Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Margins and Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Changing Paradigms in the Management of Breast Cancer

  • 934 Accesses

Abstract

One of the key principles in breast surgical oncology is the need to excise normal tissue around a cancer that is removed, as it has been well-established that positive margins (i.e., having cancer cells at the edge of the resection) are associated with a higher rate of local recurrence. Over the past several years, there has been an evolution in what is considered an adequate margin, and a number of consensus statements have recently been published to add clarity to this area. Despite surgeons’ best efforts, roughly 20–40% of patients undergoing breast conserving surgery will have positive margins. Now, however, there are a plethora of techniques and technologies to aid surgeons in achieving a negative margin at the initial procedure, reducing the need for re-excision. While surgeons work to obtain clear margins, some argue that margins may lose some of their relevance in the contemporary setting where systemic therapy and radiation are almost universally employed in combatting cancer. This chapter reviews current progress and paradigms surrounding the issue of margins in breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Toth D, Varga Z, Sebo E, Torok M, Kovacs I. Predictive factors for positive margin and the surgical learning curve in non-palpable breast cancer after wire-guided localization – prospective study of 214 consecutive patients. Pathol Oncol Res: POR. 2016;22(1):209–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barentsz MW, Postma EL, van Dalen T, van den Bosch MA, Miao H, Gobardhan PD, et al. Prediction of positive resection margins in patients with non-palpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol: J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol. 2015;41(1):106–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(6):503–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Di Saverio S, Catena F, Santini D, Ansaloni L, Fogacci T, Mignani S, et al. 259 patients with DCIS of the breast applying USC/van Nuys prognostic index: a retrospective review with long term follow up. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;109(3):405–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines). Breast Cancer. 2016;1.2016.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, Houssami N, Chavez-MacGregor M, Harris JR, et al. Society of surgical oncology-American society for radiation oncology-American society of clinical oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;6:287–95.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, Lapin B, Liederbach E, Winchester DP, 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):1296–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, Feigelson HS, James TA, Barney T, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schulman AM, Mirrielees JA, Leverson G, Landercasper J, Greenberg C, Wilke LG. Reexcision surgery for breast cancer: an analysis of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) MasterySM database following the SSO-ASTRO “No Ink on Tumor” guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA, Storm RK, Plaisier PW, van Dalen T, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET – randomised controlled trial. Eur J cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 2011;47(6):879–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fancellu A, Turner RM, Dixon JM, Pinna A, Cottu P, Houssami N. Meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative breast MRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg. 2015;102(8):883–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chan BK, Wiseberg-Firtell JA, Jois RH, Jensen K, Audisio RA. Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of non-palpable breast lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;12:CD009206.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pan H, Wu N, Ding H, Ding Q, Dai J, Ling L, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e74028.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hisada T, Sawaki M, Ishiguro J, Adachi Y, Kotani H, Yoshimura A, et al. Impact of intraoperative specimen mammography on margins in breast-conserving surgery. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016;5(3):269–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. McCormick JT, Keleher AJ, Tikhomirov VB, Budway RJ, Caushaj PF. Analysis of the use of specimen mammography in breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2004;188(4):433–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chagpar AB, Butler M, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Stavris K, Lannin DR. Does three-dimensional intraoperative specimen imaging reduce the need for re-excision in breast cancer patients? A prospective cohort study. Am J Surg. 2015;210(5):886–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang R, Buckley JM, Fernandez L, Coopey S, Aftreth O, Michaelson J, et al. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT): a novel approach for intraoperative breast cancer specimen imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(2):311–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chagpar AB, Horowitz NR, Killelea BK, Tsangaris T, Longley P, Grizzle S, et al. Economic impact of routine cavity margins versus standard partial mastectomy in breast cancer patients: results of a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, Beitsch P, Bosserman L, Boughey J, 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Chagpar AB. Trial i. Cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2187–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thill M, Baumann K, Barinoff J. Intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conservative surgery – still in use? J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(1):15–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cody HS, 3rd, Van Zee KJ. Reexcision – the other breast cancer epidemic. N Engl J Med 2015;373(6):568–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):704–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Postma EL, Verkooijen HM, van Esser S, Hobbelink MG, van der Schelling GP, Koelemij R, et al. Efficacy of ‘radioguided occult lesion localisation’ (ROLL) versus ‘wire-guided localisation’ (WGL) in breast conserving surgery for non-palpable breast cancer: a randomised controlled multicentre trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(2):469–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Duarte C, Bastidas F, de los Reyes A, Martinez MC, Hurtado G, Gomez MC, et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing radioguided occult lesion localization with wire-guided lesion localization to evaluate their efficacy and accuracy in the localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Surgery. 2016;159(4):1140–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gray RJ, Salud C, Nguyen K, Dauway E, Friedland J, Berman C, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8(9):711–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rarick J, Kimler BF, Tawfik O. Comparison of margin status and lesional size between radioactive seed localized vs conventional wire localized breast lumpectomy specimens. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2016;21:47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bloomquist EV, Ajkay N, Patil S, Collett AE, Frazier TG, Barrio AV. A randomized prospective comparison of patient-assessed satisfaction and clinical outcomes with radioactive seed localization versus wire localization. Breast J. 2016;22(2):151–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sharek D, Zuley ML, Zhang JY, Soran A, Ahrendt GM, Ganott MA. Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for lumpectomies: a comparison of outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(4):872–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Murphy JO, Moo TA, King TA, Van Zee KJ, Villegas KA, Stempel M, et al. Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(13):4121–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Hughes JH, Mason MC, Gray RJ, McLaughlin SA, Degnim AC, Fulmer JT, et al. A multi-site validation trial of radioactive seed localization as an alternative to wire localization. Breast J. 2008;14(2):153–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van der Noordaa ME, Pengel KE, Groen E, van Werkhoven E, Rutgers EJ, Loo CE, et al. The use of radioactive iodine-125 seed localization in patients with non-palpable breast cancer: a comparison with the radioguided occult lesion localization with 99m technetium. Eur J Sur Oncol: J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol. 2015;41(4):553–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Donker M, Drukker CA, Valdes Olmos RA, Rutgers EJ, Loo CE, Sonke GS, et al. Guiding breast-conserving surgery in patients after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer: a comparison of radioactive seed localization with the ROLL technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(8):2569–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AH, Boom RP, Meijer S. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(10):994–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Eggemann H, Costa SD, Ignatov A. Ultrasound-guided versus wire-guided breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2016;16(1):e1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. James TA, Harlow S, Sheehey-Jones J, Hart M, Gaspari C, Stanley M, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1164–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Moore MM, Whitney LA, Cerilli L, Imbrie JZ, Bunch M, Simpson VB, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for palpable infiltrating ductal breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233(6):761–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Karanlik H, Ozgur I, Sahin D, Fayda M, Onder S, Yavuz E. Intraoperative ultrasound reduces the need for re-excision in breast-conserving surgery. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:321.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Fisher CS, Mushawah FA, Cyr AE, Gao F, Margenthaler JA. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy for palpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3198–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Davis KM, Hsu CH, Bouton ME, Wilhelmson KL, Komenaka IK. Intraoperative ultrasound can decrease the re-excision lumpectomy rate in patients with palpable breast cancers. Am Surg. 2011;77(6):720–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kobbermann A, Unzeitig A, Xie XJ, Yan J, Euhus D, Peng Y, et al. Impact of routine cavity shave margins on breast cancer re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(5):1349–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Marudanayagam R, Singhal R, Tanchel B, O'Connor B, Balasubramanian B, Paterson I. Effect of cavity shaving on reoperation rate following breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2008;14(6):570–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Unzeitig A, Kobbermann A, Xie XJ, Yan J, Euhus D, Peng Y, et al. Influence of surgical technique on mastectomy and reexcision rates in breast-conserving therapy for cancer. Int J Sur Oncol. 2012;2012:725121.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Janes SE, Stankhe M, Singh S, Isgar B. Systematic cavity shaves reduces close margins and re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery. Breast. 2006;15(3):326–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Huston TL, Pigalarga R, Osborne MP, Tousimis E. The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;192(4):509–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Osako T, Nishimura R, Nishiyama Y, Okumura Y, Tashima R, Nakano M, et al. Efficacy of intraoperative entire-circumferential frozen section analysis of lumpectomy margins during breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20(6):1093–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Cendan JC, Coco D, Copeland EM, 3rd. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-bed margins. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201(2):194–8.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jorns JM, Visscher D, Sabel M, Breslin T, Healy P, Daignaut S, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis of margins in breast conserving surgery significantly decreases reoperative rates: one-year experience at an ambulatory surgical center. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138(5):657–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Weber WP, Engelberger S, Viehl CT, Zanetti-Dallenbach R, Kuster S, Dirnhofer S, et al. Accuracy of frozen section analysis versus specimen radiography during breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable lesions. World J Surg. 2008;32(12):2599–606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. D’Halluin F, Tas P, Rouquette S, Bendavid C, Foucher F, Meshba H, et al. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology following lumpectomy for breast cancer: a series of 400 procedures. Breast. 2009;18(4):248–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Schnabel F, Boolbol SK, Gittleman M, Karni T, Tafra L, Feldman S, et al. A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(5):1589–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Sebastian M, Akbari S, Anglin B, Lin EH, Police AM. The impact of use of an intraoperative margin assessment device on re-excision rates. SpringerPlus. 2015;4:198.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Thill M, Dittmer C, Baumann K, Friedrichs K, Blohmer JU. MarginProbe(R) – final results of the German post-market study in breast conserving surgery of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast. 2014;23(1):94–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Allweis TM, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, Pappo I, Karni T, Schneebaum S, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of a real-time, intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):483–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, 20 York Street, North Pavilion, First Floor, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

    Anees B. Chagpar MD, MSc, MA, MPH, MBA

Authors
  1. Anees B. Chagpar MD, MSc, MA, MPH, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anees B. Chagpar MD, MSc, MA, MPH, MBA .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Associate Professor of Surgery, Director Breast Care Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Marissa Howard-McNatt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chagpar, A.B. (2018). Margins and Breast Cancer. In: Howard-McNatt, M. (eds) Changing Paradigms in the Management of Breast Cancer . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60336-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60336-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60335-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60336-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation