Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intraoperative Margin Management in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Breast surgeons have a wide variety of intraoperative techniques available to help achieve low rates for positive margins of excision, with variable levels of evidence.

Methods

A systematic review of the medical literature from 1995 to July 2016 was conducted, with 434 abstracts identified and evaluated. The analysis included 106 papers focused on intraoperative management of breast cancer margins and contained actionable data.

Results

Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy for palpable tumors, as an alternative to palpation guidance, can lower positive margin rates, but the effect when used as an alternative to wire localization (WL) for nonpalpable tumors is less certain. Localization techniques such as radioactive seed localization and radioguided occult lesion localization were found potentially to lower positive margin rates as alternatives to WL depending on baseline positive margin rates. Intraoperative pathologic methods including gross histology, frozen section analysis, and imprint cytology all have the potential to lower the rates of positive margins. Cavity-shave margins and the Marginprobe device both lower rates of positive margins, with some potential for negative cosmetic effects. Specimen radiography and multiple miscellaneous techniques did not affect positive margin rates or provided too little evidence for formation of a conclusion.

Conclusions

A systematic review of the literature showed evidence that several intraoperative techniques and actions can lower the rates of positive margins. These results are presented together with graded recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:704–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:305–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. St John ER, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2016;1–11. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001897.

  5. Moschetta M, Telegrafo M, Introna T, et al. Role of specimen US for predicting resection margin status in breast conserving therapy. Giornale Chir. 2015;36:201–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Scaranelo AM, Moshonov H, Escallon J. A prospective pilot study of analysis of surgical margins of breast cancers using high-resolution sonography. SpringerPlus. 2016;5:251.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chan BK, Wiseberg-Firtell JA, Jois RH, Jensen K, Audisio RA. Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of non-palpable breast lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;CD009206.

  8. Janssen NN, Nijkamp J, Alderliesten T, Loo CE, Rutgers EJ, Sonke JJ, et al. Radioactive seed localization in breast cancer treatment. Br J Surg. 2016;103:70–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Balch GC, Mithani SK, Simpson JF, Kelley MC. Accuracy of intraoperative gross examination of surgical margin status in women undergoing partial mastectomy for breast malignancy. Am Surg. 2005;71:22–7 (discussion 27–8).

