Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery: discussion of an open issue

  • Report
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hypothesis The best therapeutic approach to the involved or proximal surgical margins has not been defined yet; surgical margins status can influence the local relapse of disease in breast carcinoma, but the impact on overall survival has not been clearly demonstrated. Purpose of this work is to find in the available literature further evidence to guide the therapeutic behaviour in patients with close margins by invasive carcinoma. Design Review of the currently available literature on the evaluation of surgical margins in breast conserving surgery; influence of margin involvement by invasive component or intraductal component. Patients or other participants Literature research by PubMed on the topics of breast carcinoma, conservative surgery and margin definition and status; therapeutic approach to involved margins. Main outcome measure We reviewed the available literature focusing our attention to the definition of clear surgical margins and to the value of the close proximity of margins in relation to the local control of disease and the best therapeutic management of different situations. Results Further evidence is needed on large numbers of patients to understand how to evaluate surgical margins in invasive breast carcinoma. Conclusions There is no consensus on the definition of “clear surgical margins”, and the ideal approach to the close proximity of margins has not been defined. It is not sure whether a new surgical procedure is really needed in every case of close proximity of tumor cells to the margins. Radiation therapy could be a good option in the management of these cases, but further evidence is needed to establish the real impact of clear surgical margins on local control of disease and, furthermore, on survival.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N et al (1998) Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer. Findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol 16:441–452

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher ER, Dignam J, Tan-Chiu E et al (1999) Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP): eight-year update of protocol B-17. Cancer 86:429–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher ER, Costantino J, Fisher B et al (1995) Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) protocol B-17. Cancer 75:1310–1319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ikeda T, Akiyama F, Hiraoka M et al (1999) Surgical margin status as a cause of local failure after breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer 6:93–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gage I, Schnitt SJ, Nixon AJ et al (1996) Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 9:1921–1928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anscher MS, Jones P, Prosnitz LR et al (1993) Local failure and margin status in early stage breast carcinoma treated with conservation surgery and radiation therapy. Ann Surg 218:22–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tafra L, Guenter J, Giuliano A (1993) Planeed segmentectomy: a necessity for breast carcinoma. Arch Surg 128:1014–1020

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A et al (2000) 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 8:1668–1675

    Google Scholar 

  9. Freedman G, Fowble B, Hanlon A et al (1999) 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 44:1005–1015

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wazer DE, DiPetrillo T, Schmidt-Ulrich RK, Weld L et al (1992) Factors influencing cosmetic outcome and complication risk after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 10:356–363

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ et al (1995) The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long-term results of breast conservation. Cancer 76:259–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Papa MZ, Zippel D, Koller M et al (1999) Positive margins of breast biopsy : is reexcision always necessary? J Surg Oncol 70:167–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Peterson ME, Schultz DJ, Reynolds C et al (1999) Outcome 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 43:1029–1035

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schnitt SJ, Abner A, Gelman R et al (1994) 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 74:1746–1751

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pittinger TP, Maronian NC, Poulter CA et al (1994) Importance of margin status in outcome of breast-conserving surgery for carcinoma. Surgery 116:605–609

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vicini FA, Kestin LL, Goldstein NS et al (2001) Relationship between excision volume, margin status, and tumor size with the development of local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol 76:245–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wazer DE, Schmidt- Ullrich RK, Schmid CH et al (1997) The value of breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor burden. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38:291–299

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Park CC, Mitsumori M, Reacht A et al (1998) The relationship between pathologic margin status and outcome after breast-conserving therapy (Abstr). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 42:125

    Google Scholar 

  19. Solin LJ, Fowble BL, Schultz DJ et al (1991) The significance of the pathology margins of the tumor excision on the outcome of patients treated with definitive irradiation for early stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:279–287

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Neuschatz AC, DiPetrillo T, Steinhoff M et al (2002) The value of breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor burden in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 94:1917–1924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Swanson GP, Rynearson K, Symmonds R (2002) Significance of margins of excision on breast cancer recurrence. Am J Clin Oncol (CCT) 5:438–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sauter ER, Hoffman JP, Ottery FD et al (1994) Is frozen section analysis of reexcision lumpectomy margins worthwhile? Margin analysis in breast reexcisions. Cancer 73:2607–2612

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wazer DE, Schmidt-Ulrich RK, Ruthazer R et al (1998) Factors determining outcome for breast-conserving irradiation with margin-directed dose escalation to the tumor bed. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40:851–858

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Spivack B, Khanna MM, Tafra L et al (1994) Margins status and local recurrence after breast conserving surgery. Arch Surg 129:952–956

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sneige N, Mc Neese, Atkinson EN et al (1995) Ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy and irradiation: histopathological analysis of 49 specimens with emphasis on risk factors and long term results. Hum Pathol 26:642–649

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. DiBiase SJ, Komarnicky LT, Heron DE et al (2002) Influence of radiation dose on positive surgical margins in women undergoing breast conservation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 3:680–686

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Silverstein MJ, Waisman JR, Gamagami P et al (1990) Intraductal carcinoma of the breast (208 cases): clinical factors influencing treatment choice. Cancer 66:102–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Solin LJ, Kurtz J, Fourquet A et al (1996) Fifteen-year results of breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol 14:754–763

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Silverstein MJ, Cohlan BF, Gierson ED et al (1992) Duct carcinoma in situ: 227 cases without microinvasion. Eur J Cancer 28:630–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Schwartz GF, Solin LJ, Olivotto IA et al (2000) Consensus conference on the treatment of in situ ductal carcinoma of the breast, April 22–25, 1999. Cancer 88:946–954

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Zee KJ, Liberman L, Samli B et al (1999) Long term follow-up of women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery: the effect of age. Cancer 86:1757–1767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Solin LJ, Yeh I, Kurtz J et al (1993) Ductal carcinoma in situ (intraductal carcinoma) of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive irradiation. Cancer 71:2532–2542

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Veronesi U, Marubini E, Mariani L, Galimberti V, Luini A, Veronesi P, Salvadori B, Zucali R (2001) Radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in small breast carcinoma: long-term results of a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 12(7):997–1003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ryoo MC, Kagan AR, Wollin M et al (1989) Prognostic factors for recurrence and cosmesis in 393 patients after radiation therapy for early mammary carcinoma. Radiology 172:555–559

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Heimann R, Powers C, Halpern HJ et al (1996) Breast preservation in stage I and II carcinoma of the breast. The university of Chicago experience. Cancer 78:1722–1730

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Julien JP, Bijker N, Fentiman IS et al (2000) Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomized phase III trial 10853. Lancet 355:528–533

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Kurtz JM (1992) Factors influencing the risk of local recurrence in the breast. Eur J Cancer 28:660–666

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Borger J, Kemperman H, Hart A et al (1994) Risk factors in breast conservation therapy. J Clin Oncol 12:653–660

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Darvishian F, Hajdu SI, DeRisi DC (2003) Significance of linear extent of breast carcinoma at surgical margin. Ann Surg Oncol 1:48–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, Meric F et al (2002) Predictors of locoregional recurrence among patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 9:256–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ohsumi S, Takashima S, Saeki T, Aogi K (2002) Breast-conserving therapy of wide excision, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: the experience of the National Shikoku Cancer Center. Biomed Pharmacother 56:196–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshem S et al (1999) The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med 340:1455–1461

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Clarke DH, Le MG, Sarrazing D et al (1985) Analysis of local regional relapses in patients with early breast cancers treated by excision and radiotherapy: experience of the institute Gustave-Roussy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11:137–145

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dewar JA, Arriagada R, Benhamou S et al (1995) Local relapse and contralateral tumor rates in patients with breast cancer treated with conservative surgery and radiotherapy (Institut Gustave Roussy 1970–1982). Cancer 76:2260–2265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Forquet A, Campana F, Zafrani B et al (1989) Prognostic factors of breast recurrence in the conservative management of early breast cancer: a 25-years follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:719–725

    Google Scholar 

  47. Veronesi U, Salvadori B, Luini A, Greco M, Saccozzi R, del Vecchio M, Mariani L, Zurrida S, Rilke F (1995) Breast conservation is a safe method in patients with small cancer of the breast. Long-term results of three randomised trials on 1,973 patients. Eur J Cancer 31A(10):1574–1579

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Zurrida S, Costa A, Luini A et al (2001) The Veronesi quadrantectomy: an established procedure for the conservative treatment of early breast cancer. Int J Surg Investig 2(6):423–431

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Holland PA, Gandhi A, Knox WF, Wilson M, Baildam AD, Bundred NJ (1998) The importance of complete excision in the prevention of local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer 77:110–114

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Veronesi U, Volterrani F, Luini A et al (1990) Quadrantectomy versus lumpectomy for small size breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 26(6):671–673

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Wallgren A, Bonetti M, Gelber RD et al (2003) Risk factors for locoregional recurrence among breast cancer patients: results from International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials I through VII. J Clin Oncol 21:1205–1213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge Maria Grazia Villardita for the precious contribution to the entire development of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Senology Division, European Institute of Oncology, via Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy

    Alberto Luini, Joel Rososchansky, Giovanna Gatti, Stefano Zurrida, Pietro Caldarella & Gabriela Rosali dos Santos

  2. University of Milan School of Medicine, Milan, Italy

    Alberto Luini

  3. Unimast Clinic – Mastology and Plastic Surgery, Salvador, Brazil

    Joel Rososchansky

  4. Pathology Division, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    Giuseppe Viale

  5. University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Giuseppe Viale

  6. Pontificia Universita Cattolica, Rio Grande del Sud, Brazil

    Antonio Frasson

Authors
  1. Alberto Luini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joel Rososchansky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanna Gatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefano Zurrida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pietro Caldarella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giuseppe Viale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gabriela Rosali dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Antonio Frasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Luini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luini, A., Rososchansky, J., Gatti, G. et al. The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery: discussion of an open issue. Breast Cancer Res Treat 113, 397–402 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-9929-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-9929-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation