Involved margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer: Always to be re-excised?

BACKGROUND: The oncologic benefit of upfront re-excision of involved margins after breast-conserving surgery in the context of current multimodal clinical management of breast cancer is unclear. The aim of the present study was to assess the 5-years locoregional recurrence (LRR)-free and distant metastases (DM)-free survival probabilities in patients not undergoing re-excision of positive margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer. METHODS: A cohort of 104 patients with positive margins not undergoing re-excision was matched by propensity score with a cohort of 2006 control patients with clear margins after breast-conserving surgery, treated between 2008 and 2018. A multivariate survival analysis was performed accounting for all variables related to LRR and DM, including adjuvant treatments. RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounders, avoiding to re-excise a positive margin after lumpectomy had no effect on 5-years LRR-free survival probability (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.36-2.67, p = 0.96) or 5-years DM-free survival probability (HR 0.37, 95%CI 0.08-1.61, p = 0.18). No correlation was found between occurrence of LRR and number of involved margins (HR 1.28, 95%CI 0.10-12.4, Log-rank p = 0.83), or extension of infiltrating disease (HR 1.21, 95%CI 0.20-7.40, Log-rank p = 0.83), but a trend toward higher LRR probability was found for invasive ductal (HR 6.92, 95%CI 0.7-68.8, Log-rank p = 0.10) and invasive lobular cancer (HR 12.95, 95%CI 0.79-213.6, Log-rank p = 0.07) on positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of multimodal treatment of breast cancer and accurate strategies to reduce the probability of residual disease in the post-lumpectomy cavity, re-excision of positive margins might be omitted in selected patients with low-risk breast cancers.

Radio-guided and clip-guided preoperative localization for malignant microcalcifications offer similar performances in breast-conserving surgery.

Obtaining a tailored breast resection is challenging in microcalcifications detected on screening mammography, and an accurate localization is required. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of radio-guided localization (ROLL) versus ultrasound localization of a titanium clip with collagen (TCC) in terms of clear margins, re-intervention rates, excess of resected breast tissue, and operative times in pure malignant microcalcifications detected on screening mammography. Two hundred and twenty-one consecutive patients with malignant microcalcifications detected on screening mammography from a tertiary breast unit were reviewed: 177 patients were localized by TCC and 44 patients by stereotactic ROLL. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed, followed by a logistic regression model, to avoid selection bias. Adequacy of resection was expressed as the calculated resection ratio considering lesion size. No differences were found in clear margins with ROLL versus TCC (77.3% vs 81.8%, adjusted OR 2, P = 0.27). Re-operation rates were similar, being 11.3% with ROLL and 7.4% with TCC (P = 0.627). Mean resection volume was 46.2 cm3 with ROLL versus 54.2 cm3 with TCC (P = 0.222). Adjusted mean calculated resection ratio was 1.8 with ROLL and 2.1 with TCC (P = 0.38). Surgery time was longer with TCC compared to ROLL (69.6 vs 52.7 minutes, P < 0.0001). ROLL and TCC are equally effective to excise malignant microcalcifications with clear margins, providing similar re-intervention rates and resection volumes.

Radio-guided vs clip-guided localization of nonpalpable mass-like lesions of the breast from a screened population: A propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: An accurate localization is mandatory to tailor breast lumpectomy in nonpalpable cancers. The aim of this study was to compare radio-guided localization (ROLL) vs ultrasound localization of a titanium clip with collagen (TCC) in nonpalpable mass-like breast cancers. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-three consecutive patients were reviewed: 64 patients were localized by TCC and 209 patients by ROLL. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed. Margin status and reintervention rates were compared. Adequacy of resection was expressed as the calculated resection ratio (CRR) considering lesion size. Loco-regional and distant recurrence rates were assessed with ROLL vs TCC. RESULTS: No differences were found with ROLL vs TCC in clear margins (90.6% vs 89.1%; odds ratio, 0.74; P = 0.64) or reoperations (6.7% vs 1.6%; P = 0.529). ROLL allowed more tailored resections compared with TCC (adjusted CRR, 1.7 vs 2.7; P = 0.0008), particularly in lesions with associated extensive intraductal component (CRR, 3.0 vs 4.5; P = 0.017). Loco-regional recurrence occurred in 1.9% of ROLL patients vs 3.2% of TCC cases (P = 0.628). CONCLUSIONS: ROLL and TCC are equally effective to excise nonpalpable mass-like breast cancers with clear margins, providing similar loco-regional control. However, ROLL allows more tailored breast resections, particularly in lesions with the associated extensive intraductal component.