A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND Routine resection of cavity shave margins (additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by partial mastectomy) may reduce the rates of positive margins (margins positive for tumor) and reexcision among patients undergoing partial mastectomy for breast cancer. METHODS In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, 235 patients with breast cancer of stage 0 to III who were undergoing partial mastectomy, with or without resection of selective margins, to have further cavity shave margins resected (shave group) or not to have further cavity shave margins resected (no-shave group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively after surgeons had completed standard partial mastectomy. Positive margins were defined as tumor touching the edge of the specimen that was removed in the case of invasive cancer and tumor that was within 1 mm of the edge of the specimen removed in the case of ductal carcinoma in situ. The rate of positive margins was the primary outcome measure; secondary outcome measures included cosmesis and the volume of tissue resected. RESULTS The median age of the patients was 61 years (range, 33 to 94). On final pathological testing, 54 patients (23%) had invasive cancer, 45 (19%) had ductal carcinoma in situ, and 125 (53%) had both; 11 patients had no further disease. The median size of the tumor in the greatest diameter was 1.1 cm (range, 0 to 6.5) in patients with invasive carcinoma and 1.0 cm (range, 0 to 9.3) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Groups were well matched at baseline with respect to demographic and clinicopathological characteristics. The rate of positive margins after partial mastectomy (before randomization) was similar in the shave group and the no-shave group (36% and 34%, respectively; P=0.69). After randomization, patients in the shave group had a significantly lower rate of positive margins than did those in the no-shave group (19% vs. 34%, P=0.01), as well as a lower rate of second surgery for margin clearance (10% vs. 21%, P=0.02). There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Cavity shaving halved the rates of positive margins and reexcision among patients with partial mastectomy. (Funded by the Yale Cancer Center; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01452399.).

[1]  P. Argani,et al.  Separate Cavity Margin Sampling at the Time of Initial Breast Lumpectomy Significantly Reduces the Need for Reexcisions , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[2]  M. Osborne,et al.  The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery. , 2006, American journal of surgery.

[3]  Xian-Jin Xie,et al.  Influence of Surgical Technique on Mastectomy and Reexcision Rates in Breast-Conserving Therapy for Cancer , 2012, International journal of surgical oncology.

[4]  Barbara L. Smith,et al.  Lumpectomy specimen margins are not reliable in predicting residual disease in breast conserving surgery. , 2015, American journal of surgery.

[5]  A. Jager,et al.  Overall survival in patients with a re-excision following breast conserving surgery compared to those without in a large population-based cohort. , 2015, European journal of cancer.

[6]  Yan Peng,et al.  Impact of Routine Cavity Shave Margins on Breast Cancer Re-excision Rates , 2011, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[7]  Jong-Hyeon Jeong,et al.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  R. Marudanayagam,et al.  Effect of Cavity Shaving on Reoperation Rate Following Breast‐Conserving Surgery , 2008, The breast journal.

[9]  Yu Shyr,et al.  Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. , 2015, JAMA surgery.

[10]  Yan Peng,et al.  Volume of Excision and Cosmesis with Routine Cavity Shave Margins Technique , 2012, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[11]  Seema A Khan,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. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  C. Bézu,et al.  Interest in cavity shaving in breast conservative treatment does not depend on lumpectomy technique. , 2011, Breast.

[13]  K. Boachie‐Adjei,et al.  Do additional shaved margins at the time of lumpectomy eliminate the need for re-excision? , 2008, American journal of surgery.

[14]  M. Ziol,et al.  Prevalence and predictive factors for the detection of carcinoma in cavity margin performed at the time of breast lumpectomy , 2009, Modern Pathology.

[15]  M. Ziol,et al.  Systematic cavity shaving: modifications of breast cancer management and long-term local recurrence, a multicentre study. , 2013, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[16]  N. Hong,et al.  In Search of a Gold Standard Scoring System for the Subjective Evaluation of Cosmetic Outcomes Following Breast‐Conserving Therapy , 2015, The breast journal.

[17]  Brittany Lapin,et al.  Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004-2010. , 2014, JAMA surgery.

[18]  H. Feigelson,et al.  Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. , 2012, JAMA.