Skip to main content
Log in

A Pathologic Assessment of Adequate Margin Status in Breast-Conserving Therapy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The definition of a clear margin in breast-conserving therapy is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to correlate the tumor-margin distance of the excision specimen with the presence of residual tumor at reoperation. We also analyzed predictors of compromised margins and of residual disease.

Methods

All patients who underwent breast-conserving therapy for invasive disease from 1999 to 2003 were reviewed. Pathologic characteristics and the precise tumor distance from the radial margin were recorded. A radial margin was compromised if invasive or (ductal) in situ carcinoma was <5 mm from the margin.

Results

Of the 612 patients who underwent breast conservation, 211 (34%) had compromised margins, and 39 had undetermined margins. Of the 161 patients who had a reoperation for compromised margins, 87 (54%) had residual disease. Residual disease after reoperation was present in 58% (56 of 96), 56% (9 of 16), and 45% (22 of 49) of those with tumor-margin distances <1 mm, ≥1 and <2 mm, and ≥2 and <5 mm, respectively. There was a progressive decline in residual disease for each millimeter until a rate of 22% for tumor-margin distances of ≥4 mm and <5 mm was reached. Pathologic size (P = .004), an extensive intraductal component (P = .002), referral from a symptomatic rather than a population-based screening program (P = .02), and the absence of a preoperative diagnosis by core biopsy (P < .0001) were predictive of compromised margins. Only young age (<45 years) was predictive of finding residual disease on reoperation (P = .02).

Conclusions

A total of 45% of patients who had tumor 2 to 5 mm from the radial margin had residual disease on reoperation. Our results support a policy of requiring a 5-mm margin in patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy for invasive disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taghian A, Mohiuddin M, Jagsi R, Golberg S, Ceilley E, Powell S. Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey. Ann Surg 2005;241:629–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, et al. Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1668–75

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Spivack B, Khanna MM, Tafra L, Juillard G, Giuliano AE. Margin status, local recurrence after breast conserving therapy. Arch Surg 1994;129:952–7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Khettry U, et al. Pathological findings on re-excision of the primary site in breast cancer patients considered for treatment by primary radiation therapy. Cancer 1987;59:675–81

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Beron PJ, Horwitz EM, Martinez AA, et al. Pathologic and mammographic findings predicting the adequacy of tumour excision before breast-conserving therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1409–14

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tartter PI, Kaplan J, Bleiweiss I, et al. Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Surg 2000;179:81–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gage I, Schnitt SJ, Nixon AJ, et al. Pathological margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 1996;78:1921–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jardines L, Fowble B, Schultz D, et al. Factors associated with a positive reexcision after excisional biopsy for invasive breast cancer. Surgery 1995;118:803–809

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wazer DE, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Ruthazer R, et al. The influence of age and extensive intraductal component histology upon breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45:885–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smitt MC, Nowels K, Carlson RW, Jeffrey SS. Predictors of re excision findings, recurrence after breast conservation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:979–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Anscher MS, Jones P, Prosnitz LR, et al. Local failure and margin status in early-stage breast carcinoma treated with conservation surgery and radiation therapy. Ann Surg 1993;218:22–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ, et al. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long term results of breast conservation. Cancer 1995;77:259–67

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schnitt SJ, Abner A, Gelman R, et al. The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 1994;74:1746–51

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meric F, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, et al. Positive surgical margins and ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence predict disease-specific survival after breast conserving therapy. Cancer 2003;97:926–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leong C, Boyages J, Jayasinghe UP, et al. Effects of margins on ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence after breast conservation therapy for lymph node negative breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;100:1823–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pittinger TP, Maronian NC, Poulter CA, Peacock JL. Importance of margin status in outcome of breast-conserving surgery for carcinoma. Surgery 1994;116:605–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002;184:383–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Solin LJ, Fowble B, Martz K, Goodman RL. Results of re-excisional biopsy of the primary tumor in preparation for definitive irradiation of patients with early stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1986;12:721–25

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Millar AR, Brandao G, Prihoda TJ, Hill C, Cruz AB, Yeh I. Positive margins following surgical resection of breast carcinoma: analyses of pathological correlates. J Surg Oncol 2004;86:134–40

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cellini C, Hollenbeck ST, Christos P, et al. Factors associated with residual breast cancer after re-excision for close or positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:915–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gwin JL, Eisenberg BL, Hoffman JP, Ottery FD, Boraas M, Solin LJ. Incidence of gross, microscopic carcinoma in specimens from patients with breast cancer after re-excision lumpectomy. Ann Surg 1993;218:729–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Landheer MLEA, Klinkenberg JHG, Pasker-de Jong PCM, Wobbes T. Residual disease after excision of non-palpable breast tumours: analysis of tumour characteristics. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004;30:824–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Holland R, Connolly J, Gelman R, et al. The presence of an extensive intraductal component following a limited resection correlates with prominent residual disease in the remainder of the breast. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:113–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. The Royal College of Pathologists. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. Pathology Reporting of Breast Disease. NHS BSP Publication No. 58. 2005. Available: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp58-high-resolution.pdf

  25. Holland R, Veling SH, Mravunac M, Hendriks JH. Histological multifocality of Tis T1-2 breast carcinomas. Cancer 1985;56:979–90

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ryoo MC, Kagan AR, Wollin M, et al. Prognostic factors for recurrence and cosmesis in 393 patients after radiation therapy for early mammary carcinoma. Radiology 1989;172:555–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Horiguchi J, Iino Y, Takei H, et al. Surgical margin and breast recurrence after breast- conserving therapy. Oncol Rep 1999;6:135–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bedwinek J. Breast conserving surgery, irradiation: the importance of demarcating the excision cavity with surgical clips. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;26:675–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dillon MF, Hill AD, Quinn C, et al. Surgical intervention in screen-detected patients versus symptomatic patients with breast cancer. J Med Screen 2004;11:130–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jacquemier J, Kurtz JM, Amalric R, Brandone H, Ayme Y, Spitalier JM. An assessment of extensive intraductal component as a risk factor for local recurrence after breast conserving therapy. Br J Cancer 1990;61:873–6

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vicini FA, Eberlein TJ, Connolly JL, et al. The optimal extent of resection for patients with stages I or II breast cancer treated with conservative surgery and radiotherapy. Ann Surg 1991;214:200–5

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL. Processing, evaluation of breast excision specimens. A clinically orientated approach. Am J Clin Pathol 1992;98:125–37

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fisher ER, Sass R, Fisher B, Gregorio R, Brown R, Wickerham L. Pathological findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Cancer Project (protocol 6) II: relation of local breast recurrence to multicentricity. Cancer 1986;57:1717–24

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnold D. K. Hill MCh, FRCSI.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dillon, M.F., Hill, A.D.K., Quinn, C.M. et al. A Pathologic Assessment of Adequate Margin Status in Breast-Conserving Therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 13, 333–339 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2006.03.098

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2006.03.098

Keywords

Navigation