J Korean Surg Soc.  2013 Mar;84(3):154-159.

Factors affecting surgical margin positivity in invasive ductal breast cancer patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery after preoperative core biopsy diagnosis

• Koca B
• Kuru B
• Yuruker S
• Gokgul B
• Ozen N

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of our study is to evaluate the factors affecting surgical margin positivity among patients with invasive ductal breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) after preoperative diagnostic core biopsy.
METHODS
Two hundred sixteen patients with stage I, II invasive ductal breast carcinoma who had histological diagnosis with preoperative tru-cut biopsy and underwent BCS were included in the present study. Potential factors that affect the positive surgical margin were analyzed. In univariate analysis, the comparisons of the factors affecting the surgical margin positivity were made by chi-square test. Logistic regression test was used to detect the independent factors affecting the surgical margin positivity.
RESULTS
Positive axillary lymph node (odds ratio [OR], 8.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.01 to 22.12), lymphovascular invasion (LVI; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.62 to 9.24), extensive intraductal component (EIC; OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 2.30 to 16.00), presence of spiculation (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 2.00 to 13.10) or presence of microcalcification in the mammography (OR, 13.7; 95% CI, 4.04 to 46.71) have been found to be the independent and adverse factors affecting surgical margin positivity.
CONCLUSION
Considering decision making for the extent of the excision and for achieving negative surgical margin before BCS, positive axillary lymph node, LVI, EIC, spiculation or microcalcification in mammography are related as predictor factors for positive surgical margin.

Keyword

Breast ductal carcinoma; Large-core needle biopsy; Segmental mastectomy

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle
Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Decision Making
Humans
Logistic Models
Lymph Nodes
Mammography
Mastectomy, Segmental

Reference

1. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. Consensus statement: treatment of early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1992. (11):1–5.

2. Klimberg VS, Harms S, Korourian S. Assessing margin status. Surg Oncol. 1999. 8:77–84.

3. Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002. 184:383–393.

4. Peterson ME, Schultz DJ, Reynolds C, Solin LJ. Outcomes in breast cancer patients relative to margin status after treatment with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999. 43:1029–1035.

5. White RR, Halperin TJ, Olson JA Jr, Soo MS, Bentley RC, Seigler HF. Impact of core-needle breast biopsy on the surgical management of mammographic abnormalities. Ann Surg. 2001. 233:769–777.

6. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008. 15:1297–1303.

7. Staradub VL, Rademaker AW, Morrow M. Factors influencing outcomes for breast conservation therapy of mammographically detected malignancies. J Am Coll Surg. 2003. 196:518–524.

8. Smitt MC, Horst K. Association of clinical and pathologic variables with lumpectomy surgical margin status after preoperative diagnosis or excisional biopsy of invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007. 14:1040–1044.

9. Sioshansi S, Ehdaivand S, Cramer C, Lomme MM, Price LL, Wazer DE. Triple negative breast cancer is associated with an increased risk of residual invasive carcinoma after lumpectomy. Cancer. 2012. 118:3893–3898.

10. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC cancer staging manual. 2010. 7th ed. New York: Springer.

11. 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. 17:558–563.

12. Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Garnett A, Chen V, Franic S, et al. Technical factors, surgeon case volume and positive margin rates after breast conservation surgery for early-stage breast cancer. Can J Surg. 2010. 53:305–312.

13. DiBiase SJ, Komarnicky LT, Schwartz GF, Xie Y, Mansfield CM. The number of positive margins influences the outcome of women treated with breast preservation for early stage breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1998. 82:2212–2220.

14. Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, Meric F, Buchholz TA, Esnaola N, Singletary SE, et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence among patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002. 9:256–265.

15. 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. 11:915–920.

16. Bani MR, Lux MP, Heusinger K, Wenkel E, Magener A, Schulz-Wendtland R, et al. Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009. 35:32–37.

17. Keskek M, Kothari M, Ardehali B, Betambeau N, Nasiri N, Gui GP. Factors predisposing to cavity margin positivity following conservation surgery for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004. 30:1058–1064.

18. Chagpar AB, Martin RC 2nd, Hagendoorn LJ, Chao C, McMasters KM. Lumpectomy margins are affected by tumor size and histologic subtype but not by biopsy technique. Am J Surg. 2004. 188:399–402.

19. Sabel MS, Rogers K, Griffith K, Jagsi R, Kleer CG, Diehl KA, et al. Residual disease after re-excision lumpectomy for close margins. J Surg Oncol. 2009. 99:99–103.

20. Dillon MF, Hill AD, Fleming FJ, O'Doherty A, Quinn CM, McDermott EW, et al. Identifying patients at risk of compromised margins following breast conservation for lobular carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2006. 191:201–205.

21. Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Sahin AA, Kuerer HM, Babiera GV, Singletary SE, et al. Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007. 14:1458–1471.

22. American College of Radiology. Practice guideline for the breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2007. 205:362–376.

23. Newman LA, Washington TA. New trends in breast conservation therapy. Surg Clin North Am. 2003. 83:841–883.

24. Smitt MC, Nowels K, Carlson RW, Jeffrey SS. Predictors of reexcision findings and recurrence after breast conservation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003. 57:979–985.

25. Park S, Park HS, Kim SI, Koo JS, Park BW, Lee KS. The impact of a focally positive resection margin on the local control in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011. 41:600–608.

26. Atalay C, Irkkan C. Predictive factors for residual disease in re-excision specimens after breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2012. 18:339–344.

27. Ramanah R, Pivot X, Sautiere JL, Maillet R, Riethmuller D. Predictors of re-excision for positive or close margins in breast-conservation therapy for pT1 tumors. Am J Surg. 2008. 195:770–774.

28. Walls J, Knox F, Baildam AD, Asbury DL, Mansel RE, Bundred NJ. Can preoperative factors predict for residual malignancy after breast biopsy for invasive cancer? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1995. 77:248–251.

29. Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, Windle I, Rose A, Mou A, Buchanan M, et al. Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008. 15:2542–2549.

30. Moore MM, Borossa G, Imbrie JZ, Fechner RE, Harvey JA, Slingluff CL Jr, et al. Association of infiltrating lobular carcinoma with positive surgical margins after breast-conservation therapy. Ann Surg. 2000. 231:877–882.