  10. Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Sahin AA, et al. Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1458–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fleming FJ, Hill AD, Mc Dermott EW, O’Doherty A, O’Higgins NJ, Quinn CM. Intraoperative margin assessment and re-excision rate in breast-conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:233–237.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Singh M, Singh G, Hogan KT, Atkins KA, Schroen AT. The effect of intraoperative specimen inking on lumpectomy re-excision rates. World J Surg Oncol. 2010;8:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, Malcarne V, Beitsch PD, Ollila DW. Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:608–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Osborn JB, Keeney GL, Jakub JW, Degnim AC, Boughey JC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3204–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jorns JM, Daignault S, Sabel MS, Wu AJ. Is intraoperative frozen section analysis of re-excision specimens of value in preventing reoperation in breast-conserving therapy? Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;142:601–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ihrai T, Quaranta D, Fouche Y, et al. Intraoperative radiological margin assessment in breast-conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:449–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lange M, Reimer T, Hartmann S, Glass A, Stachs A. The role of specimen radiography in breast-conserving therapy of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast. 2016;26:73–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chagpar AB, Butler M, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Stavris K, Lannin DR. Does three-dimensional intraoperative specimen imaging reduce the need for re-excision in breast cancer patients? A prospective cohort study. Am J Surg. 2015;210:886–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Allweis TM, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of a real-time, intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2008;196:483–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Karni T, Pappo I, Sandbank J, et al. A device for real-time, intraoperative margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2007;194:467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schnabel F, Boolbol SK, Gittleman M, et al. A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1589–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Thill M, Dittmer C, Baumann K, Friedrichs K, Blohmer JU. MarginProbe(R): final results of the German post-market study in breast-conserving surgery of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast. 2014;23:94–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Blohmer JU, Tanko J, Kueper J, Gross J, Volker R, Machleidt A. MarginProbe(c) reduces the rate of re-excision following breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;294:361–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Agresti R, Trecate G, Ferraris C, et al. Ex vivo MRI evaluation of breast tumors: a novel tool for verifying resection of nonpalpable only MRI detected lesions. Breast J. 2013;19:659–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tang R, Saksena M, Coopey SB, et al. Intraoperative micro-computed tomography (micro-CT): a novel method for determination of primary tumour dimensions in breast cancer specimens. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hirose M, Kacher DF, Smith DN, Kaelin CM, Jolesz FA. Feasibility of MR imaging-guided breast lumpectomy for malignant tumors in a 0.5-T open-configuration MR imaging system. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:933–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tafra L, Fine R, Whitworth P, et al. Prospective randomized study comparing cryo-assisted and needle-wire localization of ultrasound-visible breast tumors. Am J Surg. 2006;192:462–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dauphine C, Reicher JJ, Reicher MA, Gondusky C, Khalkhali I, Kim M. A prospective clinical study to evaluate the safety and performance of wireless localization of nonpalpable breast lesions using radiofrequency identification technology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:W720–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cortes-Mateos MJ, Martin D, Sandoval S, et al. Automated microscopy to evaluate surgical specimens via touch prep in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:709–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Cuntz MC, Levine EA, O’Dorisio TM, et al. Intraoperative gamma detection of 125I-lanreotide in women with primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6:367–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fine RE, Schwalke MA, Pellicane JV, Attai DJ. A novel ultrasound-guided electrosurgical loop device for intraoperative excision of breast lesions; an improvement in surgical technique. Am J Surg. 2009;198:283–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Haka AS, Volynskaya Z, Gardecki JA, et al. In vivo margin assessment during partial mastectomy breast surgery using Raman spectroscopy. Cancer Res. 2006;66:3317–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Keller MD, Majumder SK, Kelley MC, Meszoely IM, Boulos FI, Olivares GM, et al. Autofluorescence and diffuse reflectance spectroscopy and spectral imaging for breast surgical margin analysis. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42:15–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Keller MD, Vargis E, de Matos Granja N, Wilson RH, Mycek MA, Kelley MC, et al. Development of a spatially offset Raman spectroscopy probe for breast tumor surgical margin evaluation. J Biomed Opt. 2011;16:077006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Martin DT, Sandoval S, Ta CN, et al. Quantitative automated image analysis system with automated debris filtering for the detection of breast carcinoma cells. Acta Cytologica. 2011;55:271–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Nguyen FT, Zysk AM, Chaney EJ, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of breast tumor margins with optical coherence tomography. Cancer Res. 2009;69:8790–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Blair SL, Wang-Rodriguez J, Cortes-Mateos MJ, et al. Enhanced touch preps improve the ease of interpretation of intraoperative breast cancer margins. Am Surg. 2007;73:973–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zysk AM, Chen K, Gabrielson E, et al. Intraoperative assessment of final margins with a handheld optical imaging probe during breast-conserving surgery may reduce the reoperation rate: results of a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3356–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Chang TP, Leff DR, Shousha S, et al. Imaging breast cancer morphology using probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy: towards a real-time intraoperative imaging tool for cavity scanning. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153:299–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Erickson-Bhatt SJ, Nolan RM, Shemonski ND, et al. Real-time imaging of the resection bed using a handheld probe to reduce incidence of microscopic positive margins in cancer surgery. Cancer Res. 2015;75:3706–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Losken A, Pinell-White X, Hart AM, Freitas AM, Carlson GW, Styblo TM. The oncoplastic reduction approach to breast-conservation therapy: benefits for margin control. Aesth Surg J. 2014;34:1185–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bamford R, Sutton R, McIntosh J. Therapeutic mammoplasty allows for clear surgical margins in large and multifocal tumours without delaying adjuvant therapy. Breast. 2015;24:171–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rubio IT, Landolfi S, Molla M, Cortes J, Xercavins J. Breast-conservative surgery followed by radiofrequency ablation of margins decreases the need for a second surgical procedure for close or positive margins. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14:346–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:553–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Varkey P, Reller MK, Resar RK. Basics of quality improvement in health care. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2007;82:735–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rahusen FD, Pijpers R, Van Diest PJ, Bleichrodt RP, Torrenga H, Meijer S. The implementation of the sentinel node biopsy as a routine procedure for patients with breast cancer. Surgery. 2000;128:6–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Krekel NM, Haloua MH, Lopes Cardozo AM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:48–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Moore MM, Whitney LA, Cerilli L, Imbrie JZ, Bunch M, Simpson VB, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for palpable infiltrating ductal breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233:761–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Davis KM, Hsu CH, Bouton ME, Wilhelmson KL, Komenaka IK. Intraoperative ultrasound can decrease the re-excision lumpectomy rate in patients with palpable breast cancers. Am Surg. 2011;77:720–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Olsha O, Shemesh D, Carmon M, Sibirsky O, Abu Dalo R, Rivkin L, et al. Resection margins in ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:447–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Eichler C, Hubbel A, Zarghooni V, Thomas A, Gluz O, Stoff-Khalili M, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound: improved resection rates in breast-conserving surgery. Anticancer Res. 2012;32:1051–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Barentsz MW, van Dalen T, Gobardhan PD, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for excision of nonpalpable invasive breast cancer: a hospital-based series and an overview of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135:209–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Harlow SP, Krag DN, Ames SE, Weaver DL. Intraoperative ultrasound localization to guide surgical excision of nonpalpable breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189:241–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. James TA, Harlow S, Sheehey-Jones J, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1164–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Morris OJ, Knight V, Logan D. Intraoperative ultrasound versus wire-guided localization in the surgical management of nonpalpable breast cancer. Breast Dis. 2014;34:157–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Eggemann H, Ignatov T, Costa SD, Ignatov A. Accuracy of ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery in the determination of adequate surgical margins. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:129–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gray RJ, Salud C, Nguyen K, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:711–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Lovrics PJ, Goldsmith CH, Hodgson N, et al. A multicentered, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3407–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ahmed M, Douek M. Radioactive seed localisation (RSL) in the treatment of nonpalpable breast cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2013;22:383–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Cox CE, Furman B, Stowell N, et al. Radioactive seed localization breast biopsy and lumpectomy: can specimen radiographs be eliminated? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1039–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Gobardhan PD, de Wall LL, van der Laan L, et al. The role of radioactive iodine-125 seed localization in breast-conserving therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:668–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Gray RJ, Pockaj BA, Karstaedt PJ, Roarke MC. Radioactive seed localization of nonpalpable breast lesions is better than wire localization. Am J Surg. 2004;188:377–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hughes JH, Mason MC, Gray RJ, et al. A multi-site validation trial of radioactive seed localization as an alternative to wire localization. Breast J. 2008;14:153–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Murphy JO, Moo TA, King TA, et al. Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4121–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Donker M, Drukker CA, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. Guiding breast-conserving surgery in patients after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer: a comparison of radioactive seed localization with the ROLL technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2569–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chiu JC, Ajmal S, Zhu X, Griffith E, Encarnacion T, Barr L. Radioactive seed localization of nonpalpable breast lesions in an academic comprehensive cancer program community hospital setting. Am Surg. 2014;80:675–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. van der Noordaa ME, Pengel KE, Groen E, et al. The use of radioactive iodine-125 seed localization in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: a comparison with the radioguided occult lesion localization with 99 m technetium. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:553–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Sharek D, Zuley ML, Zhang JY, Soran A, Ahrendt GM, Ganott MA. Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for lumpectomies: a comparison of outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:872–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Postma EL, Koffijberg H, Verkooijen HM, Witkamp AJ, van den Bosch MA, van Hillegersberg R. Cost effectiveness of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided localization (WGL) in breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2219–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Medina-Franco H, Abarca-Perez L, Garcia-Alvarez MN, Ulloa-Gomez JL, Romero-Trejo C, Sepulveda-Mendez J. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided lumpectomy for nonpalpable breast lesions: a randomized prospective evaluation. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:108–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Sajid MS, Parampalli U, Haider Z, Bonomi R. Comparison of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and wire localization for nonpalpable breast cancers: a meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:852–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Audisio RA, Nadeem R, Harris O, Desmond S, Thind R, Chagla LS. Radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) is available in the UK for impalpable breast lesions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005;87:92–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Belloni E, Canevari C, Panizza P, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: preoperative radiological guidance in radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL). Radiol Med. 2011;116:564–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Duarte GM, Cabello C, Torresan RZ, et al. Radioguided intraoperative margins evaluation (RIME): preliminary results of a new technique to aid breast cancer resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:1150–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Lavoue V, Nos C, Clough KB, et al. Simplified technique of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) plus sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNOLL) in breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2556–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Nadeem R, Chagla LS, Harris O, Desmond S, Thind R, Titterrell C, et al. Occult breast lesions: s comparison between radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) vs wire-guided lumpectomy (WGL). Breast. 2005;14:283–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Zgajnar J, Hocevar M, Frkovic-Grazio S, Hertl K, Schweiger E, Besic N. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) of the nonpalpable breast lesions. Neoplasma. 2004;51:385–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Takacs T, Paszt A, Simonka Z, et al. Radioguided occult lesion localisation versus wire-guided lumpectomy in the treatment of nonpalpable breast lesions. POR Pathol Oncol Res. 2013;19:267–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Esbona K, Li Z, Wilke LG. Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3236–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Camp ER, McAuliffe PF, Gilroy JS, Morris CG, Lind DS, Mendenhall NP, et al. Minimizing local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy using intraoperative shaved margins to determine pathologic tumor clearance. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:855–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G, et al. Therapeutic mammaplasties: Full local control of breast cancer in one surgical stage with frozen section. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:871–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Cendan JC, Coco D, Copeland EM III. Accuracy of intraoperative frozen section analysis of breast cancer lumpectomy-bed margins. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:194–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Chen K, Zeng Y, Jia H, et al. Clinical outcomes of breast-conserving surgery in patients using a modified method for cavity margin assessment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3386–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Noguchi M, Minami M, Earashi M, Taniya T, Miyazaki I, Mizukami Y, et al. Intraoperative histologic assessment of surgical margins and lymph node metastasis in breast-conserving surgery. J Surg Oncol. 1995;60:185–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Riedl O, Fitzal F, Mader N, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis for breast-conserving therapy in 1016 patients with breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:264–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Weber S, Storm FK, Stitt J, Mahvi DM. The role of frozen section analysis of margins during breast-conservation surgery. Cancer J Sci Am. 1997;3:273–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Cox CE, Hyacinthe M, Gonzalez RJ, et al. Cytologic evaluation of lumpectomy margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:644–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Creager AJ, Geisinger KR, Shiver SA, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes for metastatic breast carcinoma by imprint cytology. Mod Pathol. 2002;15:1140–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Mannell A. Breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients: a 12-year experience. S Afr J Surg. 2005;43:28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Valdes EK, Boolbol SK, Ali I, Feldman SM, Cohen JM. Intraoperative touch preparation cytology for margin assessment in breast-conservation surgery: does it work for lobular carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2940–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Boughey JC, Hieken TJ, Jakub JW, et al. Impact of analysis of frozen section margin on reoperation rates in women undergoing lumpectomy for breast cancer: evaluation of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Surgery. 2014;156:190–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity-shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:503–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Fukamachi K, Ishida T, Usami S, Takeda M, Watanabe M, Sasano H, et al. Total-circumference intraoperative frozen section analysis reduces margin-positive rate in breast-conservation surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40:513–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Janes SEJ, Stankhe M, Singh S, Isgar B. Systematic cavity shaves reduces close margins and re-excision rates in breast-conserving surgery. Breast. 2006;15:326–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Hequet D, Bricou A, Koual M, et al. Systematic cavity shaving: modifications of breast cancer management and long-term local recurrence: a multicentre study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:899–905.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Hewes JC, Imkampe A, Haji A, Bates T. Importance of routine cavity sampling in breast-conservation surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96:47–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 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;30:1058–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kobbermann A, Unzeitig A, Xie XJ, et al. Impact of routine cavity-shave margins on breast cancer re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1349–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Malik HZ, George WD, Mallon EA, Harnett AN, Macmillan RD, Purushotham AD. Margin assessment by cavity shaving after breast-conserving surgery: analysis and follow-up of 543 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1999;25:464–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Rizzo M, Iyengar R, Gabram SG, Park J, Birdsong G, Chandler KL, et al. The effects of additional tumor cavity sampling at the time of breast-conserving surgery on final margin status, volume of resection, and pathologist workload. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:228–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Tengher-Barna I, Hequet D, Reboul-Marty J, et al. Prevalence and predictive factors for the detection of carcinoma in cavity margin performed at the time of breast lumpectomy. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:299–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Pata G, Bartoli M, Bianchi A, Pasini M, Roncali S, Ragni F. Additional cavity shaving at the time of breast-conserving surgery enhances accuracy of margin status examination. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2802–08.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Richard J. Gray MD, Barbara A. Pockaj MD & Erin Garvey MD

  2. UCSD Department of Surgery, UCSD Cancer Center, Encinitas, USA

    Sarah Blair MD

Authors
  1. Richard J. Gray MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara A. Pockaj MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin Garvey MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah Blair MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard J. Gray MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gray, R.J., Pockaj, B.A., Garvey, E. et al. Intraoperative Margin Management in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Ann Surg Oncol 25, 18–27 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5756-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5756-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation