Revisiting surgical margins for invasive breast cancer patients treated with breast conservation therapy - Evidence for adopting a 1 mm negative width
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Author
Rakha, Emad AQuinn, Cecily
Masannat, Yazan A
Lee, Andrew H. S.
Tan, Puay Hoon
Karakatsanis, Andreas
Matrai, Zoltan Tamas
Al Shaibani, Salman Husain M
Gehani, Salahddin A
Shaaban, Abeer
Khout, Hazem
Chagla, Leena
Cserni, Gábor
Varga, Zsuzsanna
Yong, Wong Fuh
Meattini, Icro
Kulka, Janina
Yang, Wentao
Tse, Gary M
Pinder, Sarah E
Fox, Stephen
Dixon, J Michael
Affiliation
University of Nottingham; Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust; Hamad Medical Corporation; St. Vincent's University Hospital; University College, Dublin; Mid & South Essex NHS Trust; Princess Grace Hospital; Royal Square Medical Centre; Uppsala University; University of Birmingham; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust; Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust; Bács-Kiskun County Teaching Hospital; University of Szeged; University Hospital Zurich; Singapore General Hospital; University of Florence, Florence; Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi; Semmelweis University; Shanghai Cancer Center; The Chinese University of Hong Kong; Guy's and St Thomas Hospitals; King's College London; University of Melbourne; Edinburgh University; Western General Hospital EdinburghPublication date
2024-08-03
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Clinical trials have demonstrated conclusively the non-inferiority of breast-conserving surgery followed by breast radiation therapy (BCT) compared with mastectomy for the treatment of early-stage invasive breast cancer (BC). The definition of the required surgical margin to ensure adequate removal of the cancer by BCT to obtain an acceptable low local recurrence (LR) rate remains controversial. Meta-analyses published by Houssami et al. in 2010 and 2014 demonstrated significantly lower LR rates for patients with a negative margin compared with those with positive (ink on tumour) or close (defined as ≤1 mm or ≤2 mm) margins. Neither meta-analysis addressed whether 'no ink on tumour' was adequate to define a negative margin because of a lack of data. Nevertheless, in 2014, the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) with advice from pathologists reviewed these data together and published guidelines recommending that a margin of 'no ink on tumour' was sufficient to define a clear margin in BCT. Subsequently, clinical practice has varied with some national and international bodies endorsing 'no ink on tumour', whilst others have recommended a ≥1 mm margin as acceptable margins for BCT. A more recent meta-analysis conducted by Bundred and colleagues in 2022 did have sufficient data to compare 'no ink on tumour' and 1 mm and concluded that 1 mm rather than 'no ink on tumour', should be used as a minimum negative margin, and recommended that international guidelines be revised. The current review presents a balanced assessment of the evidence relating margin width and local recurrence after BCT. This review concludes that guidelines should consider re-defining a negative margin as ≥1 mm rather than 'no ink on tumour' in the context of BCT, recognising there will be variation to tailor therapy for any individual patient situation to ensure optimal patient care.Citation
Rakha EA, Quinn C, Masannat YA, Lee AHS, Tan PH, Karakatsanis A, Matrai ZT, Al Shaibani SHM, Gehani SA, Shaaban A, Khout H, Chagla L, Cserni G, Varga Z, Yong WF, Meattini I, Kulka J, Yang W, Tse GM, Pinder SE, Fox S, Dixon JM. Revisiting surgical margins for invasive breast cancer patients treated with breast conservation therapy - Evidence for adopting a 1 mm negative width. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2024 Oct;50(10):108573. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108573. Epub 2024 Aug 3.Type
ArticleAdditional Links
https://www.ejso.com/PMID
39243583Publisher
Elsevierae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108573