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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |