Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Variability in the Quality of Pathology Reporting of Margin Status Following Breast Cancer Surgery

  • AMERICAN SOCIETY OF BREAST SURGEONS
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Accurately determining margin status is important for breast cancer treatment. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed guidelines to standardize reporting of margin status. The aim of this study is to determine statewide concordance with CAP breast cancer reporting guidelines for margin status.

Methods

The Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (VBCSS) tracks mammography-related services provided to all women treated for breast cancer at hospitals in Vermont. These data include accompanying pathology reports, which were analyzed for descriptions of margin status. The CAP protocols have both requirements and recommendations for margin status reporting. Reports were “minimally compliant” if they adhered to the requirements stated in the CAP protocols or “maximally compliant” if they included the recommended protocols in addition to those required.

Results

There were 2,016 reports that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 71.1% were minimally compliant and 37.3% were maximally compliant with the CAP guideline standards. There was a statistically significant rise in compliant reports, with minimally compliant reports increasing from 55.7% in 1998 to 79.3% in 2006, and maximally compliant reports rising from 4.7% in 1998 to 53.7% in 2006 (χ2 trend test, P < 0.001) for both cohorts.

Conclusions

Reporting of margin status in breast-conserving surgery varies widely. There is a significant rise in guideline compliance with margin status reporting from 1998 to 2006; however, overall compliance remains suboptimal. This study provides evidence to support the need for quality improvement measures in the implementation of CAP guidelines for reporting margin status following breast-conserving surgery.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zavagano G, Goldin E, Mencarelli R, et al. Role of resection margins in patients treated with breast conservation surgery. Am Cancer Soc. 2008;76:259–67.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fitzgibbons PL, Connolly JL, Page DL. The College of American Pathologists (2005). Breast: Protocol applies to all invasive carcinomas of the breast. Available: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/committees/cancer/cancer_protocols/2005/breast05_pw.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2011.

  4. 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(8):1668–75.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz S, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast conserving surgery? Surgery attitudes and correlates. Soc Surg Oncol. 2009;17:558–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gage I, Schnitt S, Silver B, et al. Pathologic margin involvement and the risk fo recurrence in patients treated with breast conserving therapy. Cancer. 1996;78:1921–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Peterson ME, Schultz DJ, Reynolds C, et al. Outcomes in breast cancer patients relative to margin status after treatment with breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:1029–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:1515–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Connolly JC. Specimen processing and margin evaluation. Paper presented at Breast pathology: current concepts and controversies, Boston, MA, June 4–5 2007.

  10. Wilkinson NW, Shahryarinejad A, Winston JS, Watroba N, Edge SB. Concordance with breast cancer pathology reporting practice guidelines. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;196:38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Apple SK. Variability in gross and microscopic pathology reporting in excisional biopsies of breast cancer tissue. Breast J. 2006;12:145–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Winchester DP, Cox JD. Standards for diagnosis and management of invasive breast carcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998;48:83–107.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bijker N, Duchateau L, Petterse J, et al. Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10853. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2263–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Dr. Takamaru Ashikaga for providing his support and statistical expertise during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA

    Sarah Persing MPH, Ted A. James MD, John Mace PhD & Berta Geller EdD

  2. Fletcher Allen Health Care, Burlington, VT, USA

    Andrew Goodwin MD

Authors
  1. Sarah Persing MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ted A. James MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Mace PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew Goodwin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Berta Geller EdD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ted A. James MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Persing, S., James, T.A., Mace, J. et al. Variability in the Quality of Pathology Reporting of Margin Status Following Breast Cancer Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 18, 3061–3065 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1916-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1916-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation