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
. 2020 Oct;26(10):1960-1965.
doi: 10.1111/tbj.14057. Epub 2020 Oct 19.

Impact of systematic cavity shave margins in breast-conserving surgery at a large community hospital with a low baseline re-excision rate

Christopher Vetter  1 , Aparna Ashok  1 , Marla Perez  2 , Salma Musaad  2 , Gelareh Rahimi  3 , Kavita Gohil  3 , Anna Higham  1
Affiliations

Impact of systematic cavity shave margins in breast-conserving surgery at a large community hospital with a low baseline re-excision rate

Christopher Vetter et al. Breast J. 2020 Oct.

Abstract

Systematic cavity shave margins (CSM) can decrease rate of positive margins and re-excision beyond that of selective CSM. The objective of this study was to determine whether systematic CSM decreased re-excision rate in a population with a low baseline re-excision rate. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) from November 2013 to November 2017. Primary end points were re-excision rate and margin status. Secondary end points were total volume of tissue excised, operative time, and concordance of core needle biopsy (CNB) pathology with final surgical pathology. The re-excision rates were 14.29% in the no shave margin group; 15.38% in the selective CSM; and 14.59% in the systematic CSM (P = .985). Odds of re-excision with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 5.04 times greater than with invasive cancer (INV) and 1.94 times higher than with INV and DCIS. There was no significant difference in positive margins between groups (P = .362). Mean specimen volume was lowest in the systematic CSM group (64.6 cm3 ), compared to no CSM and selective CSM (94.6 cm3 and 91.8 cm3 , respectively). With inclusion of shave margin volumes, total volume removed was not significantly different between no shave margin group (94.6 cm3 ) and systematic CSM (89.7 cm3 ) (P = .949). For patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) alone on their initial biopsy pathology, 69% were discovered to also have DCIS upon final pathology. Re-excision rate and specimen volume between all groups were not statistically different. There was a higher re-excision rate when DCIS was present, especially when not identified on CNB. As systematic CSM is most impactful when DCIS is involved, it is important to establish its presence for proper surgical planning.

Keywords: biopsy concordance; breast cancer; breast-conserving surgery; margin status; re-excision; systematic cavity shave margins.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

REFERENCES

    1. Wang K, Ren Y, He J. Cavity shaving plus lumpectomy versus lumpectomy alone for patients with breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0168705.
    1. Chagpar A, Killelea B, Tsangaris T, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast caancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:503-510.
    1. Jones V, Linebarger J, Perez S, Gabram S, et al. Excising additional margins at initial breast-conserving surgery (BCS) reduces the need for re-excision in a predominantly African American population: a report of a randomized prospective study in a public hospital. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:456-464.
    1. Gray R, Pockaj B, Garvey E, Blair S. Intraoperative margin management in breast-conserving surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:18-27.
    1. Kaczmarski K, Wang P, Gilmore R, Overton H, et al. Surgeon re-excision rates after breast conserving surgery: a measure of low-value care. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;228(4):504-512.e2.