Cargando…
Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re‐excision rates? A systematic review
PURPOSE: Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical technique used in the treatment of breast cancer (BC). It may reduce margin positivity in histologic assessment and consequently reduces re‐ excision rates in breast conserving surgery (BCS). The evidence for this assumption is described in the present revi...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10023760/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35593951 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06512-5 |
_version_ | 1784908951844814848 |
---|---|
author | Fernandez‐Pacheco, M. Ortmann, O. Ignatov, A. Inwald, E. C. |
author_facet | Fernandez‐Pacheco, M. Ortmann, O. Ignatov, A. Inwald, E. C. |
author_sort | Fernandez‐Pacheco, M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical technique used in the treatment of breast cancer (BC). It may reduce margin positivity in histologic assessment and consequently reduces re‐ excision rates in breast conserving surgery (BCS). The evidence for this assumption is described in the present review. METHODS: A systematic review of relevant literature in English from January 1999 to April 2019 was conducted. The analysis included studies on CS and its effects on re‐excision rates and margin positivity. We searched PubMed databases for relevant publications. In total, 22 studies were included in the present review. RESULTS: The benefit from CS on re‐excision rates and histologic margin positivity was variable. Out of 22 studies, 17 reported a reduction in both re‐excision rates and histologic margin positivity in margin shaved patients. Four studies could not find a significant reduction of second surgeries and residual tumor rates. One study suggested that CS after BCS was superior to single BCS only in subgroup analysis in IDC tumors. CONCLUSION: CS is a surgical technique that was shown to reduce re‐excision and margin positivity rates in most of the studies. Furthermore, it can be a useful tool to assess specimen margins and detect multifocality. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10023760 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100237602023-03-19 Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re‐excision rates? A systematic review Fernandez‐Pacheco, M. Ortmann, O. Ignatov, A. Inwald, E. C. Arch Gynecol Obstet Correspondence PURPOSE: Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical technique used in the treatment of breast cancer (BC). It may reduce margin positivity in histologic assessment and consequently reduces re‐ excision rates in breast conserving surgery (BCS). The evidence for this assumption is described in the present review. METHODS: A systematic review of relevant literature in English from January 1999 to April 2019 was conducted. The analysis included studies on CS and its effects on re‐excision rates and margin positivity. We searched PubMed databases for relevant publications. In total, 22 studies were included in the present review. RESULTS: The benefit from CS on re‐excision rates and histologic margin positivity was variable. Out of 22 studies, 17 reported a reduction in both re‐excision rates and histologic margin positivity in margin shaved patients. Four studies could not find a significant reduction of second surgeries and residual tumor rates. One study suggested that CS after BCS was superior to single BCS only in subgroup analysis in IDC tumors. CONCLUSION: CS is a surgical technique that was shown to reduce re‐excision and margin positivity rates in most of the studies. Furthermore, it can be a useful tool to assess specimen margins and detect multifocality. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-05-20 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10023760/ /pubmed/35593951 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06512-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Correspondence Fernandez‐Pacheco, M. Ortmann, O. Ignatov, A. Inwald, E. C. Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re‐excision rates? A systematic review |
title | Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re‐excision rates? A systematic review |
title_full | Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re‐excision rates? A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re‐excision rates? A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re‐excision rates? A systematic review |
title_short | Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re‐excision rates? A systematic review |
title_sort | does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re‐excision rates? a systematic review |
topic | Correspondence |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10023760/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35593951 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06512-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fernandezpachecom doescavitymarginshavingreduceresidualtumorandreexcisionratesasystematicreview AT ortmanno doescavitymarginshavingreduceresidualtumorandreexcisionratesasystematicreview AT ignatova doescavitymarginshavingreduceresidualtumorandreexcisionratesasystematicreview AT inwaldec doescavitymarginshavingreduceresidualtumorandreexcisionratesasystematicreview |