Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Re-excision After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cell and Molecular Biology of Breast Cancer

  • 2346 Accesses

Abstract

The frequency of positive margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer ranges from 18 to 50 %. Negative margins are necessary in order to minimize the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. Many approaches have been described to reduce re-excision rates, including tumor localization techniques, surgical techniques, intraoperative imaging, and intraoperative pathologic assessment. Localization of nonpalpable tumors is possible with single or bracketed wires and with radioactive seeds. Surgical techniques such as shaved cavity margins and intraoperative specimen inking are advocated by some surgeons as a way to reduce margin positivity. Intraoperative imaging with ultrasonography, mammography, micro-computed tomography, and radiofrequency spectroscopy may have a role in decreasing re-excision rates after lumpectomy. Intraoperative pathologic evaluation of margins by frozen section or touch preparation cytology may also be beneficial. This chapter reviews these approaches in detail.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Arriagada R, Le MG, Rochard F, Contesso G, The Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group. Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1558–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Poggi MM, Danforth DN, Sciuto LC, et al. Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy. Cancer. 2003;98:697–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arriagada R, Lê MG, Guinebretière JM, Dunant A, Rochard F, Tursz T. Late local recurrences in a randomised trial comparing conservative treatment with total mastectomy in early breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:1617–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Whelan T. Use of conventional radiation therapy as part of breast-conserving treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1718–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Morrow M, Strom EA, Bassett LW, et al. Standard for breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast carcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:277–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. Kreike B, Hart AAM, Van de Velde T, et al. Continuing risk of ipsilateral breast relapse after breast-conserving therapy at long term follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71: 1014–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ, Jeffrey S, Carlson RW, Stockdale FE, Goffinet DR. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long term results of breast conservation. Cancer. 1995;76:259–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, Malcarne V, Beitsch PD, Ollila DW. Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:608–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Freedman G, Fowble B, Hanlon A, et al. Patients with early stage invasive cancer with close or positive margins treated with conservative surgery and radiation have an increased risk of breast recurrence that is delayed by adjuvant systemic therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44:1005–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta A, Subhas G, Dubay L, et al. Review of re-excision for narrow or positive margins of invasive and intraductal carcinoma. Am Surg. 2010;76:731–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Coopey S, Smith BL, Hanson S, et al. The safety of multiple re-excisions after lumpectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3797–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smitt MC, Horst K. Association of clinical and pathologic variables with lumpectomy surgical margin status after preoperative diagnosis or excisional biopsy of invasive cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1040–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sabel MS, Rogers K, Griffith K, et al. Residual disease after re-excision lumpectomy for close margins. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:99–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schiller DE, Le LW, Cho CJ, Youngson BJ, McCready DR. Factors associated with negative margins of lumpectomy specimen: potential use in selecting patients for intraoperative radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:833–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1297–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, Windle I, et al. Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2542–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dillon MF, Hill ADK, Quinn CM, McDermott EW, O’Higgins N. A pathologic assessment of adequate margin status in breast conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:333–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sanchez C, Brem RF, McSwain AP, Rapelyea JA, Torrente J, Teal CB. Factors associated with re-excision in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am Surg. 2010;76:331–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kirstein LJ, Rafferty E, Specht MC, et al. Outcomes of multiple wire localization for larger breast cancers: when can mastectomy be avoided? J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:342–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Burkholder HC, Witherspoon LE, Burns RP, Horn JS, Biderman MD. Breast surgery techniques: preoperative bracketing wire localization by surgeons. Am Surg. 2007;73:574–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jakub JW, Gray RJ, Degnim AC, Boughey JC, Gardner M, Cox CE. Current status of radioactive seed for localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2010;199:522–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gray RJ, Salud C, Nguyen K, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:711–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lovrics PJ, Goldsmith CH, Hodgson N, et al. A multicentered, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3407–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jacobson AF, Asad J, Boolbol SK, Osborne MP, Boachie-Adjei K, Feldman SM. Do additional shaved margins at the time of lumpectomy eliminate the need for re-excision? Am J Surg. 2008;196:556–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Keskek M, Kothari M, Ardehali B, Betambeau N, Nasiri N, Gui GPH. Factors predisposing to cavity margin positivity following conservation surgery for breast cancer. EJSO. 2004;30:1058–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cao D, Lin C, Woo S, Vang R, Tsangaris TN, Argani P. Separate cavity margin sampling at the time of initial breast lumpectomy significantly reduces the need for re-excisions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1625–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hequet D, Bricou A, Delpech Y, Barranger E. Surgical management modifications following systematic additional shaving of cavity margins in breast conservation treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:114–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rizzo M, Iyengar R, Gabram SGA, et al. The effects of additional tumor cavity sampling at the time of breast-conserving surgery on final margin status, volume of resection, and pathologist workload. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:228–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Huston TL, Pigalarga R, Osborne MP, Tousimis E. The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;192:509–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Patel RR, Li T, Ross EA, Sesa L, Sigurdson ER, Bleicher RJ. The effect of simultaneous peripheral excision in breast conservation upon margin status. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2933–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kobbermann A, Unzeitig A, Xie XJ, et al. Impact of routine cavity shave margins on breast cancer re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1349–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mook J, Klein R, Kobberman A, et al. Volume of excision and cosmesis with routine cavity shave margins technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:886–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Coopey SB, Buckley JM, Smith BL, Hughes KS, Gadd MA, Specht MC. Lumpectomy cavity shaved margins do not impact re-excision rates in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3036–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dooley WC, Parker J. Understanding the mechanisms creating false positive lumpectomy margins. Am J Surg. 2005;190:606–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Singh M, Singh G, Hogan KT, Atkin KA, Schroen AT. The effect of intraoperative specimen inking on lumpectomy re-excision rates. World J Surg Oncol. 2010;8:4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schwartz GF, Goldberg BB, Rifkin MD, D’Orazio SE. Ultrasonography: an alternative to x-ray-guided needle localization of nonpalpable breast masses. Surgery. 1988;104:870–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Smith LF, Rubio IT, Henry-Tillman R, Korourian S, Klimberg VS. Intraoperative ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Am J Surg. 2000;180:419–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Ngo C, Pollet AG, Laperrelle J, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2485–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Olsha O, Shemesh D, Carmon M, et al. Resection margins in ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:447–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rahusen FD, Bremers AJA, Fabry HFJ, van Amerongen AHMT, Boom RPA, Meijer S. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:994–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Harlow SP, Krag DN, Ames SE, Weaver DL. Intraoperative ultrasound localization to guide surgical excision of nonpalpable breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189:241–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. James TA, Harlow S, Sheehey-Jones J, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1164–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Fisher CS, Al Mushawah F, Cyr AE, Gao F, Margenthaler JA. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy for palpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3198–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Graham RA, Homer MJ, Sigler CJ, et al. The efficacy of specimen radiography in evaluating the surgical margins of impalpable breast carcinoma. AJR. 1994;162:33–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Lee CH, Carter D. Detecting residual tumor after excisional biopsy of impalpable breast carcinoma: efficacy of comparing preoperative mammograms with radiographs of the biopsy specimen. AJR. 1995;164:81–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Layfield DM, May DJ, Cutress RI, et al. The effect of introducing an in-theatre intra-operative specimen radiography (iosr) system on the management of palpable breast cancer within a single unit. Breast. 2012;21:459–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. McCormick JT, Keleher AJ, Tikhomirov VB, Budway RJ, Caushaj PF. Analysis of the use of specimen mammography in breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2004;188:433–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ritman EL. Current status of developments and applications of micro-CT. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2011;13:531–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Gufler H, Franke FE, Wagner S, et al. Fine structure of breast tissue on micro-computed tomography: a feasibility study. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:230–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Tang R, Coopey SB, Buckley JM, et al. A pilot study evaluating shaved cavity margins with micro-CT tomography – a novel method for predicting lumpectomy margin status intra-operatively. Breast J. 2013. [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  56. Saksena M A, Tang R, Buckley J., et al. Micro-computed tomography of breast lumpectomy specimens: comparison with conventional specimen radiograph for margin assessment. Radiological Society of North America meeting abstracts, Dec 2012, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Karni T, Pappo I, Sandbank J, et al. A device for real-time, intraoperative margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2007;194:467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Allweis TM, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of a real-time, intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2008;196:483–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Thill M, Roder K, Diedrich K, Dittmer C. Intraoperative assessment of surgical margins during breast conserving surgery of ductal carcinoma in situ by use of radiofrequency spectroscopy. Breast. 2011;20:579–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Esbona K, Li Z, Wilke LG. Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3236–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Pleijhuis RG, Graafland M, de Vries J, Bart J, de Jong JS, van Dam GM. Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2717–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Riedl O, Fitzal F, Mader N, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis for breast-conserving therapy in 1016 patients with breast cancer. EJSO. 2009;35:264–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Osborn JB, Keeney GL, Jakub JW, Degnim AC, Boughey JC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3204–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Fukamachi K, Ishida T, Usami S, et al. Total-circumference intraoperative frozen section analysis reduces margin-positive rate in breast-conservation surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40:513–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Klimberg VS, Westbrook KC, Korourian S. Use of touch preps for diagnosis and evaluation of surgical margins in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5(220):226.

    Google Scholar 

  66. D’Halluin F, Tas P, Rouquette S, et al. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology following lumpectomy for breast cancer: a series of 400 procedures. Breast. 2009;18:248–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Valdes EK, Boolbol SK, Ali I, Feldman SM, Cohen JM. Intraoperative touch preparation cytology for margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery: does it work for lobular carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2940–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Coopey SB, Smith BL, Hanson S, et al. The safety of multiple re-excisions after lumpectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3797–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Cellini C, Huston TL, Martins D, et al. Multiple re-excisions versus mastectomy in patients with persistent residual disease following breast conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2005;189:662–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. O’Sullivan MJ, Li T, Freedman G, Morrow M. The effect of multiple re-excisions on the risk of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3133–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Suzanne B. Coopey

Authors
  1. Suzanne B. Coopey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne B. Coopey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Missouri-Columbia Dept. Veterinary Pathobiology, Columbia, Missouri, USA

    Heide Schatten

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coopey, S.B. (2013). Re-excision After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer. In: Schatten, H. (eds) Cell and Molecular Biology of Breast Cancer. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-634-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation