Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study

Anne Kuritzky, Chantal Reyna, Kandace P. McGuire, Weihong Sun, Sara M. DeSnyder, Staci Aubry, Apoorve Nayyar, Paula Strassle, Kelly K. Hunt, Jun Min Zhou, Marie Catherine Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Introduction: A 2014 consensus statement from the Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society for Radiation Oncology supported “no ink on tumor” as an adequate margin for breast conserving therapy (BCT). This study evaluates this statement in a multi-institution cohort. Methods: A retrospective review of BCT cases at 3 comprehensive cancer centers was performed. Women age >18 receiving BCT for T1-2 breast cancer from 2008-2012 were included. Pre-2014, all sites considered 2 mm adequate. Estimated re-excision rates using the 2014 guidelines were calculated and factors predictive of re-excision were analyzed. Results: 542 patients (545 lumpectomies) were eligible. Using a ≥2 mm margin standard, 32.8% of patients underwent re-excision compared to 14.1% after 2014 (p < 0.0001). Tumor size (p= 0.003), grade (p=0.015), and lymphovascular invasion (p=0.021) were predictive of re-excision. Patients with additional intraoperative margins excised were less likely to require reoperation (p=0.002). Local recurrence was unaffected by re-excision after mean followup of 66 months. Conclusions: The 2014 margin guidelines markedly reduce re-excision rates. There is no difference in local recurrence for patients after re-excision for a close margin versus without Powered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)29-33
Number of pages5
JournalBreast
Volume51
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2020

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this