EIC were associated with positive margins (p < 0.05). By contrast, use of preoperative chemotherapy was associated with attaining negative margins (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Factors associated with positive margins after lumpectomy included poor histologic grade, LVI, and EIC. Use of preoperative chemotherapy was the strongest independent predictor of lower risk for positive margins.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/. Accessed 1 Feb 2010.

  2. Singletary SE (2002) Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 184(5):383–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD (2003) Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg 90(12):1505–1509

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wazer DE, DiPetrillo T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, Weld L, Smith TJ, Marchant DJ, Robert NJ (1992) Factors influencing cosmetic outcome and complication risk after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 10(3):356–363

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK (2008) Predictors of breast asymmetry after breast-conserving operation for breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 206(2):274–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schiller DE, Le LW, Cho BC, Youngson BJ, McCready DR (2008) Factors associated with negative margins of lumpectomy specimen: potential use in selecting patients for intraoperative radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 15(3):833–842

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tartter PI, Kaplan J, Bleiweiss I, Gajdos C, Kong A, Ahmed S, Zapetti D (2000) Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Surg 179(2):81–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Luu HH, Otis CN, Reed WP Jr, Garb JL, Frank JL (1999) The unsatisfactory margin in breast cancer surgery. Am J Surg 178(5):362–366

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Peterson ME, Schultz DJ, Reynolds C, Solin LJ (1999) 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 43(5):1029–1035

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Horiguchi J, Iino Y, Takei H, Maemura M, Yokoe T, Niibe H, Yamakawa M, Nakajima T, Oyama T, Morishita Y (1999) Surgical margin and breast recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. Oncol Rep 6(1):135–138

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Obedian E, Haffty BG (2000) Negative margin status improves local control in conservatively managed breast cancer patients. Cancer J Sci Am 6(1):28–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, Recht A, Connolly J, Gelman R, Silver B, Hetelekidis S, Abner A, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ (2000) 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 18(8):1668–1675

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Smitt MC, Horst K (2007) Association of clinical and pathologic variables with lumpectomy surgical margin status after preoperative diagnosis or excisional biopsy of invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 14(3):1040–1044, Epub 2007 Jan 4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA, Sun P, Lickley HL, McCready DR, Holloway CM (2006) The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J 12(4):331–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK (2008) Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 15(5):1297–1303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, Windle I, Rose A, Mou A, Buchanan M, Collins JP, Miller JA, Gruen RL, Mann GB (2008) Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol 15(9):2542–2549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB Jr, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV (1997) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 15(7):2483–2493

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boughey JC, Peintinger F, Meric-Bernstam F et al (2006) Impact of preoperative versus postoperative chemotherapy on the extent and number of surgical procedures in patients treated in randomized clinical trials for breast cancer. Ann Surg 244(3):464–470

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Christy CJ, Thorsteinsson D, Grube BJ et al (2009) Preoperative chemotherapy decreases the need for re-excision of breast cancers between 2 and 4 cm diameter. Ann Surg Oncol 16(3):697–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Komenaka IK, Hibbard ML, Hsu CH, Low BG, Salganick JA, Bouton ME, Jha C (2011) Preoperative chemotherapy for operable breast cancer improves surgical outcomes in the community hospital setting. Oncologist 16(6):752–759

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rahman SM, Dignan MB, Shelton BJ (2003) Factors influencing adherence to guidelines for screening mammography among women aged 40 years and older. Ethn Dis 13(4):477–484

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Meadows ES, Whangbo A, McQuarrie N, Gilra N, Mitchell BD, Mershon JL (2011) Compliance with mammography and bone mineral density screening in women at least 50 years old. Menopause 18(7):794–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Damiani G, Federico B, Basso D, Ronconi A, Bianchi CB, Anzellotti GM, Nasi G, Sassi F, Ricciardi W (2012) Socioeconomic disparities in the uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening in Italy: a cross sectional study. BMC Publ Health 12(1):99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AH, Boom RP, Meijer S (2002) Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 9(10):994–998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Komenaka IK, Torabi R, Nair G, Jayaram L, Hsu CH, Bouton ME, Dave H, Hobohm D (2010) Intraoperative touch imprint and frozen section analysis of sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 251(2):319–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C, Ferrari L, Moliterni A, Terenziani M, Zambetti M (1998) Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol 16(1):93–100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, Smith R, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, Margolese R, Theoret H, Soran A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27 (2003) The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 21(22):4165–4174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Buzdar AU, Valero V, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, Broglio KR, Theriault RL, Pusztai L, Green MC, Singletary SE, Hunt KK, Sahin AA, Esteva F, Symmans WF, Ewer MS, Buchholz TA, Hortobagyi GN (2007) Neoadjuvant therapy with paclitaxel followed by 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and concurrent trastuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer: an update of the initial randomized study population and data of additional patients treated with the same regimen. Clin Cancer Res 13(1):228–233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001(30): 96–102

  30. Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, Geyer CE Jr, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, Brown AM, Robidoux A, Margolese R, Kahlenberg MS, Paik S, Soran A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N (2006) Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 24(13):2019–2027

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Watson D, Bryant J, Costantino JP, Geyer CE Jr, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(23):3726–3734

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Recht A, Come SE, Henderson IC, Gelman RS, Silver B, Hayes DF, Shulman LN, Harris JR (1996) The sequencing of chemotherapy and radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 334(21):1356–1361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zork NM, Komenaka IK, Pennington RE Jr, Bowling MW, Norton LE, Clare SE, Goulet RJ Jr (2008) The effect of dedicated breast surgeons on the short-term outcomes in breast cancer. Ann Surg 248(2):280–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Landheer ML, Klinkenbijl JH, Pasker-de Jong PC, Wobbes T (2004) Residual disease after excision of non-palpable breast tumours: analysis of tumour characteristics. Eur J Surg Oncol 30(8):824–828

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. McCahill LE, Privette A, James T, Sheehey-Jones J, Ratliff J, Majercik D, Krag DN, Stanley M, Harlow S (2009) Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg 144(5):455–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Maricopa Medical Center, Hogan Building, 2nd Floor 2601 E Roosevelt Street, 85008, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Rozbeh Torabi, Marcia E. Bouton & Ian K. Komenaka

  2. Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Chiu-Hsieh Hsu & Ian K. Komenaka

  3. Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Chiu-Hsieh Hsu

  4. Department of Pathology, Maricopa Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Prahladbhai N. Patel & Harikrishna Dave

Authors
  1. Rozbeh Torabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chiu-Hsieh Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prahladbhai N. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harikrishna Dave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcia E. Bouton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ian K. Komenaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian K. Komenaka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Torabi, R., Hsu, CH., Patel, P.N. et al. Predictors of margin status after breast-conserving operations in an underscreened population. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398, 455–462 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-1023-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-1023-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation