Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 3185–3191 | Cite as

Reasons for Re-Excision After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer: Insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons MasterySM Database

  • Jeffrey LandercasperEmail author
  • Eric Whitacre
  • Amy C. Degnim
  • Mohammed Al-Hamadani
Breast Oncology



There is marked variability of re-excision rates after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer. Reasons for re-excision and variability across surgeons have not been well documented. We hypothesized the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) MasterySM Program can identify reasons for re-excision.


Data from January 1 to 7 November 2013 were evaluated in the ASBrS MasterySM Program to determine re-excision lumpectomy rate (RELR). On 1 June 2013, a tool to track reasons for re-excision was developed. Variation in re-excision rate by surgeon and patient characteristics was performed by Chi square test and Fisher’s test for univariate analysis, then logistic regression with backwards elimination method for multivariate analysis.


For 6,725 patients undergoing initial lumpectomy for cancer, 328 surgeons reported 1,451 (21.6 %) patients had one or more re-excisions. The most common reasons for re-excision were ink positive margins in 783 (49.7 %), margin <1 mm (34.3 %), and margin 1–2 mm (7.2 %). By multivariate analysis, re-excision rates were lower in patients aged less than 35 years, with White (non-) Hispanic ethnicity, and, among surgeons in solo practice, more years in practice and higher-volume practice.


Half of re-excisions after initial lumpectomy were performed for margins that are positive. Most of the remainder were for negative close (<1–2 mm) margins. This information corroborates surgeon survey data regarding reasons for re-excision and provides proof of concept the MasterySM Program can capture surgical outcome data in real time, providing opportunity and a method for future performance improvement.


Close Margin Margin Assessment National Quality Forum Solo Practice Physician Quality Reporting System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors acknowledge the Gundersen Medical Foundation and the Norma J. Vinger Center for Breast Care endowment for statistical support, Choua Amee Vang for assistance in manuscript preparation, Ben and Margaret Schlosnagel for MasterySM technical support, and the entire administrative staff and executive officers of the American Society of Breast Surgeons for allowing access to the MasterySM registry for research.


Jeffrey Landercasper, Amy C. Degnim, and Mohammed Al-Hamadani have no disclosures to declare. Eric Whitacre is a speaker for and has received speaker fees from Myriad Genetics.


  1. 1.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines for breast cancer treatment. Accessed 5 Apr 2014.
  2. 2.
    Coopey S, Smith BL, Hanson S, Buckley J, Hughes KS, Gadd M, et al. The safety of multiple re-excisions after lumpectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(13):3797–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwartz T, Degnim AC, Landercasper J. Should re-excision lumpectomy rates be a quality measure in breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(10):3180–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Morrow M. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):717–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Dixon JM, Irwig L, Brennan ME, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:3219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, Kell MR. Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(10):1615–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, et al. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;345:e4505.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    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(10):2717–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Quality Forum. Measure evaluation importance criteria. Accessed 5 Apr 2014.
  12. 12.
    Hassett MJ, Hughes ME, Niland JC, et al. Selecting high priority quality measures for breast cancer quality improvement. Med Care. 2008;46(8):762–70.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morrow M, Katz SJ. The challenge of developing quality measures for breast cancer surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):509–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaufman CS, Landercasper J. Can we measure the quality of breast surgical care?. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3053–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17(2):558–63.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taghian A, Mohiuddin M, Jagsi R, Goldberg S, Ceilley E, Powell S. Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2005;241(4):629–39.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(5):608–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Quality Forum. Reoperations as a NQF-endorsed quality measure. Accessed 5 Apr 2014.
  19. 19.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Annual progress report to congress: national strategy for quality improvement in health care. 2013 Accessed 5 Apr 2014.
  20. 20.
    Clifford EJ, De Vol EB, Pockaj BA, Wilke LG, Boughey JC Early results from a novel quality outcomes program: the American Society Of Breast Surgeons’ Mastery of Breast Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(Suppl 3):233–41. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1263-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    American Society of Breast Surgeons MasterySM Program. Accessed 5 Apr 2014.
  22. 22.
    Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(13):2344–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berry LL Discovering the soul of service: the nine drivers of sustainable business success. New York: Free Press; 1999. P. 12–13.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Landercasper J, Tafra L. The relationship between quality and cost during the perioperative breast cancer episode of care. Breast. 2010;19(4):289–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health and cost. Health Aff. 2008;27(3):759–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eck DL, Koonce SL, Goldberg RF, Bagaria S, Gibson T, Bowers SP, et al. Breast surgery outcomes as quality measures according to the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3212-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brown JQ, Bydlon TM, Kennedy SA, et al. Optical spectral surveillance of breast tissue landscapes for detection of residual disease in breast tumor margins. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69906.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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(11):3204–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McGhan LJ, McKeever SC, Pockaj BA, Wasif N, Giurescu ME, Walton HA, et al. Radioactive seed localization for nonpalpable breast lesions: review of 1,000 consecutive procedures at a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3096–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moo TA, Choi L, Culpepper C, et al. Impact of margin assessment method on positive margin rate and total volume excised. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(1):86–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coopey SB, Buckely JM, Smith B, et al. Lumpectomy cavity shaved margins do not impact re-excision rates in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3036–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Persing S, James TA, Mace J, Goodwin A, Geller B. Variability in the quality of pathology reporting of margin status following breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3061–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith TJ, Landercasper J, Gundrum JD, et al. Perioperative quality metrics for one step surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(1):34–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    American Society of Breast Surgeons (2013). Position statement on breast cancer lumpectomy margins. Accessed 22 May 2013.
  36. 36.
    Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):704–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, et al. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(15):1434–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hu YY, Peyre SE, Arriaga AF, et al. Postgame analysis: using video-based coaching for continuous professional development. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(1):115–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey Landercasper
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Eric Whitacre
    • 3
  • Amy C. Degnim
    • 4
  • Mohammed Al-Hamadani
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryGundersen Health SystemLa CrosseUSA
  2. 2.Norma J. Vinger Center for Breast CareGundersen Health SystemLa CrosseUSA
  3. 3.Breast Center of Southern ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  5. 5.Department of Medical ResearchGundersen Health SystemLa CrosseUSA

Personalised recommendations