Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 1;88(3):553-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.11.012.

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.

Author information

1
Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
2
Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
3
Department of Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
4
Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
5
Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
6
Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
7
Department of Surgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
8
Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
9
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
10
School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
11
Advocate in Science, Susan G. Komen, Wichita, Kansas.
12
Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: morrowm@mskcc.org.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To convene a multidisciplinary panel of breast experts to examine the relationship between margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and develop a guideline for defining adequate margins in the setting of breast conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS:

A multidisciplinary consensus panel used a meta-analysis of margin width and IBTR from a systematic review of 33 studies including 28,162 patients as the primary evidence base for consensus.

RESULTS:

Positive margins (ink on invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ) are associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of IBTR compared with negative margins. This increased risk is not mitigated by favorable biology, endocrine therapy, or a radiation boost. More widely clear margins than no ink on tumor do not significantly decrease the rate of IBTR compared with no ink on tumor. There is no evidence that more widely clear margins reduce IBTR for young patients or for those with unfavorable biology, lobular cancers, or cancers with an extensive intraductal component.

CONCLUSIONS:

The use of no ink on tumor as the standard for an adequate margin in invasive cancer in the era of multidisciplinary therapy is associated with low rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs.

PMID:
24521674
PMCID:
PMC4790083
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.11.012
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center