Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Sep 18;21(1):86–92. doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3257-2

Table 1.

Comparison of patient and tumor characteristics for 3 margin assessment methods.

Perpendicular (n=140) Tangential (n=124) Cavity-Shave (n=291)

Median (range) Median (range) Median (range) p-value
Age, years 63 (25–84) 60 (31–86) 61 (30–92) 0.16
Tumor size (invasive component), cm 1.3 (0.1–6.0) 1.2(0.2–4.2) 1.2(0.1–5.5) 0.61

N (%) N (%) N (%)

AJCC T stage 0.55
T1 113 (81%) 97 (78%) 254 (87%)
T2 21 (15%) 20 (16%) 36 (12%)
T3 1 (0.7%) 0 1 (0.3%)
Unknown 5 (4%) 7 (6%) 0
Extensive intraductal component (> 25% DCIS) 0.40
No 116 (83%) 88 (71%) 256 (88%)
Yes 21 (15%) 17 (14%) 34 (12%)
Unknown 3 (2%) 19 (15%) 1 (0.3%)
Lymphovascular invasion 0.02
No 112 (80%) 113 (91%) 231 (79%)
Yes 28 (20%) 11 (9%) 57 (20%)
Unknown 0 0 3 (1%)
Multifocality 0.007
No 114 (81%) 111 (90%) 266 (91%)
Yes 26 (19%) 13 (10%) 24 (8%)
Unknown 0 0 1 (0.3%)

AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System, 7th edition, 2010; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ

*

Kruskal-Wallis tests used for continuous variable comparisons. Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests used for categorical variable comparisons where appropriate. All comparisons exclude unknown values.