Abstract
Aim
To analyse the role of repeated breast surgery (RBS) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) as a quality indicator in a consecutive series of breast cancer patients.
Methods
Data from 1233 breast cancer patients submitted to BCS from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. The influence of several variables on RBS rate (182/1232; 14.8%) was examined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to look for significant associations with the risk of RBS.
Results
Surgical workload, BCS rate and clinicopathological variables were consistent over the study period, while RBS rate decreased after the introduction of shaving of cavity margins (from 17.9% to 9.5%). Tumor persistence at RBS was higher for mastectomy vs. re-excision (87.3% vs. 37.8%; p = 0.05), inconclusive vs. positive diagnostic biopsy (48.2% vs. 69.4%; p = 0.003), ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive carcinoma (69.0% vs. 51.3%; p = 0.046) and lower after neoadjuvant therapy (14.3% vs. 57.8%; p = 0.044). Several clinicopathological variables were associated with the risk of RBS, but only multifocality [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.8; p = 0.009], microcalcifications (OR: 2.0, p = 0.000), neoadjuvant therapy (OR: 0.4; p = 0.014), pathological intraoperative assessment (OR: 0.6; p = 0.010) and shaving of cavity margins (OR: 0.3; p = 0.000) retained independent value at multivariate analysis.
Conclusions
RBS rate can be reduced by shaving of cavity margins. Current standards for RBS should not be made more stringent due to the existence of non-actionable risk factors. The value of RBS as a quality indicator should be scrutinzed.
Keywords: Breast neoplasms, Surgical procedures, Operative, Mastectomy, Segmental margins of excision, Recurrence
Highlights
-
•
Some breast cancer patients need a reoperation for incomplete tumor excision after breast conserving surgery.
-
•
Reoperation rates show wide variations (10%–50%) among different Countries.
-
•
Shaving of cavity margins may reduce the reoperation rate, but non-invasive and multicentric lesiona are non-actionable risk factors
-
•
The value of reoperation rate as a quality indicator of breast cancer surgery is questionable.
1. Introduction
Breast conserving surgery (BCS) has been one of the major developments in breast cancer treatment. The demonstration that BCS followed by radiotherapy provides the same overall prognosis of mastectomy [1,2] opened the path to a reduction of surgical aggressiveness that progressively extended also to the management of regional nodes [3].
The scientific data accumulating on the safety of BCS led to a continuous rise of BCS rates [4] that lasted approximately until 2005 when such a trend surprisingly tended to reverse [5]. Many reasons may have accounted for this phenomenon such as the increased detection of multifocal and larger tumors with the introduction of magnetic resonance for preoperative staging [6], the wider adoption of BRCA1/2 testing in patients with a positive family history [7] and the revolutionary message conveyed by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) metanalysis demonstrating for the first time a significant effect of local control on overall survival [8]. Since 2016, likely due to the release of new guidelines on the management of tumor margins after BCS, a new rise of BCS rates was recorded [9].
The risk of local recurrence is more than doubled in case of positive surgical margins [10]. Therefore, complete tumor excision is an important goal of BCS that must be pursued through accurate preoperative local staging, occult lesions localization and intraoperative assessment of the oriented specimen. Nevertheless, even when all these procedures are put in practice, 10–50% of BCS require a repeated breast surgery (RBS) to clear positive margins. As the second surgery is stressful for the patients, may worsen the cosmetic results and adds significant costs for care providers and patients themselves, this issue is currently being audited worldwide [11].
The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) has included the “proportion of patients (invasive cancer only) that received a single (breast) operation for the primary tumor (excluding reconstruction)” in his updated document of quality indicators in breast cancer care. A minimum standard of 80% and a target of 90% were set, while the corresponding figures for patients with non-invasive (in situ) disease are 70% and 90% [12]. In the U.S. the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) convened a multidisciplinary consensus conference entitled a ‘‘Collaborative Attempt to Lower Lumpectomy Reoperation rates’’ (CALLER) in 2015 and set a 5-year target goal for a national average reoperation rate of less than 20% [13].
The utilization of RBS after BCS as a quality measure is controversial. For instance, the ASBrS decided not to include the re-excision rate among the quality indicators [14] as uniformity in tumor stage distribution, margin assessment and reporting cannot be assured when comparing series from different Institutions [15]. Conversely, in Italy the National Agency for Regional Sanitary Services (AGENAS) decided to adopt the rate of “repeated breast cancer surgery within 120 days after BCS” as a quality indicator in its “Programma Nazionale Esiti” (PNE).
In this paper we will analyse the RBS rate in a series of primary breast cancer patients operated over the last five years at our Institution, as well as its association with several preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative clinicopathological characteristics.
2. Patients and methods
This cross-sectional study was approved by the Internal Review Board of the Candiolo Cancer Institute and obtained formal approval by the Ethical Committee. At our Institution, the data from all primary breast cancer patients are anonymized and recorded in a prospectively maintained database. Clinical, pathological and follow up records from 1232 consecutive patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast carcinoma submitted to BCS as first surgical procedure from January 1, 2015 to September 30, 2019 were retrospectively retrieved and analysed. Patients undergoing primary mastectomy were excluded.
All breast cancer cases were discussed at weekly multidisciplinary meetings and both preoperative and post-operative indications where shared by all participants, including radiologists, pathologists, breast surgeons, plastic surgeons, medical oncologists, radiotherapists and breast nurses. In particular, large tumor size was not an absolute criterion to perform mastectomy; instead, tumor-to-breast volume ratio, tumor location within the breast, presence and distribution of microcalcifications and tumor histology (i.e ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive lobular carcinoma) were all taken into account at preoperative multidisciplinary meetings when deciding whether BCS or mastectomy was preferable. Level I oncoplastc techniques as defined by the ASBrS [16] were commonly adopted by breast surgeons, while plastic surgeons were involved for level II oncoplastic surgeries. All operations were carried out by surgeons with at least 3 years of experience in breast surgery. The “cavity shave margins” technique was introduced in 2018 and was performed irrespective of the result of intraoperative radiological or pathological assessment [17].
The preoperative work-up leading to the indication to BCS versus mastectomy (1232/1999, 61.6%) and the intraoperative procedures to guarantee complete excision at BCS (stereotactic or ultrasound-guided hook-wire localization, x-ray/ultrasound specimen control, macroscopic or pathological intraoperative evaluation or resection margins) were reviewed. A total of 182 patients underwent RBS after BCS. The indication to RBS was expressed by the multidisciplinary panel in case of “ink on tumor” for invasive breast cancer and less than 2 mm tumor free margins for DCIS, respectively. Final histology of all tumors undergoing RBS was re-examined to assess margin status at primary BCS and persistence of cancer in RBS specimens by two dedicated pathologists (C.M. and D.B.). Large format sections were used to correlate radiologic imaging to gross specimens and assess margins along a whole plane of section.
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software for Windows. Significance was determined by using an alpha level of 0.05 and two-sided tests. Descriptive statistics were reported as proportions, medians (ranges), and means (standard deviations). Categorical variables were compared with Chi-square test or Fisher Exact test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare continuous variables. Factors that were significantly correlated with likelihood to undergo RBS on univariate analysis were included as candidate variables in a multivariate model using binary logistic regression analysis.
3. Results
The surgical workload at our Institution (>400 breast cancer surgeries per year), as well as the BCS rate (mean 61.6.0%; range 59.1%–67.9%) were consistent over the study period. Conversely, after remaining substantially stable between 2015 and 2017 (range 14.8%–17.8%), the RBS rate started to decrease in 2018 and finally dropped to 8.2% in 2019. Accordingly, there was a temporal trend toward a reduction of RBS rates both for the high workload surgeon (>100 cases per year) and for the other surgeons grouped together (Fig. 1A and B).
Fig. 1.
(A) Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) and Repeated Breast Surgery (RBS) rates (%), by year. Absolute numbers (by year). Mastectomy + BCS: 1999 (2015: 426; 2016: 411; 2017: 413; 2018: 446; 2019: 303); BCS: 1232 (2015: 261; 2016: 241; 2017: 244; 2018: 303; 2019: 183). RBS: 182 (2015: 49; 2016: 43; 2017: 42; 2018: 33; 2019: 15). (B) Repeated Breast Surgery (RBS) rate (%) by surgeon’s workload, by year Absolute numbers (by year). High: 78/607 (2015: 28/157; 2016: 17/110; 2017: 18/112; 2018: 11/144; 2019: 4/84); Low: 104/624 (2015: 21/120; 2016: 23/116; 2017: 27/131; 2018: 22/159; 2019: 11/98). Surgeon workload: High >100 cases/year; medium 30–100 cases per year; low: < 30 cases per year. (C) Local (in breast) relapse free survival (mean follow up: 26.8 months).
The clinical-pathological characteristics of 182 patients undergoing RBS after BCS are shown in Table 1. Overall, preoperative needle biopsy was suspicious/positive for cancer in 80.3% of the cases, while preoperative localization and intraoperative assessment of the lesion were utilized in 79.1% and 96.1% of the patients, respectively. Immediate re-excision was performed in almost half of the cases, either due to intraoperative imaging (33.0%) or macroscopic pathological examination (13.2%) suspicious for positive/close surgical margins. Level II oncoplastc techniques were used in 6.6% of the cases. At final pathology, 25.3% of the tumors requiring RBS were classified as DCIS, and 30.2% were multifocal. Most of the RBS were performed for positive surgical margins (74.7%) and were mainly represented by re-excisions (65.4%), with only 12 mastectomies (6.6%) being performed after a failed conservative attempt. Overall, residual tumor was found in 50.0% of RBS specimens and the likelihood of finding residual tumor was substantially higher if a mastectomy vs. a re-excision was performed (55/63, 87.3% vs. 45/119 37.8%; p = 0.05). No significant differences were detected over the study period among all preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative variables, with the exception of age, estrogen receptor status and intraoperative cavity shaving that was introduced only in 2018.
Table 1.
Characteristics of patients undergoing RBS by year of surgery.
| Variable | All | By year of surgery |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | p | ||
| Age (mean) | 58.2 | 56.1 | 61.5 | 54.8 | 61.4 | 58.0 | 0.03 |
| Multifocality at imaging (%) | 10 (29.4) | 7 (20.6) | 9 (26.5%) | 4 (11.8) | 4 (11.8) | NS | |
| Size at imaging (mean, mm)^ | 23.1 | 26.7 | 21.8 | 23.2 | 20.0 | 19.1 | NS |
| Core biopsy | |||||||
| B5a/c (%) | 32 (18.0) | 9 (22.0) | 8 (19.5) | 6 (16.2) | 6 (20.0) | 3 (20.0) | NS |
| C5/B5b (%) | 90 (50.6) | 17 (41.5) | 20 (48.8) | 16 (43.2) | 16 (53.3) | 8 (53.3) | NS |
| C4/B4 (%) | 21 (11.8) | 8 (19.5) | 6 (14.6) | 4 (10.8) | 2 (10.0) | 0 | NS |
| C3/B3 or lower (%) | 35 (19.7) | 7 (17.1) | 7 (17.1) | 11 (29.7) | 6 (20.0) | 4 (26.7) | NS |
| Neoadjuvant CT/ET (%) | 7 (4.3) | 2 (4.3) | 1 (2.3) | 4 (10.3) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | NS |
| Preoperative localization (%) | |||||||
| Any (%) | 144 (79.1) | 38 (77.6) | 34 (79.1) | 38 (90.5) | 22 (66.7) | 12 (80.0) | NS |
| US (%) | 125 (68.7) | 33 (67.3) | 28 (65.1) | 29 (69.0) | 20 (60.2) | 10 (66.7) | NS |
| RX (%) | 19 (10.4) | 4 (8.2) | 6 (13.9) | 6 (14.3) | 1 (3.0) | 2 (13.3) | |
| Type of intraoperative assessment | |||||||
| Any (%) | 175 (96.1) | 44 (89.8) | 40 (93.0) | 38 (90.5) | 30 (93.9) | 14 (93.3) | NS |
| Radiological (RX/US %) | 135 (74.1) | 34 (69.4) | 29 (67.4) | 33 (78.6) | 21 (63.6) | 11 (73.3) | NS |
| Pathological (macro only, %) | 40 (22.0) | 10 (20.4) | 11 (25.6) | 5 (11.9) | 9 (27.3) | 3 (20.0) | NS |
| Result of intraoperative assessment | |||||||
| RX/US positive (%) | 60 (44.8) | 15 (25.0) | 18 (30.0) | 7 (31.8) | 2 (33.3) | 2 (16.7) | NS |
| Pathologically positive (macro only) (%) | 24 (60.0) | 6 (60.0) | 5 (45.5) | 5 (71.4) | 7 (77.8) | 1 (33.3) | NS |
| Shaving of cavity margins (%) | 21 (11.5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4) | 12 (36.4) | 9 (60.0) | 0.000 |
| Oncoplastic surgery° | 12 (6.6) | 5 (10.2) | 1 (2.4) | 4 (9.5) | 0 | 2 (13.3) | N.S. |
| Histological type ∗ | |||||||
| DCIS (%) | 46 (25.3) | 13 (26.5) | 10 (23.3) | 11 (26.2) | 9 (27.3) | 3 (20.0) | NS |
| Invasive NOS (%) | 77 (42.3) | 24 (49.0) | 16 (37.2) | 16 (38.1) | 11 (33.3) | 10 (66.7) | NS |
| Invasive lobular (%) | 24 (13.2) | 6 (12.2) | 8 (18.6) | 4 (9.5) | 4 (12.1) | 2 (13.3) | NS |
| Other (%) | 35 (19.2) | 6 (12.2) | 9 (20.9) | 11 (26.2) | 9 (27.3) | 0 | NS |
| Grading∗ | |||||||
| G1 (%) | 40 (30.1) | 6 (17.6) | 15 (46.9) | 10 (31.3) | 4 (17.4) | 5 (41.7) | NS |
| G2 (%) | 63 (47.4) | 17 (50.0) | 11 (34.4) | 18 (56.2) | 12 (52.2) | 5 (41.7) | |
| G3 (%) | 30 (22.5) | 11 (32.4) | 6 (18.7) | 4 (12.5) | 7 (30.4) | 2 (16.6) | |
| Multifocality∗ (%) | 55 (30.2) | 15 (30.6) | 15 (34.9) | 11 (26.1) | 10 (31.3) | 4 (26.7) | NS |
| In situ component∗ (%) | 103 (74.1) | 23 (63.9) | 23 (69.7) | 24 (77.4) | 19 (79.2) | 14 (93.3) | NS |
| Estrogen receptors | |||||||
| Positive | 172 (95) | 47 (95.9) | 41 (97.6) | 42 (100) | 28 (84.8) | 14 (93.3) | 0.037 |
| Negative | 9 [5] | 2 (4.1) | 1 (2.4%) | 0 | 5 (15.2) | 1 (6.6) | |
| Progesterone receptors | |||||||
| Positive | 150 (82.9) | 40 (81.6) | 34 (81) | 39 (92.9) | 24 (72.7) | 13 (82.9) | N.S |
| Negative | 31 (17.1) | 9 (18.4) | 8 [19] | 3 (9.7) | 9 (27.3) | 2 (13.3) | |
| Axillary nodal status | |||||||
| Positive | 23 (17.4) | 6 (16.7) | 3 (9.7) | 7 (25.9) | 7 (26.9) | 0 | N.S |
| Negative | 109 (82.6) | 30 (83.3) | 28 (90.3) | 20 (74.1) | 19 (73.1) | 12 (100) | |
| Tumor distance from inked margin∗ | |||||||
| Positive | 136 (74.7) | 43 (87.8) | 35 (81.4) | 30 (71.4) | 22 (66.7) | 6 (40.0) | NS |
| <1 mm | 35 (19.2) | 3 (6.1) | 8 (18.6) | 9 (21.4) | 9 (28.2) | 6 (40.0) | |
| 1–2 mm | 9 (5.0) | 3 (6.1) | 0 | 3 (7.2) | 2 (6.1) | 1 (6.7) | |
| > 2 mm | 2 (1.1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (13.3) | |
| Type of RBS | |||||||
| Re-excision | 119 (65.4) | 28 (57.1) | 30 (69.8) | 33 (78.6) | 21 (63.6) | 7 (46.7) | NS |
| Mastectomy | 63 (34.6) | 21 (42.9) | 13 (30.2) | 9 (21.4) | 12 (36.4) | 8 (53.3) | |
| Mastectomy after re-excision | 12 (6.6) | 2 (4.1) | 4 (9.3) | 4 (9.5) | 2 (6.1) | 0 | |
| Residual tumor at RBS (%)∗ | |||||||
| All RBS | 91 (50.0) | 31 (61.3) | 24 (55.8) | 17 (40.5) | 19 (57.6) | 9 (60) | NS |
| Re-excision | 45/119 (37.8) | 12/28 (42.9) | 12/30 (40.0) | 10/33 (30.3) | 8/21 (38.1) | 3/7 (42.9) | NS |
| Mastectomy | 55/63 (87.3) | 19/21 (90.5) | 12/13 (92.3) | 7/9 (77.8) | 11/12 (91.7) | 6/8 (75.0) | NS |
| Mastectomy after re-excision | 10/12 (83.3) | 1/2 (50.0) | 5/5 (100) | 3/4 (75) | 1/1 (100) | 0 | NS |
BCS: breast conserving surgery; RBS: repeated breast surgery; BCS: breast conserving surgery; RBS: repeated breast surgery; MX mammography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; US; ultrasound scan; NST no special type; ILC: invasive lobular carcinoma; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ; CT chemotherapy; ET endocrine therapy; C1/B1: Uninterpretable/Normal tissue only; C2/B2: Benign; C3: probably benign; B3: Lesion of uncertain malignant potential; C4/B4: Suspicious of malignancy; C5/B5: malignant; B5a: in situ carcinoma; B5b: Invasive carcinoma; B5c: Invasive status not assessable.
∗ At final pathology; ^largest diameter among all imaging modalities; for multifocal lesions calculated as the largest diameter including all tumor foc; °Level II oncoplastic surgery according to the definition Patel et al. [16].
Table 2 shows the relationship between clinicopathological variables and likelihood of finding residual tumor in the RBS specimen. A dubious/negative (B1–B4) vs. positive (B5a/b/c) results at diagnostic core biopsy (69.4% vs. 48.2%; p = 0.003) and the presence of DCIS (either pure DCIS or DCIS associated to invasive carcinoma) vs. invasive carcinoma alone at final pathology were significantly correlated with the presence of residual tumor in the RBS specimen (71.7% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.008 and 61.0% vs. 36.9%; p = 0.004, respectively). Conversely, undergoing neoadjuvant therapy vs. not was significantly associated with a reduced risk of residual tumor at RBS (14.3% vs. 57.2%; p = 0.047). No correlation was found with use of MRI, type of preoperative localization or intraoperative assessment, use of oncoplastic techniques, as well as estrogen/progesterone receptor expression, axillary nodal involvement, tumor grade, multifocality and tumor distance from inked margin at final pathology.
Table 2.
Clinicopathological variables and cancer persistence at RBS after BCS.
| Variable | Persistence of carcinoma in RBS specimen |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | p | ||
| Age | |||
| <50 years vs ≥ 50 years | 17/25 vs 82/156 (68.0 vs 52.6) | NS | |
| Core biopsya | |||
| B5b vs. B5a/c | 38/82 vs.17/32 (46.3 vs. 53.1) | NS | |
| B5a/b/c vs. B1–B4 | 55/114 vs. 25/36 (48.2 vs. 69.4) | 0.003 | |
| C5 vs. C1–C4 | 5/8 vs. 12/20 (62.5 vs. 60.0) | NS | |
| NST vs. ILC | 38/77 vs. 11/23 (49.3 vs. 47.8) | NS | |
| Invasive vs. DCIS | 30/59 vs. 15/28 (50.8 vs. 53.6) | NS | |
| Preoperative MRI performed | |||
| No vs. Yes | 47/89 vs. 46/83 (52.8 vs. 55.4) | NS | |
| Multifocality at imaging | |||
| No vs. Yes | 78/148 vs. 22/34 (52.7 vs. 64.7) | NS | |
| Size at imagingb | |||
| < 20 vs. ≥ 20 mm | 40/81 vs 60/101 (49.4 vs 59.4) | NS | |
| Neoadjuvant chemo/endocrine therapy | |||
| No vs. Yes | 59/154 vs. 1/7 (57.2 vs. 14.3) | 0.047 | |
| Type of preoperative localization | |||
| None vs. Yes | 26/38 vs. 74/144 (68.4 vs. 51.4) | 0.069 | |
| RX vs. US | 13/19 vs. 61/125 (68.4 vs. 48.8) | NS | |
| Type of intraoperative assessment | |||
| None vs. Any | 26/38 vs. 74/144 (85.7 vs. 55.3) | 0.06 | |
| RX/US vs. Pathological (macroscopic only) | 69/134 vs. 26/40 (51.5 vs. 65.0) | NS | |
| Shaving of cavity margins | |||
| No vs. Yes | 88/158 vs.12/22 (55.7 vs. 54.5) | NS | |
| Yes vs. Selective | 11/21 vs 38/72 (55.7 vs 52.8) | NS | |
| Oncoplastic surgeryc | |||
| No vs. Yes | 93/169 vs 6/12 (55.0 vs 50.0) | NS | |
| Histological typed,e | |||
| DCIS vs. Invasive | 33/46 vs. 67/136 (71.7 vs. 49.3) | 0.008 | |
| Invasive + DCIS vs. Invasive only | 83/136 vs. 17/46 (61.0 vs. 36.9) | 0.004 | |
| ILC vs. Invasive other | 12/24 vs. 55/112 (50.0 vs. 49.1) | NS | |
| Gradingd | |||
| G 1–2 vs. G3 | 49/103 vs. 15/30 (47.6 vs. 50.0) | NS | |
| Multifocalityd | |||
| No vs. Yes | 61/121 vs. 37/58 (50.4 vs. 63.8) | 0.092 | |
| Estrogen receptors | |||
| Positive vs negative | 96/172 vs 3/9 (55.9 vs 33) | NS | |
| Progesterone receptors | |||
| Positive vs negative | 86/150 vs 13/31 (57.3 vs 41.9) | NS | |
| Axillary nodal status | |||
| Positive vs negative | 15/23 vs 61/109 (65.2 vs 56.0) | NS | |
| Tumour distance from inked margind | |||
| <2 mm vs. positive | 21/42 vs. 74/133 (50.0 vs. 55.6) | NS | |
| <1 mm vs positive | 20/35 vs. 74/133 (57.1 vs 55.6) | NS | |
BCS: breast-conserving surgery; RBS: repeated breast surgery.
C1/B1: Uninterpretable/Normal tissue only; C2/B2: Benign; C3: probably benign; B3: Lesion of uncertain malignant potential; C4/B4: Suspicious of malignancy; C5/B5: malignant; B5a: in situ carcinoma; B5b: Invasive carcinoma; B5c: Invasive status not assessable. NST no special type; ILC: invasive lobular carcinoma; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; RX: radiography; US; ultrasound scan.
Largest diameter among all imaging modalities, for multifocal lesions calculated as the largest diameter including all tumor.
Level II oncoplastic surgery according to the definition Patel et al. [16].
At final pathology.
DCIS: pure DCIS”; Invasive + DCIS: DCIS extending outside the limits of invasive carcinoma and increasing the extension of the whole lesion).
At univariate analysis, increased RBS rates were significantly associated with several preoperative variables, such as younger age, non-palpable tumors at clinical examination, dubious/negative results or in situ carcinoma at diagnostic needle biopsy, presence of microcalcifications, multifocal and larger lesions at imaging (Table 3). Furthermore, RBS rates were higher in patients requiring imaging for preoperative localization and intraoperative margin assessment (occult lesions) and lower if intraoperative pathological assessment was feasible (palpable lesions). Conversely, both neoadjuvant therapy and shaving of cavity margins were associated with a significant reduction of the RBS rate. At multivariate analysis, only multifocality [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.8, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.1–2.8; p = 0.009) and presence of microcalcifications (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4–2.9; p = 0.000) at imaging retained their independent value as indicators of increased RBS risk, while neoadjuvant therapy (OR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2–0.8; p = 0.014), pathological intraoperative assessment (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4–0.9; p = 0.010), and shaving of cavity margins (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.2–0.6; p = 0.000) were associated with lower RBS rates (Table 3).
Table 3.
Association of preoperative and intraoperative variables with repeated breast surgery (RBS) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer.
| Variable | Univariate |
Multivariate |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N° of RBS/all BCS (%) | P value | Odds Ratio | 95% CI | P value | ||
| Age | Lower | Upper | ||||
| <50 years vs ≥ 50 years | 56/277 vs 127/954 (20.2 vs 13.3) | 0.004 | – | – | – | NS |
| Clinical assessment | ||||||
| Palpable vs. occult | 85/730 vs. 97/501 (11.8 vs. 19.4) | 0.000 | – | – | – | NS |
| Core biopsya | ||||||
| B5b vs. B5a/c | 91/819 vs 29/135 (11.1 vs. 21.5) | 0.000 | – | – | – | NS |
| B5a/b/c vs. B1–B4 | 120/954 vs. 38/89 (12.6 vs 42.7) | 0.000 | – | – | – | NS |
| C5 vs. C1-4 | 8/136 vs. 15/36 (5.9 vs. 41.7) | 0.000 | – | – | – | NS |
| Preoperative MRI performed | ||||||
| No vs. Yes | 93/714 vs. 89/517 (13.2 vs. 17.2) | 0.049 | – | – | – | NS |
| Multifocality at imaging | ||||||
| Yes vs. No | 35/139 vs. 145/1059 (25.2 vs. 13.7) | 0.000 | 1.791 | 1.156 | 2.775 | 0.009 |
| Size at imagingb | ||||||
| < 20 mm vs. ≥ 20 mm | 93/717 vs. 87/509 (13.0 vs. 17.1) | 0.045 | – | – | – | NS |
| Presence of microcalcifications at MX | ||||||
| Yes vs. No | 65/281 vs. 117/949 (23.5 vs.12.3) | 0.000 | 2.045 | 1.433 | 2.917 | 0.000 |
| Neoadjuvant chemo/endocrine therapy | ||||||
| Yes vs. No | 9/125 vs. 173/1106 (7.2 vs. 15.7) | 0.011 | 0.411 | 0.202 | 0.835 | 0.014 |
| Type of preoperative localization | ||||||
| None vs. US/RX | 46/429 vs. 136/802 (10.7 vs. 17.1) | 0.003 | – | – | – | NS |
| US vs. RX | 121/729 vs. 16/73 (16.6 vs. 21.9) | NS | – | – | – | NS |
| Type of intraoperativecassessment | ||||||
| Pathological, Yes vs. No | 41/421 vs. 142/810 (9.8 vs.17.5) | 0.000 | 0.598 | 0.404 | 0.885 | 0.010 |
| Radiological (RX/US): Yes vs. No | 138/787 vs. 45/444 (17.5 vs. 10.1) | 0.000 | – | – | – | NS |
| Oncoplastic surgeryd | ||||||
| Yes vs. No | 11/65 vs 171/1166 (16.9 vs 14.7) | NS | NS | |||
| Surgeon’s workloade | ||||||
| High vs. intermediate - low | 78/607 vs. 104/624 (12.8 vs 16.6) | 0.059 | – | – | – | NS |
| Shaving of cavity margins | ||||||
| Yes vs. No | 21/298 vs. 161/933 (7.0 vs. 17.4) | 0.000 | 0.356 | 0.221 | 0.572 | 0.000 |
BCS: breast-conserving surgery; RBS: repeated breast surgery; aC1/B1: Uninterpretable/Normal tissue only; C2/B2: Benign; C3: probably benign; B3: Lesion of uncertain malignant potential; C4/B4: Suspicious of malignancy; C5/B5: malignant; B5a: in situ carcinoma; B5b: Invasive carcinoma; B5c: Invasive status not assessable. MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; bLargest diameter among all imaging modalities, for multifocal lesions calculated as the largest diameter including all tumor foci; MX mammography; US; ultrasound scan; RX: radiography; cMacroscopic pahological evaluation only; dLevel II oncoplastic surgery according to the definition of Patel et al. [16]; eNumber of BCS performed per year: high >100; intermediate: 30–100; low: < 30.
At a mean follow up of 26.8 months years, the local (in-breast) relapse rate in the whole series was 0.6% (7/1233) and one local relapse occurred in the group of patients submitted to RBS (1/7, 14.3%) (Fig. 1C).
4. Discussion
We have analysed the RBS rate in a mono-institutional consecutive series of breast cancer patients operated over the last five years. All cases were discussed pre-and post-operatively at weekly multidisciplinary meetings. Therefore, our work describes the performance of a highly specialized, high volume, breast unit operating in a cancer centre in Italy.
Until 2014 several American and European national databases reported RBS rates ranging from 20.0% to 22.9% for invasive carcinoma and from 29.5% to 37.3% for DCIS [9,[18], [19], [20], [21]]. In 2014 and 2016 the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recognized “no ink on tumor” as the standard for an adequate margin for invasive breast cancer and a 2 mm margin as the standard for DCIS [22,23]. Several studies reported a reduction of RBS rates by comparing series before and after the release of these guidelines (Table 4) [[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]], which was confirmed by a recently published meta-analysis [from 22% to 14%; Odds Ratio (OR) 0.65; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.54–0.78; p < 0.0001) [33].
Table 4.
Variation of re-excision rates after BCS according to the adoption of the new SSO/ASTRO/ASCO guideline.
| Author | N° pts | IBC/DCIS | Guideline adoption |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| before | after | ||||
| Morrow [9] | 5080 | IBC | 34.0 | 18.0 | <0.001 |
| Schulman [24] | 26 802 | IBC | 20.2 | 16.5 | <0.001 |
| Rosenberger [25] | 1205 | IBC | 21.4 | 15.1 | 0.006 |
| Monaghan [26] | 1112 | IBC | 22.6 | 18.7 | 0.13 |
| Patten [27] | 954 | IBC | 20.4 | 16.3 | 0.04 |
| Chung [28] | 846 | IBC | 19.0 | 13.0 | 0.03 |
| Heelan Gladden [29] | 863 | IBC + DCIS | 11.9 | 10.9 | 0.65 |
| Merrill [30] | 437 | IBC + DCIS | 36.0 | 16.0 | 0.0001 |
| Bhutiani [31] | 237 | IBC | 37.0 | 9.0 | 0.001 |
| Mamtani [32] | 745 | ILC | 31.4 | 23.1 | 0.01 |
BCS: breast-conserving surgery; RBS: repeated breast surgery; SSO: Society of surgical Oncology; ASTRO: American Society for Radiation Oncology; ASCO: American Society of Clinical Oncology; IBC invasive breast carcinoma; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ; ILC: invasive lobular carcinoma.
The PNE, a plan endorsed by the Italian Ministry of Health to provide comparative evaluations of efficacy, equity, safety and appropriateness of care of the National Health Service, adopted the rate of “RBS within 120 days after BCS” as a quality indicator. Data are collected from hospital discharge records and then centrally analysed. The PNE “does not produce rankings, lists or card reports”, yet it ranks the standard of quality for RBS as follows: very high ≤5%, high 5–8%, medium 8–12%, low 12–18% and very low >18%. According to the data released, the proportion of BCS among all primary operable breast cancer cases in Italy has been almost stable from 2010 to 2017 (69.8%–68.8%), while the RBS rate has been steadily decreasing from 12.3 to 7.4% (https://pne.agenas.it).
Our RBS rate had remained stable at around 17% until 2017, a rate consistent with the international scientific literature, but a low-quality value according to the PNE ranking. An internal audit held at our Institute in 2018 verified that 9 out of the 11 CALLER tools adopted in the U.S. to lower RBS [13] had been already implemented. In particular, oncoplastic surgical techniques are commonly performed at our Instituition as they allow wider resections at BCS while improving cosmetic results and may also reduce RBS for positive resection margins [35]. We did not find a significant correlation between the adoption of level two oncoplastic techniques and RBS rate in our series, although numbers were small. Conversely, the “cavity shave margins” procedure was not adopted at our Institution before 2018. This technique has been associated with lower rate of positive margins in a randomized study (19% vs. 34%, p = 0.01) [17] and a lower rate of RBS (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.30–0.59, p < 0.05) in a meta-analysis [34]. After our internal audit it was progressively implemented irrespective of the results of the intraoperative assessment and our RBS rates dropped to 10.9% in 2018 and to 8.2% in 2019. The association of cavity shave margins with a reduced risk of undergoing RBS was also sustained by the results of our multivariate analysis (OR: 0.356; p = 0.000).
The analysis of our series of BCS over a 5-year period confirms that some clinical factors may increase the risk of inadequate margins at BCS. Even adopting all recognized tools to reduce RBS in a high-volume dedicated centre, a non-negligible number of patients will require RBS if current guidelines are followed [22,23]. A few clinicopathological variables (inconclusive diagnostic needle biopsy, presence of DCIS, neoadjuvant therapies) influenced the likelihood of persistent disease in patients with close/positive margins at BCS. These variables can be taken into account when deciding whether or not RBS should be performed and whether re-excision or mastectomy is preferable. Of note, our multidisciplinary management led to a higher rate of persistent disease in patients summitted to mastectomy vs. a further conservative attempt (87.3% vs 37.8%) and to a very low rate of mastectomies after a failed first conservative attempt (6.6%).
Our data also confirm that some actionable factors, such as neoadjuvant chemo/endocrine therapy and shaving of cavity margins, can significantly reduce the RBS rate. Although high surgeon workload (>100 BCS per year) was associated with slightly lower RBS rates (12.8% vs 16.6%, p = 0.059), it had no independent value at multivariate analysis. Conversely, occult lesions presenting as DCIS with microcalcifications and/or multifocal tumors were independently associated with higher RBS rates. Therefore, as the latter are non-modifiable factors and may vary largely among different series, we agree with others that the value of RBS as surgical quality indicator is questionable [36].
The 5-year RBS rate of 14.8% at our Institution is consistent with the most recent international scientific literature [37]. After internal auditing and the introduction of cavity shave margins, our RBS rate lowered to 8.2%, a value that is superimposable to that of a recent randomized trial [38], but still slightly higher as compared to the mean of all centres treating breast cancer in Italy (7.4%). We have not a clear explanation for the discrepancy between international (and ours) RBS rates and those released by the PNE. We are aware of only two published papers in Italy of BCS with cavity shaving vs. not reporting RBS rates of 1.9% vs. 10.6%, and 14.3% vs. 18.9%, respectively [39,40]. It is too early to evaluate oncological safety, but the local relapse rate at 2 years in the current series is reassuring (0.6%) and consistent with that of our previous series operated between 2000 and 2009 (2.9% at 4 years) [41].
5. Conclusions
It is widely recognized that the RBS rate must be kept at a minimum because it is associated with economic costs, psychological stress and potentially worse cosmetic outcomes for the patients. However, our work indicate that minimum standards and targets set by the EUSOMA and ASBrS are reasonable and should not be made more stringent at this time. Indeed, there are important non-actionable risk factors for RBS (i.e multifocality, microcalcifications, presence of DCIS) that may hamper a further reduction of RBS rates and mandate accurate risk adjustment if RBS is used as quality indicator of breast care. Although RBS is associated with increase costs, also efforts to reduce its frequency may influence the economic burden either through increased operating time or requirement for specialized equipment [24]. Most of all, as positive margins may increase recurrence rates [10] and high dose radiotherapy boost does not compensate for inadequate surgery [42], RBS should be performed whenever indicated according to current guidelines [22,23]. Therefore, we completely agree with the ASBrS statement: “performing reoperation does not mean poor quality care. Particularly, omission of reoperation for positive margins is not recommended. Reoperation of a positive margin is good quality care and results in lower risk of cancer recurrence” [13]. Caution is necessary when government bodies choose quality measures, and even more so if economic prizes are assigned to those who reach the target. Inevitably, the echo of these results both in the press and the lay public is considerable and may convey the too simplistic message that the lower is the reoperation rates the better is the care. Indeed, if unreasonable goals are set, this may end up with unjustified penalizations for Institutions who adhere to current treatment guidelines and, most importantly, with a quality of care that is not in the interest of the patients.
Funding
This work was supported by Ministero della Salute Ricerca Corrente 2020; FPRC 5xmille Ministero della Salute 2015 (Strategy).
Declaration of competing interest
None declared.
Acknowledgements
The Authors wish to thank Dr. Sabrina Peroò for her technical assistance in provision and checking of clinical data and Dr. Laura Annaratone for support in pathology data retrieval.
References
- 1.Fisher B., Anderson S., Bryant J., Margolese R.G., Deutsch M., Fisher E.R. 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;347:1233–1241. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Veronesi U., Cascinelli N., Mariani L., Greco M., Saccozzi R., Luini A. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–1232. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Giuliano A.E., Hunt K.K., Ballman K.V., Beitsch P.D., Whitworth P.W., Blumencranz P.W. Axillary dissection vs. no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2011;305:569–575. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Showalter S.L., Grover S., Sharma S., Lin L., Czerniecki B.J. Factors influencing surgical and adjuvant therapy in stage I breast cancer: a SEER 18 database analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1287–1294. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2693-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Mahmood U., Hanlon A.L., Koshy M., Buras R., Chumsri S., Tkaczuk K.H. Increasing national mastectomy rates for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1436–1443. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2732-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Houssami N., Turner R., Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–255. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827a8d17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chiba A., Hoskin T.L., Hallberg E.J., Cogswell J.A., Heins C.N., Couch F.J., Boughey J.C. Impact that timing of genetic mutation diagnosis has on surgical decision making and outcome for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Oct;23(10):3232–3238. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5328-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Clarke M., Collins R., Darby S., Davies C., Elphinstone P., Evans V. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366:2087–2106. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67887-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Morrow M., Abrahamse P., Hofer T.P., Ward K.C., Hamilton A.S., Kurian A. Trends in reoperation after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer: addressing overtreatment in surgical management. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1352–1357. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Houssami N., Macaskill P., Marinovich M.L., 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;21:717–730. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3480-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.McEvoy M.P., Landercasper J., Naik H.R., Feldman S. Update of the American society of breast surgeons toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic. Gland Surg. 2018;7:536–553. doi: 10.21037/gs.2018.11.03. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Biganzoli L., Marotti L., Hart C.D., Cataliotti L., Cutuli B., Kühn T. Quality indicators in breast cancer care: an update from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Canc. 2017;86:59–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Landercasper J., Attai D., Atisha D., Beitsch P., Bosserman L., Boughey J. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: the American society of breast surgeons consensus conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3174–3183. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4759-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Landercasper J., Bailey L., Buras R., Clifford E., Degnim A.C., Thanasoulis L. The American society of breast surgeons and quality payment programs: ranking, defining, and benchmarking more than 1 million patient quality measure encounters. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3093–3106. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-5940-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.McCahill L.E., Privette A., James T., Sheehey-Jones J., Ratliff J., Majercik D. Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg. 2009;144:455–462. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Patel K., Bloom J., Nardello S., Cohen S., Reiland J., Chatterjee A. An oncoplastic surgery primer: common indications, techniques, and complications in level 1 and 2 volume displacement oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3063–3070. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07592-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Chagpar A.B., Killelea B.K., Tsangaris T.N., Butler M., Stavris K., Li F. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:503–510. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1504473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.McCahill L.E., Single R.M., Aiello Bowles E.J., Feigelson H.S., James T.A., Barney T. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. J Am Med Assoc. 2012;307:467–475. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Wilke L.G., Czechura T., Wang C., Lapin B., Liederbach E., Winchester D.P., Yao K. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004-2010. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:1296–1305. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Landercasper J., Whitacre E., Degnim A.C., 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;21:3185–3191. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3905-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Jeevan R., Cromwell D.A., Trivella M., Lawrence G., Kearins O., Pereira J. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;345:e4505. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Moran M.S., Schnitt S.J., Giuliano A.E., Harris J.R., Khan S.A., Horton J. 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;21:704–716. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3481-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Morrow M., Van Zee K.J., Solin L.J., Houssami N., Chavez-MacGregor M., Harris J.R. 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;23:3801–38109. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5449-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Schulman A.M., Mirrielees J.A., Leverson G., Landercasper J., Greenberg C., Wilke L.G. Reexcision surgery for breast cancer: an analysis of the American society of breast surgeons (ASBrS) mastery(SM) database following the SSO-ASTRO "No ink on tumor" guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:52–58. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5516-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Rosenberger L.H., Mamtani A., Fuzesi S., Stempel M., Eaton A., Morrow M., Gemignani M.L. Early adoption of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: initial experience from memorial sloan kettering cancer center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3239–3246. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5397-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Monaghan A., Chapinal N., Hughes L., Baliski C. Impact of SSO-ASTRO margin guidelines on reoperation rates following breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2019;217:862–867. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Patten C.R., Walsh K., Sarantou T., Hadzikadic-Gusic L., Forster M.R., Robinson M., White R.L., Jr. Changes in margin re-excision rates: experience incorporating the "no ink on tumor" guideline into practice. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116:1040–1045. doi: 10.1002/jso.24770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Chung A., Gangi A., Amersi F., Bose S., Zhang X., Giuliano A. Impact of consensus guidelines by the society of surgical Oncology and the American society for radiation Oncology on margins for breast-conserving surgery in stages 1 and 2 invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S422–S427. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4829-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Heelan Gladden A.A., Sams S., Gleisner A., Finlayson C., Kounalakis N., Hosokawa P. Re-excision rates after breast conserving surgery following the 2014 SSO-ASTRO guidelines. Am J Surg. 2017;214:1104–1109. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Merrill A.L., Coopey S.B., Tang R., McEvoy M.P., Specht M.C., Hughes K.S. Implications of new lumpectomy margin guidelines for breast-conserving surgery: changes in reexcision rates and predicted rates of residual tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:729–734. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4916-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bhutiani N., Mercer M.K., Bachman K.C. Evaluating the effect of margin consensus guideline publication on operative patterns and financial impact of breast cancer operation. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227:6–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.01.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Mamtani A., Zabor E.C., Rosenberger L.H., Stempel M., Gemignani M.L., Morrow M. Was reexcision less frequent for patients with lobular breast cancer after publication of the SSO-ASTRO margin guidelines? Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3856–3862. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07751-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Havel L., Naik H., Ramirez L., Morrow M., Landercasper J. Impact of the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline on rates of Re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:1238–1244. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07247-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Wang K., Ren Y., He J. Cavity shaving plus lumpectomy versus lumpectomy alone for patients with breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery: a systematic Review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017 3;12 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Chen J.Y., Huang Y.J., Zhang L.L., Yang C.Q., Wang K. Comparison of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery alone: a meta-analysis. J Breast Cancer. 2018;21:321–329. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2018.21.e36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Morrow M., Katz S.J. The challenge of developing quality measures for breast cancer surgery. J Am Med Assoc. 2012;307:509–510. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Landercasper J., Borgert A.J., Fayanju O.M., Cody H., 3rd, Feldman S., Greenberg C. Factors associated with reoperation in breast-conserving surgery for cancer: a prospective study of American society of breast surgeon members. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3321–3336. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-0754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Dupont E., Tsangaris T., Garcia-Cantu C., Howard-McNatt M., Chiba A., Berger A.C. Resection of cavity shave margins in stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003449. 10.1097. doi:10.1097/SLA.00000000000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Corsi F., Sorrentino L., Bonzini M., Bossi D., Truffi M., Amadori R. Cavity shaving reduces involved margins and reinterventions without increasing costs in breast-conserving surgery: a propensity score-matched study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:1516–1524. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-5774-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.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;23:2802–2808. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5210-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Biglia N., Ponzone R., Bounous V.E., Mariani L.L., Maggiorotto F., Benevelli C. Role of re-excision for positive and close resection margins in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery. Breast. 2014;23:870–875. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Buchholz T.A., Somerfield M.R., Griggs J.J., El-Eid S., Hammond M.E., Lyman G.H. Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1502–1506. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]