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
Review
. 2018 Apr 1;124(7):1335-1341.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.31221. Epub 2018 Jan 16.

Margins in breast cancer: How much is enough?

Affiliations
Review

Margins in breast cancer: How much is enough?

Melissa Pilewskie et al. Cancer. .

Abstract

The appropriate negative margin width for women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for both ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive carcinoma is controversial. This review examines the available data on the margin status for invasive breast cancer and DCIS, and highlights the similarities and differences in tumor biology and standard treatments that affect the local recurrence (LR) risk and, therefore, the optimal surgical margin. Consensus guidelines support a negative margin, defined as no ink on tumor, for invasive carcinoma treated with breast-conserving therapy. Because of differences in the growth pattern and utilization of systemic therapy, a margin of 2 mm has been found to minimize the LR risk for women with DCIS undergoing lumpectomy and radiation therapy (RT). Wider negative margins do not improve local control for DCIS or invasive carcinoma when they are treated with lumpectomy and RT. Re-excision for negative margins should be individualized, and the routine practice of performing additional surgery to obtain a wider negative margin is not supported by the literature. Cancer 2018;124:1335-41. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Keywords: breast cancer; breast-conserving therapy; local recurrence; margins; negative margins.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest information: The authors have no conflict of interest disclosures to report, and this manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Ink used to define the margin surface is seen at various distances from the tumor edge due to the irregular nature of the specimen surface and ink tracking through the breast fat, making reproducible measurement of margin width challenging (Photomicrograph courtesy of Stuart Schnitt, MD).

References

    1. Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1456–1461. - PubMed
    1. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, 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;347:1227–1232. - PubMed
    1. van Dongen JA, Bartelink H, Fentiman IS, et al. Factors influencing local relapse and survival and results of salvage treatment after breast-conserving therapy in operable breast cancer: EORTC trial 10801, breast conservation compared with mastectomy in TNM stage I and II breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1992;28A:801–805. - PubMed
    1. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:441–452. - PubMed
    1. Houghton J, George WD, Cuzick J, et al. Radiotherapy and tamoxifen in women with completely excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2003;362:95–102. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms