The Effect of Intraoperative Margin Assessment During Breast Conserving Surgery for Breast Cancer in a Dutch Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative specimen radiography is a routinely used procedure to ensure adequate resection of non-palpable breast tumors. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography (IDSM) is an alternative to conventional specimen radiography (CSR) which provides immediate specimen evaluation and can potentially decrease operation time. IDSM may also result in lower positive margin and re-excision rates. IDSM was implemented in our hospital in 2018. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of using IDSM versus CSR on operation time, margin status and re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery. METHODS: The present study is a single-center retrospective cohort study with 2 patient cohorts: one which underwent CSR (n = 532) and one which underwent IDSM (n = 475). The primary outcome was the operation time. Secondary outcomes were the margin status of the primary surgery, the cavity shaving rate, and the re-excision rate. Differences between cohorts were compared using univariate statistics and multiple regression analyses to adjust for variables that were significantly different between the groups. RESULTS: IDSM use was associated with an 8-minute reduction in surgery time (B = -8.034, 95% CI [-11.6, -4.5]; P < .001). Treatment variables independently associated with the operation time included use of IDSM, type of surgery, and performance of cavity shaving. Cavity shaves were more often performed when IDSM was used (24% for IDSM vs. 14% for CSR, P < .001), while the proportion of negative margin rates (93% for IDSM vs. 96% for CSR, P = .070) was comparable. CONCLUSION: IDSM was associated with a modest reduction in operation time. Surgeons performed more cavity shaves since the introduction of IDSM, but this increase was not reflected by difference in negative margin rates.

Hospital costs and cosmetic outcome of benign and high-risk breast lesions managed by vacuum-assisted excision versus surgical excision.

OBJECTIVES: Although vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) is a safe and effective alternative to surgical excision (SE), the latter is most commonly used for the management of benign and high-risk breast lesions. To evaluate the healthcare benefit of VAE, hospital costs and cosmetic outcome after VAE were compared to SE. Additionally, the impact of VAE implementation on hospital costs was investigated. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study with two cohorts: "VAE" and "SE". All patients with a benign or high-risk lesion excised by VAE or SE from January 2016 up to December 2019 were included. Cosmetic outcome was measured with the BCTOS-cosmetic subscale, and hospital costs were presented as mean (SD) and median (IQR). RESULTS: During the study period, 258 patients with 295 excised lesions were included. The initial procedure was VAE in 102 patients and SE in 156 patients. Hospital costs after (median € 2324) were significantly lower than before (median € 3,144) implementation of VAE (mean difference € 1,004, p < 0.001), most likely attributable to the lower costs for patients treated with VAE (mean difference € 1,979, p < 0.001). Mean cosmetic outcome was comparable between VAE (median 1.35) and SE (median 1.44, p = 0.802). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing VAE as an alternative treatment option for benign and high-risk breast lesions resulted in a large decrease in hospital costs but a cosmetic benefit of VAE could not be demonstrated in this retrospective study. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Costs associated with the complete patient pathway were included and not only VAE was compared to SE but also the before cohort was compared to the after cohort to demonstrate the benefit of VAE implementation in clinical practice. Additionally, cosmetic outcome was compared between VAE and SE using patient reported outcome measures.