Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 13, pp 4247–4253 | Cite as

Positive Margins After Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer

  • Krishna B. CloughEmail author
  • Pedro F. Gouveia
  • Djazia Benyahi
  • Eleanore J. D. Massey
  • Elisabeth Russ
  • Isabelle Sarfati
  • Claude Nos
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Oncoplastic techniques applied to breast-conserving surgery (BCS) allow large-volume resections without compromising cosmetic results. Level II oncoplastic techniques are based on mammoplasties. When required, they allow resection of more than 20 % of the breast volume; however, a subgroup of these patients will still have positive margins. The clinical management of positive margins after level II oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is a challenge.

Methods

All patients who had undergone level II oncoplastic techniques at The Paris Breast Center between 2004 and 2013 were reviewed. The choice of the optimal mammoplasty technique was based on the tumor location and the ‘quadrant per quadrant atlas’.

Results

A total of 277 level II oncoplastic techniques were performed on 272 patients. The mean tumor size was 26 mm (range 2–160 mm), with a mean resected weight of 175 g (range 50–1540 g). The rate of positive margins was 11.9 %. Risk factors for positive margins identified in univariate analysis were histologic subgroup, tumor size, T stage and grade. In multivariate analysis, only patients with invasive lobular carcinoma had a significantly higher risk of positive margins. A second operation was required in 33 cases, and a third operation was required in three cases because of positive margins. Final breast conservation rate was 91 %.

Conclusions

Level II OPS results in a low positive margin rate despite large tumor size. Patients with involved margins can be offered a second BCS if the remaining volume allows this.

Keywords

Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Positive Margin Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Breast Volume Mastectomy Rate 
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.

Notes

Conflict of interest

Krishna Clough, Pedro F. Goueia, Eleanore J.D. Massey, Elisabeth Russ, Isabelle Sarfati, and Claude Nos have no conflicts of interest to declare that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Ethical Approval

The ethical requirements of the Paris Breast Center have been met.

Funding Sources

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, Legrand C, Sylvester RJ, Tong D, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(14):1143–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, 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(16):1233–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, 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(16):1227–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA, Sun P, Lickley HL, McCready DR, et al. The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J. 2006;12(4):331–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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(4):556–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Talsma AK, Reedijk AM, Damhuis RA, Westenend PJ, Vles WJ. Re-resection rates after breast-conserving surgery as a performance indicator: introduction of a case-mix model to allow comparison between Dutch hospitals. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(4):357–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, Lawrence G, Kearins O, Pereira J, 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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horst KC, Smitt MC, Goffinet DR, Carlson RW. Predictors of local recurrence after breast-conservation therapy. Clin Breast Cancer. 2005;5(6):425–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clough KB, Lewis JS, Couturaud B, Fitoussi A, Nos C, Falcou MC. Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg. 2003;237(1):26–34.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giacalone PL, Roger P, Dubon O, El Gareh N, Rihaoui S, Taourel P, et al. Comparative study of the accuracy of breast resection in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(2):605–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fitoussi AD, Berry MG, Fama F, Falcou MC, Curnier A, Couturaud B, et al. Oncoplastic breast surgery for cancer: analysis of 540 consecutive cases [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):454–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sakr RA, Poulet B, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Clough KB. Clear margins for invasive lobular carcinoma: a surgical challenge. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(4):350–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Buccimazza I, Sarfati IM. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(5):1375–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rietjens M, Urban CA, Rey PC, Mazzarol G, Maisonneuve P, Garusi C, et al. Long-term oncological results of breast conservative treatment with oncoplastic surgery. Breast. 2007;16(4):387–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clough KB, Ihrai T, Oden S, Kaufman G, Massey E, Nos C. Oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer based on tumour location and a quadrant-per-quadrant atlas. Br J Surg. 2012;99(10):1389–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Therapeutic mammaplasty: analysis of 50 consecutive cases. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58(7):902–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meretoja TJ, Svarvar C, Jahkola TA. Outcome of oncoplastic breast surgery in 90 prospective patients. Am J Surg. 2010;200(2):224–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chakravorty A, Shrestha AK, Sanmugalingam N, Rapisarda F, Roche N, Querci Della Rovere G, et al. How safe is oncoplastic breast conservation? Comparative analysis with standard breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(5):395–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaur N, Petit JY, Rietjens M, Maffini F, Luini A, Gatti G, et al. Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(7):539–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(2):145–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cellini C, Hollenbeck ST, Christos P, Martins D, Carson J, Kemper S, et al. Factors associated with residual breast cancer after re-excision for close or positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11(10):915–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gurdal SO, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, Ozcinar B, Yavuz E, Tuzlali S, et al. Positive or close margins in breast conserving surgery: is re-excision always necessary? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(5):399–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ryoo MC, Kagan AR, Wollin M, Tome MA, Tedeschi MA, Rao AR, et al. Prognostic factors for recurrence and cosmesis in 393 patients after radiation therapy for early mammary carcinoma. Radiology. 1989;172(2):555–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Veronesi U, Marubini E, Mariani L, Galimberti V, Luini A, Veronesi P, et al. Radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in small breast carcinoma: long-term results of a randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2001;12(7):997–1003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DiBiase SJ, Komarnicky LT, Heron DE, Schwartz GF, Mansfield CM. Influence of radiation dose on positive surgical margins in women undergoing breast conservation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(3):680–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McIntosh A, Freedman G, Eisenberg D, Anderson P. Recurrence rates and analysis of close or positive margins in patients treated without re-excision before radiation for breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2007;30(2):146–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krekel NM, Haloua MH, Lopes Cardozo AM, de Wit RH, Bosch AM, de Widt-Levert LM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(1):48–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krishna B. Clough
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pedro F. Gouveia
    • 1
  • Djazia Benyahi
    • 1
  • Eleanore J. D. Massey
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Russ
    • 1
  • Isabelle Sarfati
    • 1
  • Claude Nos
    • 1
  1. 1.L’Institut du Sein – Paris Breast CenterParisFrance

Personalised recommendations