Additional Cavity Shaving at the Time of Breast-Conserving Surgery Enhances Accuracy of Margin Status Examination.

Ann Surg Oncol

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, 2nd Division of General Surgery, Brescia Civic Hospital, Brescia, Italy.

Published: September 2016

Purpose: We addressed the impact of separate cavity margin excision (shaving) during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer on specimen volume, tumor margin clearance, re-excision rate, local recurrence and survival.

Methods: A retrospective case-matched study was performed on 298 women with stage 0-III breast cancer; 179 patients received shaving (shaving + lumpectomy group; SLG) and 119 patients did not (lumpectomy group; LG).

Results: The two groups had similar baseline characteristics. The median volume of surgical specimen was 131.9 cc in the SLG versus 134.8 cc in the LG (p = 0.81), and surgical margins were tumor-free in 90.7 % of cases in the LG versus 92.7 % in the SLG (87.1 % before shaving) (p = 0.69). The re-excision rate was 14.3 % in the LG versus 10.6 % in the SLG (p = 0.44). In the SLG, shaving spared 10 (5.6 %) patients from reoperation (positive lumpectomy margins but tumor-free shaving margins) (p = 0.11), and only 2/19 (10.5 %) patients in the SLG had tumor-free response at histological examination of re-excised margins compared with 10/17 (58.8 %) cases in the LG (p = 0.004). Tumor in shavings was found in 44/156 (28.2 %) patients having tumor-free lumpectomy margins. At multivariate analysis, distance of tumor from lumpectomy margins, tumor multifocality, receptor status, and tumor size were related to tumor persistence in shavings. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 23-35), and two patients had tumor relapse in the SLG versus none in the LG (p = 0.16). Overall survival was 100 % in both groups.

Conclusions: Shaving does not significantly decrease the re-excision rate but provides wider clear margins in most procedures. It ensures more accurate margin examination and decreases false-positive margin rate, without any increase in removed breast-tissue volume.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5210-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

re-excision rate
12
lumpectomy margins
12
breast-conserving surgery
8
breast cancer
8
slg versus
8
margins tumor-free
8
shaving
7
tumor
7
slg
7
margins
7

Similar Publications

Purpose: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) prevents compromise of breast aesthetics following large breast cancer excisions. This systematic review was conducted to investigate the outcomes (oncologic, surgical, cosmetic) of OBCS versus standard breast-conserving surgery (SBCS) and mastectomy post-neo-adjuvant systemic therapy.

Methods: Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is standard for early breast cancer, yet achieving clear surgical margins remains challenging. Ultrasound (US)-guided BCS has emerged as a potential alternative to wire-guided surgery, but its efficacy compared to traditional methods requires evaluation. Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing BCS from April 2022 to April 2023 at the Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO-Porto) was conducted.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This study aimed to identify factors influencing the completeness of primary and re-excision of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and cutaneous carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the head and neck. A retrospective single-center analysis was conducted, encompassing 1513 instances of cutaneous tumors recorded between 2015 and 2022. This dataset comprised 1108 primary excisions and 405 re-excisions, all of which were histologically verified cases of BCC, SCC, and CIS located within the head and neck region.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer: an Albertan perspective.

Can J Surg

November 2024

From the Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. (Ryan, Rajaee, Olson, Lesniak, Peiris); the Alberta Health Services Cross Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. (Ghosh); the Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. (Ghosh)

Background: Re-operation after breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer is variable among centres and individual surgeons. In this study, we aimed to characterize the current landscape of practice regarding re-operation for invasive breast cancer in the province of Alberta.

Methods: This study was a retrospective review of the Synoptec database for patients undergoing primary breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer or reoperation in the province of Alberta in the year 2020.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • Chest wall perforator flaps are gaining traction in breast cancer surgery as a less invasive alternative to mastectomy, but there’s still a lack of standardized practices regarding patient selection and outcomes.
  • This study analyzed data from 603 breast cancer patients across three major hospitals in Sweden, the UK, and Australia, focusing on the reasons for using these flaps and evaluating surgical outcomes.
  • Results showed a low complication rate (8.6%) and high effectiveness of the technique, suggesting that chest wall perforator flaps can safely help many women avoid mastectomy when performed by experienced surgeons.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!