Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Nov 28.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Jan 29;21(3):717–730. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3480-5

Table 2.

Models of the effect of surgical margins on local recurrence (LR) in early-stage invasive breast cancer

Number in model Model estimates adjusted for study-specific median follow-up time
Subjects LR Odds of LR (Odds Ratio) 95% CI P-value§ [P for trend]
Model 1 (median study-specific median follow-up time 6.6 years) 28162 1506 - -
Margin status <0.001
 Negative 21984 1005 1.0 -
 Positive/close 6178 501 1.96 1.72 – 2.24
Threshold distance for negative margins 0.12 [0.21*]
 > 0mm 2898 167 1.47 0.67 – 3.20
 1mm 6008 422 1.0 -
 2mm 11144 530 0.95 0.54– 1.67
 5mm 8112 386 0.65 0.34 – 1.26
Model 2 (median study-specific median follow-up time 8.7 years) 13081 753 - - -
Margin status <0.001
 Negative 9033 393 1.0 -
 Close 2407 176 1.74 1.42 – 2.15
 Positive 1641 184 2.44 1.97 – 3.03
Threshold distance for negative margins 0.90 [0.58]
 1mm 2376 235 1.0 -
 2mm 8350 414 0.91 0.46 – 1.80
 5mm 2355 103 0.77 0.32 – 1.87
§

P reports P-value for association; P in square brackets gives P for trend and reflects whether there was statistical evidence of a decrease in the odds of LR as the threshold distance for declaring negative margins increased

Threshold distance for negative margins based on >0mm (5 studies), 1mm (referent; 8 studies), 2mm (12 studies), and 5mm (8 studies) in model 1; and based on 1mm (referent; 6 studies), 2mm (10 studies), and 5mm (3 studies) in model 2

*

Trend tested excluding studies using >0mm (test based on 28 studies) for model 1 – see Methods