Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 632–637 | Cite as

Influence of the SSO/ASTRO Margin Reexcision Guidelines on Costs Associated with Breast-Conserving Surgery

  • C. R. BaliskiEmail author
  • R. E. Pataky
Health Services Research and Global Oncology



The reported reexcision rates vary significantly for patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). This variability is a function of both the positive pathologic margin rate and the interpretation of an adequate pathologic margin. The influence of the SSO/ASTRO margin guidelines on reexcision rates and the potential cost savings is of interest from both quality and health economics perspectives.


A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing BCS during a 3-year period (January 1, 2010–December 31, 2012) was performed. The reexcision rate and the pathologic margin status were assessed to determine the number of patients with pathologic negative margins who underwent reexcision. A decision analysis using previously published case costing information was used to determine the potential savings associated with avoidance of reoperation for patients meeting guidelines criteria.


The analysis included 512 patients who underwent attempted BCS for invasive breast cancer. Reoperations occurred for 25% (126/512) of the BCS cohort, but this rate could potentially be decreased to 16% (44/512) if these guidelines were applied. Based on our cost model, application of the guidelines would provide a potential cost savings of $698 (95% confidence interval $523–$893) per patient undergoing attempted BCS in our population.


Adherence to the SSO-ASTRO guidelines could prevent one-third of reoperations among patients undergoing BCS. This would result in significant cost savings to the health care system while avoiding unnecessary operations. Use of guidelines has the potential to improve the quality of care provided to patients.


Invasive Breast Cancer British Columbia Negative Margin Potential Cost Saving Case Cost 
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 thank Ms. Lauren Hughes, Student Intern-PREDICT at the BC Cancer Agency’s Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, for her statistical support. Funding for her work has been provided through the BC Cancer Foundation. The Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control is Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (Grant #2015-703549).


  1. 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 the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152 .CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xue DQ, Qian C, Yang L, Wang XF. Risk factors for surgical-site infections after breast surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:375–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.02.179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olsen MA, Nickel KB, Margenthaler JA, et al. Increased risk of surgical-site infection among breast-conserving surgery re-excisions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2003–9. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4200-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pataky R, Baliski C. Reoperation costs in attempted breast-conserving surgery: a decision analysis. Curr Oncol. 2016;23(5): 314–321.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;19:3236–45. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2492-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;17:558–63. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0765-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeSnyder SM, Hunt KK, Smith BD, Moran MS, Klimberg S, Lucci A. Assessment of practice patterns following publication of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3250–6. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4666-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;21:717–30. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3480-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1507–15. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.3935.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunt KK, Sahin AA. Too much, too little, or just right? Tumor margins in women undergoing breast-conserving surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1401–6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8388.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patten CR. Changes in margin re-excision rates: a single-institution study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:49.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pink GH, Bolley HB. Physicians in health care management: 3. Case mix groups and resource intensity weights: an overview for physicians. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 1994;150:889–94.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 326-0021: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Annual, Health Care. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, 2013.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hughes L, Hamm J, McGahan C, Baliski C. Surgeon volume, patient age, and tumor-related factors influence the need for re-excision after breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5602-8.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Camargo Cancela M, Comber H, Sharp L. Hospital and surgeon caseload are associated with risk of reoperation following breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:535–44. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2652-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, et al. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the national cancer data base, 2004–2010. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(12):1296–1305. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.926 .CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Saunders CM, Hall SE, Holman CD. Subsequent surgery after initial breast-conserving surgery: a population-based study. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75:260–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03352.x .CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4505.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information. Breast Cancer Surgery in Canada, 2007–2008 to 2009–2010. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CIHI; 2012. p. 47. Retrieved 30 August 2015 at
  20. 20.
    Abedi N, Ho AL, Knox A, et al. Predictors of mastectomy flap necrosis in patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction: a review of 718 patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2014. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000262.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, et al. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: the American society of breast surgeons consensus conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3174–83. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4759-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birkmeyer JD, Reames BN, McCulloch P, Carr AJ, Campbell WB, Wennberg JE. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet. 2013;382:1121–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61215-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reames BN, Shubeck SP, Birkmeyer JD. Strategies for reducing regional variation in the use of surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2014;259:616–27. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwartz T, Degnim AC, Landercasper J. Should re-excision lumpectomy rates be a quality measure in breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3180–3. doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3206-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–75. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCahill LE, Privette A, James T, et al. Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg. 2009;144:455–62; discussion 462–3. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.56.
  27. 27.
    Landercasper J, Whitacre E, Degnim AC, Al-Hamadani M. Reasons for re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: insight from the American society of breast surgeons mastery (SM) database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3185–91. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3905-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thavorn K, Wang Z, Fergusson D, van Katwyk S, Arnaout A, Clemons M. Cost implications of unwarranted imaging for distant metastasis in women with early-stage breast cancer in Ontario. Curr Oncol. 2016;23(Suppl 1):S52–5. doi: 10.3747/co.23.2977.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Camp MS, Greenup RA, Taghian A, et al. Application of ACOSOG Z0011 criteria reduces perioperative costs. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:836–41. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2664-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abe SE, Hill JS, Han Y, et al. Margin re-excision and local recurrence in invasive breast cancer: a cost analysis using a decision tree model. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112:443–8. doi: 10.1002/jso.23990.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    The 6 Domains of Health Care Quality. Retrieved 27 March 2016 at
  32. 32.
    Roberts A, Baxter N, Camacho X, Lau C, Zhong T. Once is rarely enough: a population-based study of reoperations after postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3302–7. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4716-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology, Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern InteriorBC Cancer AgencyKelownaCanada
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlBC Cancer AgencyVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations