Real-world Referral Pattern of Unplanned Excision in Patients With Soft-tissue Sarcoma: A Multicenter Study Conducted by the Bone and Soft-tissue Tumor Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Despite the well-publicized clinical outcomes after unplanned excision (UE) and re-excision (re-excision) in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma (STS), there is little information about the real-life referral patterns for UE, such as patient profile, details of procedures, and subsequent management after UE. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients with UE who were referred to sarcoma-specific centers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2022 and June 2023, we registered 97 patients who underwent UE and were referred to sarcoma-specific centers in Japan. We excluded those with well-differentiated liposarcomas and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberances. We investigated the details of UE and additional treatment after UE. RESULTS: There were 49 men and 48 women, with a mean age of 62 years. A broad range of surgeons performed UE; 36 plastic surgeons, 22 orthopedic surgeons, 17 general surgeons, 17 dermatologists, and 5 others. The mean tumor size was 4.1 cm. Local anesthesia was administered to 58 patients. Forty-five patients underwent UE without prior magnetic resonance imaging. Inappropriate transverse skin incisions were performed in 42 patients. Of the 97 patients, 82 underwent re-excision after UE. The mean time between UE and date of initial presentation at the referral hospital was 46 days. The mean interval between UE and re-excision was 96 days. Of the 82 patients, 59 underwent soft-tissue reconstruction after re-excision. CONCLUSION: A broad range of surgeons performed UE. Continuous education about STS should be considered for all surgeons. UE should be avoided because residual tumors are common, and reconstructive surgery may be necessary.

Evaluating the Effect of MarginProbe® Use on Re-excisions After Partial Mastectomy: A Single-Institution Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast conservation therapy is a widely accepted approach in treating breast cancer, yet the average re-excision rates are approximately 25% despite surgical advancements. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved MarginProbe® device uses radiofrequency spectroscopy for intraoperative margin assessment, potentially reducing re-excision rates. This study evaluated the effectiveness of MarginProbe® in reducing re-excisions compared with standard of care (SOC). METHODS: A prospective cohort with MarginProbe® usage during partial mastectomies from June 2019 to July 2023 (153 patients) was compared with a retrospective control group without the device from January 2015 to May 2019 (300 patients). Both groups underwent partial mastectomies performed by two breast surgeons. Positive margins were defined as tumor on ink for invasive cancers and within 2 mm for ductal carcinoma in situ. RESULTS: When control was used for patient demographics and tumor characteristics, the findings showed that MarginProbe® significantly decreased the probability of re-excision by 58% (p < 0.001), although it led to a higher shave volume, with an average of 9.8 cc additional tissue removed compared with SOC (p < 0.001). Human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) positivity was significantly associated with increased odds of re-excision (p = 0.036). MarginProbe® demonstrated a sensitivity of 70.1% and a specificity of 47.5%. CONCLUSIONS: MarginProbe® is an effective adjunct for intraoperative margin assessment to decrease re-excision rates. However, patient selection is paramount. Given its significant increase in shave volume, women with small breasts may be at higher risk for poor cosmesis. Surgeons should exercise clinical judgement when determining the suitability of MarginProbe® use for patients undergoing breast conservation. Further research is necessary to refine MarginProbe®'s specificity and to optimize its clinical application.

Importance of Adequate Surgical Local Control in Fusion-Negative Para-Testicular Rhabdomyosarcoma: Data From the Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe Trials (CWS-96 and CWS-2002P) and the European Soft Tissue Sarcoma Registry (SoTiSaR).

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the impact that the quality of primary and subsequent surgeries has on the survival of patients with para-testicular rhabdomyosarcoma (PTRMS). METHODS: Patients with localized (IRS I-III) and metastatic (IRS IV) PTRMS were enrolled in the two Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS) trials (CWS-96, CWS-2002P) and the Soft Tissue Sarcoma Registry (SoTiSaR). RESULTS: Among 196 patients (median age, 8.4 years), 106 (54.1%) had primary complete resection. Image-defined lymph node (LN) disease was detected in 21 (11.5%) patients in the localized cohort and 12 (92.3%) patients in the metastatic cohort. The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were respectively 87.3% and 94.0% for the patients with localized PTRMS and 46.2% and 42.2% for the patients with metastatic PTRMS. Protocol violations during the primary surgery (PV-PS) were observed in 70 (42%) of the IRS I-III patients. This resulted in higher rates of R1/R2 resections (n = 53 [76%] vs n = 20 [21%]; p < 0.001) with a need for pretreatment re-excision (PRE) (n = 50 [83%] vs n = 10 [17%]; p < 0.001) compared with the patients undergoing correct primary surgery. Protocol violations during PRE occurred for 13 (20%) patients. Although PV-PS did not influence the 5-year EFS or OS in the localized PTRMS cohort, the unadjusted log-rank test showed that R status after PRE is a prognostic factor for 5-year OS (R1 vs R0 [81.8% vs 97.6%]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of surgical local control in PTRMS is unsatisfactory. Emphasis should be placed on evaluating the resection status after PRE in further clinical trials.

Unplanned Resections of Soft Tissue Sarcomas-Necessity of Re-Resection?

BACKGROUND: In soft tissue sarcomas, unplanned resections, or so-called Whoops procedures, do occur quite frequently, thus primarily owing to the abundant presence of benign lesions. Whether re-resection reduces local recurrence or improves overall survival remains a topic of ongoing debate. The principle objective of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients with soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities or trunk wall after an incidental marginal resection by comparing re-resections to individuals who declined the procedure. METHODS: A total of 185 patients who underwent unplanned resection were included. These patients were stratified into two groups: Group A (n = 156) underwent re-excision, while Group B (n = 29) was treated conservatively. Depending on the clinical scenario, radio- or chemotherapy was either administered in a neoadjuvant or an adjuvant setting. The presence of residual tumor and metastatic disease was documented. Clinical outcomes, specifically local recurrence (LR), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS), were utilized for evaluation. RESULTS: Group B exhibited significantly larger tumors (p < 0.0001) and a higher mean age than Group A. Among the patients in Group A, 11 (5.9%) had contaminated resection margins (R1), and residual disease (RD) was observed in 93 (59.6%) of the resected specimens. In group B, 10 patients received adjuvant radiotherapy alone, 5 received chemotherapy alone, and 13 underwent a combined approach consisting of both radio- and chemotherapy. In Group A, 8% (n = 12) of the patients developed local recurrence (LR) during the observation period. Conversely, in Group B, this amount was 14% (n = 4) (n.s.). Of the 12 LR in Group A, 10 were found in the subgroup with residual disease. Overall survival and local recurrence-free survival were not significantly different between the groups. A total of 15% (n = 24) of the patients in Group A developed metastatic disease, while 10% (n = 3) in Group B developed metastatic disease (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: Following the reresection of unplanned resected STS, there was no statistically significant difference observed in overall survival or LR compared to patients who did not undergo re-resection. However, within the subgroup of patients with residual disease in the re-resected specimen, the OS was compromised, and the LR rate was higher. Particularly for low-grade lesions, adopting a more conservative approach seems to be justified.

Impact of cavity shave margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing conserving breast surgery.

Aim: The main challenge during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to obtain clear margins, especially in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) due to the absence of well-defined nodules. Many surgical approaches have been used in an attempt to reduce the positive margin rate. The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the cavity shave margin technique with standard surgery and the intraoperative evaluation of surgical margins. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study analyzing margin status, need for re-excision, and surgical time in a cohort of 227 patients who underwent surgery from September 2016 to September 2022. Results: In patients subjected to cavity shaving, we reported a significant reduction in positive margins of 17.1% versus 28.7% (p-value = 0.042). Also, a difference in terms of surgical re-excision was reported as p-value = 0.039 (12.4% versus 23.8%, respectively, for the cavity shave and control group). In the multivariate analysis, intraoperative evaluation of the margins was a risk factor for margins re-excision (Wald = 4.315, p = 0.038, OR: 2.331 [95% CI: 1.049-5.180]). Surgical time was lower in patients subjected to cavity shaves (p = 0.024), and the relative mean time was 68.4 min ± 37.1 min in the cavity shave group versus 93.9 min ± 40.6 min in the control group. Conclusion: The cavity shave margin technique in conserving breast surgery results in a reduction in positive margin rate, surgical re-excision, and operative time.

Contemporary Analysis of Reexcision and Conversion to Mastectomy Rates and Associated Healthcare Costs for Women Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of population-level reoperation rates and incremental healthcare costs associated with reoperation for patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using Merative™ MarketScan® commercial insurance data and Medicare 5% fee-for-service claims data. The study included females aged 18-64 years in the commercial cohort and females aged 18 years and older in the Medicare cohort, who underwent initial BCS for breast cancer in 2017-2019. Reoperation rates within a year of the initial BCS and overall 1-year healthcare costs stratified by reoperation status were measured. RESULTS: The commercial cohort included 17,129 women with a median age of 55 (interquartile range [IQR] 49-59) years, and the Medicare cohort included 6977 women with a median age of 73 (IQR 69-78) years. Overall reoperation rates were 21.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.5-21.8%) for the commercial cohort and 14.9% (95% CI 14.1-15.7%) for the Medicare cohort. In both cohorts, reoperation rates decreased as age increased, and conversion to mastectomy was more prevalent among younger women in the commercial cohort. The mean healthcare costs during 1 year of follow-up from the initial BCS were $95,165 for the commercial cohort and $36,313 for the Medicare cohort. Reoperations were associated with 24% higher costs in both the commercial and Medicare cohorts, which translated into $21,607 and $8559 incremental costs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of reoperation after BCS have remained high and have contributed to increased healthcare costs. Continuing efforts to reduce reoperation need more attention.

Does Nipple-Ward Positive Margin Contribute to a Higher Rate of Re-Excision Procedures After a Lumpectomy with Pathology-Confirmed Positive Margins? A Retrospective Study.

Background: Positive margins on lumpectomy specimens are associated with a twofold increased risk of local breast tumor recurrence. Prior literature has demonstrated various techniques and modalities for assessing margin status to reduce re-excision rates. However, there is paucity of literature analyzing which margin contributes to the highest re-excision rates. Therefore, the primary aim of the study was to investigate whether the nipple-ward margins resulted in a higher rate of re-excision in our patient population. Methods:  A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who had re-excision surgery. Nipple-ward margin was identified by correlating radiological and pathological reports. A cut-off of more than 25% was used to demonstrate correlation between nipple-ward margin and re-excision rate. Results: A total of 98 patients' data were analyzed, with 41 (41.8%), 14 (14.3%), 5 (5.1%), and 38 (38.8%) diagnosed with DCIS, IDC, ILC, and mixed pathology on their margins, respectively. Overall, 48% (n=47) of the positive margins were nipple-ward, with 44.7% (n=21) reporting DCIS. Upon stratification, 45 (45.9%) cases were single-margin positive, with 26 (57.8%) being nipple-ward. Furthermore, the remaining 53 (54.1%) patients had multiple positive margins, with 21 (39.6.7%) nipple-ward cases. Conclusion: Positive nipple-ward margins significantly contribute to a higher re-excision rate p < 0.001; 48% of re-excision surgeries had positive nipple-ward margins, and 57.8% of positive single-margin cases were nipple-ward. Taking an additional shave during initial lumpectomy decreases re-excision rates. However, planning a lumpectomy procedure with a more elliptical rather than a spherical resection with additional cavity shave (ie, larger volume) in the nipple-ward direction and minimizing the remaining cavity shaves so the total volume resected remains unchanged. Nevertheless, future studies with larger sample sizes are required to bolster our findings.

Surgical De-Escalation for Re-Excision in Patients with a Margin Less Than 2 mm and a Diagnosis of DCIS.

The current surgical guidelines recommend an optimal margin width of 2 mm for the management of patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). However, there are still many controversies regarding re-excision when the optimal margin criteria are not met in the first resection. The purpose of this study is to understand the importance of surgical margin width, re-excision, and treatments to avoid additional surgery on locoregional recurrence (LRR). The study is retrospective and analyzed surgical margins, adjuvant treatments, re-excision, and LRR in patients with DCIS who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS). A total of 197 patients were enrolled. Re-operation for a close margin rate was 13.5%, and the 3-year recurrence was 7.6%. No difference in the LRR was reported among the patients subjected to BCS regardless of the margin width (p = 0.295). The recurrence rate according to margin status was not significant (p = 0.484). Approximately 36.9% (n: 79) patients had resection margins < 2 mm. A sub-analysis of patients with margins < 2 mm showed no difference in the recurrence between the patients treated with a second surgery and those treated with radiation (p = 0.091). The recurrence rate according to margin status in patients with margins < 2 mm was not significant (p = 0.161). The margin was not a predictive factor of LRR p = 0.999. Surgical re-excision should be avoided in patients with a focally positive margin and no evidence of the disease at post-surgical imaging.

Outcomes of oncoplastic breast surgery compared to breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients in a developing country: a retrospective cohort study.

Background and Objective: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with adjuvant radiotherapy remains the standard of care for early breast cancers in Pakistan. We sought to compare the outcomes of BCS with oncoplastic surgery (OPS), a relatively infrequent approach to breast cancer treatment in the country. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Aga Khan University Hospital and Ziauddin Hospital in Karachi. Patients who had biopsy-proven Stage-I to III breast cancer and underwent either OPS or BCS between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021, were identified and followed for 30 days. Data were collected by reviewing patient files and electronic records. Results: A total of 481 patients were included in the study, where 204 (42.4%) underwent BCS and 277 (57.6%) underwent OPS. Mean tumor volume (146.8 vs. 90.4 cm3), and postoperative complications (2.2 % vs. 0%) were higher in OPS while the frequency of positive margins was greater in the BCS group (15.7 % vs. 2.2 %). There were no significant differences in the histologic type of tumor between the two groups. Conclusion: OPS is a valid alternative approach to breast cancer treatment that can be offered to women with early stage, locally advanced, multifocal or tumors at complex locations owing to the reduced occurrence of positive margins and thus lowered re-excision rates.

Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Conservative Surgery a Strategy to Reduce Positive Margins and Surgical Time.

Background: Resection of additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by lumpectomy (cavity shave) was suggested to reduce rates of positive margins and re-excision. Methods: A single center retrospective study which analyzed margins status, re-excision, and surgical time in patients who underwent breast conserving surgery and cavity shave or intraoperative evaluation of resection margins. Results: Between 2021 and 2023, 594 patients were enrolled in the study. In patients subjected to cavity shave, a significant reduction in positive, focally positive, or closer margins was reported 8.9% vs. 18.5% (p = 0.003). No difference was reported in terms of surgical re-excision (p < 0.846) (5% vs. 5.5%). Surgical time was lower in patients subjected to cavity shave (<0.001). The multivariate analysis intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph node OR 1.816 and cavity shave OR 2.909 were predictive factors for a shorter surgical time. Excluding patients subjected to intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph node and patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, patients that underwent the cavity shave presented a reduced surgical time (67.9 + 3.8 min vs. 81.6 + 2.8 min) (p = 0.006). Conclusions: Cavity shaving after lumpectomy reduced the rate of positive margins and it was associated with a significant reduction in surgical time compared to intraoperative evaluation of resection margins.

Impact of SSO-ASTRO Margin Guidelines on Re-excision Rate in Breast-conserving Surgery: A Single-center Experience.

Introduction: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) has been historically linked with a high rate of re-excision. To address this issue, the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) developed consensus guidelines in 2014 to standardize practices and improve clinical outcomes for BCS patients. In our tertiary cancer care hospital, we assessed the impact of these guidelines on the re-excision rate following BCS. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on breast cancer patients who underwent BCS at the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre in Lahore, Pakistan. The study compared the re-excision rate before the implementation of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines (November 2015-July 2017) and after the implementation (January 2018-August 2019). Margins were considered positive if "ink on tumor" was present and negative if "no ink on tumor" was present. Fisher's exact test or Chi-square test was used to compare the re-excision rates between the pre- and post-guideline periods. Results: A total of 919 patients were identified, with 533 from the pre-guideline period and 386 from the post-guideline period. Of the 919 patients, 31 with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were excluded from the re-excision analysis because the guidelines were not implemented on the DCIS. Furthermore, the overall rate of re-excision in our data was 4.3%. The re-excision rate decreased from 71.1% to 28.9% (P ≤ 0.05) following the adoption of the guidelines. We observed a statistically significant decrease in the re-excision rate after implementing the SSO-ASTRO guidelines. Conclusion: Implementation of the SSO-ASTRO margin guidelines led to a notable decrease in the overall re-excision rate in our data set. These findings suggest that continued adherence to the guidelines may lead to a further reduction in the re-excision rate in the future.

Optimal timing of re-excision in synovial sarcoma patients: Immediate intervention versus waiting for local recurrence.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the difference in efficacy of re-excision in synovial sarcoma patients with and without residual tumor following unplanned excision, and to compare the prognostic outcomes of immediate re-excision versus waiting for local recurrence. METHOD: This study included synovial sarcoma patients who underwent re-excision at our center between 2009 and 2019, categorized into groups based on unplanned excision and local recurrence. Analyzed endpoints included overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS). Prognostic factors associated with these three different survival outcomes were analyzed through the use of Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression approaches. RESULT: In total, this study incorporated 109 synovial sarcoma patients, including 32 (29.4%) with no residual tumor tissue identified after re-excision, 31 (28.4%) with residual tumor tissue after re-excision, and 46 (42.2%) with local recurrence after initial excision. Patients were assessed over a median 52-month follow-up period. The respective 5-year OS, 5-year LRFS, and 5-year DRFS rates were 82.4%, 76.7%, and 74.2% for the nonresidual group, 80.6%, 80.4%, and 77.3% for the residual tumor tissue group, and 63.5%, 50.7%, and 46.3% for the local recurrence group. There was no significant difference in OS of nonresidual group and residual group patients after re-excision (p = 0.471). Concurrent or sequential treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy significantly reduced the risk of metastasis and mortality when compared with noncombined chemoradiotherapy, and was more effective in the local recurrence group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Prompt and adequate re-excision is crucial for patients with synovial sarcoma who undergo initial inadequate tumor excision, and their prognosis is significantly better compared with patients who delay re-excision until local recurrence.

Comparison of Wire and Non-Wire Localisation Techniques in Breast Cancer Surgery: A Review of the Literature with Pooled Analysis.

Background and Objectives: Wide local excision is a common procedure in the treatment of breast cancer. Wire-guided localisation (WGL) has been the gold standard for many years; however, several issues have been identified with this technique, and therefore, wire-free techniques have been developed. This scoping review synthesises the available literature comparing wire-guided localisation with the wire-free techniques used in breast-conserving cancer surgery. Materials and Methods: Multiple databases including Pubmed and MEDLINE were used to search articles between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2022. Terms included "breast neoplasms", "margins of excision", and "reoperation". In total, 34/256 papers were selected for review. Comparisons were made between positive margins and re-excision rates of WGL with wire-free techniques including SAVI SCOUT, Magseed, ROLL, and RSL. Pooled p-values were calculated using chi-square testing to determine statistical significance. Results: Pooled analysis demonstrated statistically significant reductions in positive margins and re-excision rates when SAVI SCOUT, RSL, and ROLL were compared with WGL. When SAVI SCOUT was compared to WGL, there were fewer re-excisions {(8.6% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.0001) and positive margins (10.6% vs. 15.0%; p = 0.0105)}, respectively. This was also the case in the ROLL and RSL groups. When compared to WGL; lower re-excision rates and positive margins were noted {(12.6% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.0007), (17.0% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.0268)} for ROLL and for RSL, respectively {(6.8% vs. 14.9%),(12.36% vs. 21.4%) (p = 0.0001)}. Magseed localisation demonstrated lower rates of re-excision than WGL (13.44% vs. 15.42%; p = 0.0534), but the results were not statistically significant. Conclusions: SAVI SCOUT, Magseed, ROLL, and RSL techniques were reviewed. Pooled analysis indicates wire-free techniques, specifically SAVI SCOUT, ROLL, and RSL, provide statistically significant reductions in re-excision rates and positive margin rates compared to WGL. However, additional studies and systematic analysis are required to ascertain superiority between techniques.

Does Non-Classic Lobular Carcinoma In Situ at the Lumpectomy Margin Increase Local Recurrence?

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of nonclassic, lobular carcinoma in situ (NC-LCIS) at the surgical margin of excisions for invasive cancer is unknown. We sought to determine whether NC-LCIS at or near the margin in the setting of a concurrent invasive carcinoma is associated with risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and locoregional recurrence (LRR). METHODS: Patients with stage 0-III breast cancer and NC-LCIS who underwent lumpectomy between January 2010 and January 2022 at a single institution were retrospectively identified. NC-LCIS margins were stratified as <2 mm, ≥2 mm, or within shave margin. Rates of IBTR and LRR were examined. RESULTS: A total of 511 female patients (median age 60 years [interquartile range (IQR) 52-69]) with NC-LCIS and an associated ipsilateral breast cancer with a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR 2.0-5.9) were identified. Final margins for NC-LCIS were ≥2 mm in 348 patients (68%), <2 mm in 37 (7.2%), and within shave margin in 126 (24.6%). Crude incidence of IBTR was 3.3% (n = 17) and that of LRR was 4.9% (n = 25). There was no difference in the crude rate of IBTR by NC-LCIS margin status (IBTR rate: 3.7% ≥2 mm, 0% <2 mm, 3.2% within shave margin, p = 0.8) nor in LRR (LRR rate: 4.9% ≥2 mm, 2.7% <2 mm, 5.6% within shave margin, p = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: For completely excised invasive breast cancers associated with NC-LCIS, extent of margin width for NC-LCIS was not associated with a difference in IBTR or LRR. These data suggest that the decision to perform reexcision of margin after lumpectomy should be driven by the invasive cancer, rather than the NC-LCIS margin.

The Impact of Breast-Conserving Surgery Re-excision on Patient-Reported Outcomes Using the BREAST-Q.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 14% of women undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) require re-excision to achieve negative margins following the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) margin guidelines, which may influence patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Few studies have assessed the impact of re-excision on PROs following BCS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with stage 0-III breast cancer undergoing BCS who completed a BREAST-Q PRO measure from 2010 to 2016 were identified from a prospective database. Baseline characteristics were compared between women who underwent one BCS and those who underwent ≥ 1 re-excision surgery for positive margins (R-BCS). Linear mixed models were used to analyze associations between number of excisions and BREAST-Q scores over time. RESULTS: Of 2543 eligible women, 1979 (78%) had one BCS and 564 (22%) had R-BCS. Younger age, lower BMI, surgery pre-SSO Invasive Guidelines issuance, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), multifocal disease, radiation therapy receipt, and endocrine therapy omission were more common in the R-BCS group. Breast satisfaction and sexual well-being were lower in the R-BCS group 2 years postoperatively. There were no differences in psychosocial well-being between groups over 5 years. On multivariable analysis, re-excision was associated with lower breast satisfaction and sexual well-being (p= 0.007 and p= 0.049, respectively), but there was no difference in psychosocial well-being (p= 0.250). CONCLUSIONS: Women with R-BCS had lower breast satisfaction and sexual well-being 2 years postoperatively, but this difference did not remain long term. Psychosocial well-being in women who underwent one BCS were largely comparable over time to the R-BCS group. These findings may help in counseling women who are concerned about satisfaction and quality-of-life outcomes with BCS if re-excision is necessary.

Conventional specimen radiography in breast-conserving therapy: a useful tool for intraoperative margin assessment after neoadjuvant therapy?

PURPOSE: A previous study in our breast unit showed that the diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative specimen radiography and its potential to reduce second surgeries in a cohort of patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were low, which questions the routine use of Conventional specimen radiography (CSR) in this patient group. This is a follow-up study in a larger cohort to further evaluate these findings. METHODS: This retrospective study included 376 cases receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) of primary breast cancer. CSR was performed to assess potential margin infiltration and recommend an intraoperative re-excision of any radiologically positive margin. The histological workup of the specimen served as gold standard for the evaluation of the accuracy of CSR and the potential reduction of second surgeries by CSR-guided re-excisions. RESULTS: 362 patients with 2172 margins were assessed. The prevalence of positive margins was 102/2172 (4.7%). CSR had a sensitivity of 37.3%, a specificity of 85.6%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 11.3%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.5%. The rate of secondary procedures was reduced from 75 to 37 with a number needed to treat (NNT) of CSR-guided intraoperative re-excisions of 10. In the subgroup of patients with clinical complete response (cCR), the prevalence of positive margins was 38/1002 (3.8%), PPV was 6.5% and the NNT was 34. CONCLUSION: This study confirms our previous finding that the rate of secondary surgeries cannot be significantly reduced by CSR-guided intraoperative re-excisions in cases with cCR after NACT. The routine use CSR after NACT is questionable, and alternative tools of intraoperative margin assessment should be evaluated.

Evaluating the impact of radiofrequency spectroscopy on reducing reoperations after breast conserving surgery: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of breast conserving surgery for breast cancer patients are well established. To achieve adequate margins of excision, intraoperative management of breast margins is a critical factor through reducing reoperation for inadequate positive margin excision and associated morbidity and cost. Radiofrequency spectroscopy is a technology that could significantly reduce positive margins when used intraoperatively as an adjunct to other margin management methods. METHODS: A meta-analysis was completed with 10 publications comparing use of radiofrequency spectroscopy technology (MarginProbe) with standard margin assessment procedures. Three randomized controlled studies and seven retrospective studies comparing MarginProbe to historical controls were included. The primary endpoint was reduction of re-excision rates. Statistical significance level was set at the two-sided 5% level corresponding to two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the pooled relative risk estimates. RESULTS: A total of 2335 patients from 10 publications were included in this meta-analysis. The overall relative reduction in re-excision rate was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.38-0.64, p < 0.001). Statistical methods were used to examine publication bias. CONCLUSION: Despite the limited randomized controlled trials available comparing radiofrequency spectroscopy to standard operation procedures, the data from the 10 studies demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in re-excision rate of 49% for MarginProbe usage, currently the only technology indicated for intraoperative identification of breast cancer tissue at the lumpectomy specimen margin.

Efficacy and Safety of Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Re-excised Soft-tissue Sarcoma After Unplanned Resection.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) re-excised after unplanned tumor resection (UPR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2000 to 2015, we retrospectively evaluated patients with STS of limb or trunk who underwent post-UPR re-excision in our expert center and received or not aRT. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 121 months (IQR 94-165). Among the 145 patients, 37 were not treated with aRT (no-RT) and 108 received aRT with a median radiation dose of 50 Gy (IQR 50-60). At 10 years, patients in the aRT and no-RT groups showed a cumulative incidence of local failure (10y-LF) of 14.7% and 37.7%, and a local recurrence-free survival (10y-LRFS) of 61.3% and 45.8%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified aRT and age ≥70 years as independent predictors of both LF and LRFS, while grade 3 and deep-seated tumor were independent predictors of LRFS. In overall population, 10-year distant metastasis-free survival (10y-DMFS) and overall survival (10y-OS) were 63.7% and 69.4%. In multivariate analyses, age ≥70 years, grade 3, and deep-seated lesion were associated with shorter DMFS and OS. Acute severe adverse events were not significantly increased in aRT group (14.8% vs. 18.1%, P = .85) but dramatically increased if radiation dose exceeded 50 Gy (risk ratio 2.96 compared to ≤50 Gy, P = .04). CONCLUSION: In STS patients re-excised after UPR, 50 Gy aRT was safe and associated with reduced LF and longer LRFS. It seems to be beneficial even in absence of residual disease or in absence of initial adverse prognostic factors.

Factors influencing suboptimal pathologic margins and re-excision following breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in-situ.

INTRODUCTION: Re-excisions following breast conserving surgery (BCS) are common, occurring more frequently in ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) than its' malignant counterpart. Although one quarter of patients with breast cancer will have DCIS, there is limited information available regarding factors predisposing to inadequate pathologic margins, and the need for re-excision. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients treated for DCIS between the years 2010-2016 was conducted. Patients with DCIS undergoing BCS were identified and evaluated for demographic and pathologic factors associated with suboptimal pathologic margins and re-excision. Multivariate analysis with Wald Chi-Square testing was performed. RESULTS: 241 patients underwent BCS with suboptimal margins (SOM) in 51.7% (123/238), with 27.8% undergoing re-excision (67/241). Tumor size was the most influential variable, positively associated with SOM (OR = 10.25, CI: 5.50-19.13) and re-excision (OR = 6.36, CI: 3.92-10.31). Patient age was inversely associated with SOM (OR = 0.58, CI: 0.39-0.85) and subsequent re-excisions (OR = 0.56, CI: 0.36-0.86). Low tumour grade was associated with re-excision (OR = 1.31, CI: 0.63-2.71), while ER negative disease was associated with SOM (OR = 2.24, CI: 1.21-4.14). DISCUSSION: Inadequate pathologic margins following BCS, and subsequent re-excision rates are common in patients with DCIS, and consistent with the literature. Tumour size is the dominant factor driving this occurrence, with patient age and tumour grade also impacting outcomes.

The impact of intraoperative cavity shaving on re-excision rates in breast-conserving surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This trial aimed to investigate the effects of circumferential shaving on reducing the reoperation rates during breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: In the study, before 2014, 404 (39.9%) breast cancers (BCs) out of a total of 1012 BCs underwent BCS without intraoperative cavity shaving (ICS) and constituted the no-ICS group. After this date, ICS was added to 608 (60.1%) BCSs (ICS group) and intraoperative margin analysis was not requested from pathologists during these second BCS procedures. RESULTS: The patient and BC characteristics in the no-ICS and ICS groups were similar. Carcinoma detection at the margin and reoperation rates were 13.9% in the no-ICS group and 7.6% in the ICS group (p = 0.001). No significant difference was detected between patients who underwent BCS with intraoperative frozen section analysis (FSA) and patients who underwent BCS with additional ICS (5.6% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.383). CONCLUSIONS: ICS decreased the rates of positive margins and reoperations among patients with BCS to an acceptable level compared with intraoperative FSA. It may be concluded that ICS is feasible to achieve BC margin control.