Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jan;21(1):86-92.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3257-2. Epub 2013 Sep 18.

Impact of margin assessment method on positive margin rate and total volume excised

Affiliations

Impact of margin assessment method on positive margin rate and total volume excised

Tracy-Ann Moo et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Jan.

Abstract

Background: For breast-conserving surgery, the method of margin assessment that most frequently achieves negative margins without increasing the volume of tissue excised is uncertain. We examined our institutional experience with three different margin assessment methods used by six experienced breast surgeons.

Methods: Patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery for invasive carcinoma during July to December of a representative year during which each method was performed (perpendicular, 2003; tangential, 2004; cavity shave, 2011) were included. The effect of margin method on the positive margin rate at first excision and the total volume excised to achieve negative margins were evaluated by multivariable analysis, by surgeon, and by tumor size and presence of extensive intraductal component (EIC).

Results: A total of 555 patients were identified, as follows: perpendicular, 140; tangential, 124; and cavity shave, 291. The tangential method had a higher rate of positive margins at first excision than the perpendicular and cavity-shave methods (49, 15, 11 %, respectively; p < 0.0001). Median volumes to achieve negative margins were similar (55 ml perpendicular; 64 ml tangential; 62 ml cavity shave; p = 0.24). Four of six surgeons had the lowest rate of positive margins with the cavity-shave method, which was significant when compared to the tangential method (p < 0.0001) but not the perpendicular method (p = 0.37). The volume excised by the three methods varied by surgeon (p < 0.0001). The perpendicular method was optimal for T1 tumors without EIC; the cavity-shave method tended to be superior for T2-T3 tumors and/or EIC.

Conclusions: Although the cavity-shave method may decrease the rates of positive margins, its effect on volume is variable among surgeons and may result in an increase in the total volume excised for some surgeons and for small tumors without EIC.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST None.

Figures

FIG 1
FIG 1
Techniques of margin assessment. Perpendicular method—specimen is oriented intraoperatively with sutures on two surfaces: short superior and long lateral. The pathologist then inks the specimen with 6 different colors, and it is sectioned perpendicular to the long axis into 2–3 mm slices. The closest distance between tumor and ink is measured microscopically. Tangential method—specimen is oriented with 2 sutures intraoperatively. The entire specimen is inked in a single color, and 2–3 mm margins are tangentially shaved from each side by the pathologist. The shaved margin is examined microscopically; if tumor cells are present, the margin is reported as positive. Cavity-Shave method—primary specimen is removed, then an additional rim of tissue is shaved from the surgical cavity in each direction. Each additional margin is oriented with a suture. The surgeon-designated margin is inked by the pathologist and sectioned perpendicular to the long axis. The closest distance between tumor and ink is measured microscopically.
FIG 2
FIG 2
A comparison of methods of margin assessment, by surgeon. (A) Rate of positive margins on first excision; and (B) median total volume excised to achieve negative margins (ml).

References

    1. Showalter SL, Grover S, Sharma S, et al. Factors Influencing Surgical and Adjuvant Therapy in Stage I Breast Cancer: A SEER 18 Database Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 - PubMed
    1. Gage I, Schnitt SJ, Nixon AJ, et al. Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer. 1996;78(9):1921–8. - PubMed
    1. Holland PA, Gandhi A, Knox WF, et al. The importance of complete excision in the prevention of local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer. 1998;77(1):110–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Punglia RS, Morrow M, Winer EP, et al. Local therapy and survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(23):2399–405. - PubMed
    1. Kreike B, Hart AA, van de Velde T, et al. Continuing risk of ipsilateral breast relapse after breast-conserving therapy at long-term follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(4):1014–21. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources