Cavity Shaving Reduces Involved Margins and Reinterventions Without Increasing Costs in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Study
- 489 Downloads
Currently, reinterventions for involved margins after breast-conserving surgery remain common. The aim of this study was to assess the capability of the cavity shave margins (CSM) technique to reduce positive margin rates and reoperations compared with simple lumpectomy (SL). The impact of CSM on the various biological portraits of breast cancer and costs were also investigated.
A retrospective review of 976 consecutive patients from a single center was performed; 164 patients underwent SL and 812 received CSM. All patients were treated with an oncoplastic approach. and involved margins and reoperations were compared for each group. To avoid selection bias, propensity score-matched analysis was performed before applying a logistic regression model. Main outcomes were reanalyzed for each biological portrait, and surgery and hospitalization costs for SL and CSM were compared.
Clear margins were found in 98.3% of patients in the CSM group versus 74.4% of patients in the SL group (p < 0.001). The reoperation rate was 18.9% in the SL group and 1.9% in the CSM group (p < 0.001). After propensity score-matched logistic regression, odds ratio (OR) for positive final margin status was 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.85–13.46; p < 0.001) without CSM, while OR for reintervention was 5.46 (95% CI 2.21–13.46; p < 0.001). CSM significantly reduced positive margins and reexcisions for Luminal A, Luminal B, and triple-negative breast cancers (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.0137, respectively). SL had higher global costs compared with CSM: €193,630.6 versus €177,830 for 100 treated patients (p = 0.009).
CSM reduces reexcisions, mainly in luminal breast cancers, without increasing costs.
KeywordsPropensity Score Positive Margin Propensity Score Analysis Positive Margin Rate Reintervention Rate
No funding was provided for this study
Fabio Corsi, Luca Sorrentino, Matteo Bonzini, Daniela Bossi, Marta Truffi, Rosella Amadori, Manuela Nebuloni, Barbara Brillat, Serena Mazzucchelli report no competing interests and no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Buchholz TA, Somerfield MR, Griggs JJ, et al. Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1502–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.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(10):3174–83.Google Scholar
- 22.Jones V, Linebarger J, Perez S, et al. Excising additional margins at initial breast-conserving surgery (BCS) reduces the need for re-excision in a predominantly African American population: a report of a randomized prospective study in a public hospital. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:456–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar