Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 3856–3862 | Cite as

Was Reexcision Less Frequent for Patients with Lobular Breast Cancer After Publication of the SSO-ASTRO Margin Guidelines?

  • Anita Mamtani
  • Emily C. Zabor
  • Laura H. Rosenberger
  • Michelle Stempel
  • Mary L. Gemignani
  • Monica MorrowEmail author
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

The Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guidelines defined a negative margin for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) as no ink on tumor, and implementation has reduced rates of additional surgery for patients with invasive ductal cancer (IDC). The outcomes for invasive lobular cancer (ILC) patients are uncertain.

Methods

This study identified patients who had stage 1 or 2 ILC treated with BCS from January 2010 to February 2018. The guidelines were adopted 1 January 2014. Clinicopathologic characteristics, margin status, and reexcisions were compared before and after adoption of the guidelines and with those of IDC patients treated from May 2013 to February 2015.

Results

Among 745 early-stage ILC patients undergoing BCT, 312 (42%) were treated before the guidelines and 433 (58%) after the guidelines. Most clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between the two groups, with differences in lobular carcinoma in situ, lymphovascular invasion, and node-positivity rates. The overall rates of additional surgery declined significantly after the guidelines (31.4 to 23.1%; p = 0.01), but the difference did not reach significance for reexcisions (19.9 to 15.2%; p = 0.12) or conversions to mastectomy (11.5 to 7.9%; p = 0.099) individually. Between eras, no difference in incidence or number of tumor on ink or ≤ 2 mm margins was observed (all p = 0.2). Larger tumors, younger age, and pre-guideline era were independently associated with additional surgery. Only younger age was predictive of mastectomy. Among 431 pre-guideline and 601 post-guideline IDC patients, reexcisions declined from 21.3 to 14.8% (p = 0.008), and conversion to mastectomy was rare (0.6%). The magnitude of reduction in any additional surgery (interaction, p = 0.92) and reexcisions (interaction, p = 0.56) was similar between ILC and IDC.

Conclusions

Despite differences in growth pattern and conspicuity, guideline adoption significantly reduced additional surgery among ILC patients, with a magnitude of benefit similar to that among IDC patients.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The preparation of this study was funded in part by NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant No. P30 CA008748 to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Disclosure

Dr. Monica Morrow has received honoraria from Genomic Health and Roche. None of the remaining authors have conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Lobular breast carcinoma and its variants. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2010;27:49–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yeatman TJ, Cantor AB, Smith TJ, Smith SK, Reintgen DS, Miller MS, et al. Tumor biology of infiltrating lobular carcinoma: implications for management. Ann Surg. 1995;222:549–59; discussion 59–61.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Molland JG, Donnellan M, Janu NC, Carmalt HL, Kennedy CW, Gillett DJ. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma: a comparison of diagnosis, management, and outcome with infiltrating duct carcinoma. Breast. 2004;13:389–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moore MM, Borossa G, Imbrie JZ, Fechner RE, Harvey JA, Slingluff CL, et al. Association of infiltrating lobular carcinoma with positive surgical margins after breast-conservation therapy. Ann Surg. 2000;231:877–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;347:1233–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;347:1227–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fodor J, Major T, Toth J, Sulyok Z, Polgar C. Comparison of mastectomy with breast-conserving surgery in invasive lobular carcinoma: 15-year results. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2011;16:227–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mamtani A, King TA. Lobular breast cancer: different disease, different algorithms? Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 2018;27:81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, Harris JR, Khan SA, Horton J, 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. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:553–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosenberger LH, Mamtani A, Fuzesi S, Stempel M, Eaton A, Morrow M, Gemignani ML. Early adoption of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: initial experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3239–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morrow M, Abrahamse P, Hofer TP, Ward KC, Hamilton AS, Kurian AW, et al. Trends in reoperation after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer: addressing overtreatment in surgical management. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1352–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chung A, Gangi A, Amersi F, Bose S, Zhang X, Giuliano A. Impact of consensus guidelines by the Society of Surgical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology on margins for breast-conserving surgery in stages 1 and 2 invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S422–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhutiani N, Mercer MK, Bachman KC, Heidrich SR, Martin RCG, II, Scoggins CR, et al. Evaluating the effect of margin consensus guideline publication on operative patterns and financial impact of breast cancer operation. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227:6–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, Feigelson HS, James TA, Barney T, Engel JM, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, Griggs JJ, Hawley ST, Hamilton AS, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302:1551–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sanchez C, Brem RF, McSwain AP, Rapelyea JA, Torrente J, Teal CB. Factors associated with reexcision in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am Surg. 2010;76:331–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, Lapin B, Liederbach E, Winchester DP, Yao K. 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;149:1296–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santiago RJ, Harris EE, Qin L, Hwang WT, Solin LJ. Similar long-term results of breast-conservation treatment for stage I and II invasive lobular carcinoma compared with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer. 2005;103:2447–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fortunato L, Mascaro A, Poccia I, Andrich R, Amini M, Costarelli L, et al. Lobular breast cancer: same survival and local control compared with ductal cancer, but should both be treated the same way? Analysis of an institutional database over a 10-year period. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1107–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, Butler M, Stavris K, Li F, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity-shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:503–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mukhtar RA, Wong J, Piper M, Zhu Z, Fahrner-Scott K, Mamounas M, et al. Breast conservation and negative margins in invasive lobular carcinoma: the impact of oncoplastic surgery and shave margins in 358 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:3165–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Isaacs AJ, Gemignani ML, Pusic A, Sedrakyan A. Association of breast conservation surgery for cancer with 90-day reoperation rates in New York State. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:648–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Truin W, Roumen RM, Siesling S, van der Heiden-van der Loo M, Duijm LE, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Voogd AC. Patients with invasive lobular breast cancer are less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1471–8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biglia N, Maggiorotto F, Liberale V, Bounous VE, Sgro LG, Pecchio S, et al. Clinical-pathologic features, long term-outcome and surgical treatment in a large series of patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:455–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silberfein EJ, Hunt KK, Broglio K, Shen J, Sahin A, Le-Petross H, et al. Clinicopathologic factors associated with involved margins after breast-conserving surgery for invasive lobular carcinoma. Clin Breast Cancer. 2010;10:52–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anita Mamtani
    • 1
  • Emily C. Zabor
    • 2
  • Laura H. Rosenberger
    • 3
  • Michelle Stempel
    • 1
  • Mary L. Gemignani
    • 1
  • Monica Morrow
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Breast Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations