Cargando…

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

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 retrospectiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kuritzky, Anne, Reyna, Chantal, McGuire, Kandace P., Sun, Weihong, DeSnyder, Sara M., Aubry, Staci, Nayyar, Apoorve, Strassle, Paula, Hunt, Kelly K., Zhou, Jun-Min, Lee, Marie Catherine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32199230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.02.013
_version_ 1783561890986721280
author Kuritzky, Anne
Reyna, Chantal
McGuire, Kandace P.
Sun, Weihong
DeSnyder, Sara M.
Aubry, Staci
Nayyar, Apoorve
Strassle, Paula
Hunt, Kelly K.
Zhou, Jun-Min
Lee, Marie Catherine
author_facet Kuritzky, Anne
Reyna, Chantal
McGuire, Kandace P.
Sun, Weihong
DeSnyder, Sara M.
Aubry, Staci
Nayyar, Apoorve
Strassle, Paula
Hunt, Kelly K.
Zhou, Jun-Min
Lee, Marie Catherine
author_sort Kuritzky, Anne
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7375557
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73755572020-07-29 Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study Kuritzky, Anne Reyna, Chantal McGuire, Kandace P. Sun, Weihong DeSnyder, Sara M. Aubry, Staci Nayyar, Apoorve Strassle, Paula Hunt, Kelly K. Zhou, Jun-Min Lee, Marie Catherine Breast Original Article 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. Elsevier 2020-03-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7375557/ /pubmed/32199230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.02.013 Text en © 2020 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Kuritzky, Anne
Reyna, Chantal
McGuire, Kandace P.
Sun, Weihong
DeSnyder, Sara M.
Aubry, Staci
Nayyar, Apoorve
Strassle, Paula
Hunt, Kelly K.
Zhou, Jun-Min
Lee, Marie Catherine
Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study
title Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study
title_full Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study
title_fullStr Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study
title_short Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study
title_sort evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: a multi-institution retrospective study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375557/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32199230
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.02.013
work_keys_str_mv AT kuritzkyanne evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT reynachantal evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT mcguirekandacep evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT sunweihong evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT desnydersaram evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT aubrystaci evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT nayyarapoorve evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT strasslepaula evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT huntkellyk evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT zhoujunmin evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy
AT leemariecatherine evaluationof2014marginguidelinesonreexcisionandrecurrenceratesafterbreastconservingsurgeryamultiinstitutionretrospectivestudy