The Effect of Lumpectomy and Cavity Shave Margin Status on Recurrence and Survival in Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Cavity shave margins (CSMs) decrease rate of positive margins and need for re-excision. Recurrence data following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are not always available in large cancer registries. We sought to define our recurrence and survival data in BCS with routine excision of CSMs. METHODS: A single institution, 10-year retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent BCS with routine CSMs was conducted. Cavity shave margin technique was standard. Cox proportional hazard analyses and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to estimate recurrence and survival. RESULTS: Breast-conserving surgery with CSM was performed in 839 patients. Re-excision rate to achieve negative margins was 8.5%. Fifty-two patients (75%) underwent margin re-excision vs 18 patients (25%) underwent salvage mastectomy. Positive margin rate stratified by tumor histology was highest for invasive lobular carcinoma followed by mixed invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), followed by pure DCIS and lowest for IDC. Length of follow-up was (4.7 ± 2.6, years). Overall recurrence rate (locoregional and systemic) was 4.3%: highest in patients with negative lumpectomy margin but positive CSM (L-S+ = 15%) followed by positive lumpectomy and CSMs (L+S+ = 14%), followed by patients with positive lumpectomy margin but negative CSMs (L+S- = 13%) and lowest for negative lumpectomy and CSM (L-S- = 5%), (P = .0008). There was no difference in 5-year breast cancer-specific survival between the 4 subgroups: 96% for L-S-, 86.7% L-S+, 94.7% L+S+ and 90% L+S- (P = .094). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence following BCS with CSMs can be stratified based on both lumpectomy and cavity shave margin positivity. Routine excision of CSMs allows identification of these patient subsets.

Intraoperative Radiation Therapy Versus Whole Breast Radiation for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Treatment in Rural Appalachia.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an alternate accelerated form of radiation following breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Lack of data regarding long-term outcomes has limited adoption. We report our experience with IORT in patients undergoing BCS versus whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT). METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing BCS with IORT versus WBRT (2012-2017). Inclusion: low grade, T1-2N0M0, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positive, and Her2-negative infiltrating ductal carcinomas. IORT was delivered as a single fraction of radiation (20 Gy) intraoperatively. Outcomes were compared using Fisher's test for discrete variables or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (44%) received IORT, and 66 (56%) received WBRT. There was no difference in age, tumor size, receptor status, or in-breast recurrence (1.9% vs 0%, all P > .05). Length of follow-up was longer in the WBRT group due to time to inception of IORT (mean ± SD: 44 ± 8.1 vs 73 ± 13 months, P < .001). There was no difference in DFS between the 2 groups (HR 2.5; P = .44). IORT patients experienced delay to BCS (mean ± SD: 38 ± 12.7 vs 27 ± 12.2 days, P < .001) likely due to coordination of care. Analysis demonstrated IORT patients would have traveled a mean distance of 20 miles to the closest WBRT center (range 1-70, miles) for a mean travel time of 31 minutes (range 4-90, minutes) per WBRT treatment. DISCUSSION: IORT produces noninferior oncologic outcomes and decreased skin toxicity compared with WBRT. It can be convenient for patients in rural regions with limited health care access.

The Lack of Consensus of International Contouring Guidelines for the Dorsal Border of the Chest Wall Clinical Target Volume: What is the Impact on Organs at Risk and Relationships to Patterns of Recurrence in the Modern Era?

PURPOSE: Variation exists in cooperative group recommendations for the dorsal border for the chest wall clinical target volume (CTV). We aimed to quantify the impact of this variation on doses to critical organs and examine patterns of chest wall recurrence relative to the pectoralis muscle. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively assessed patterns of chest wall recurrence quantified to the recommended CTV borders for women treated between 2005 and 2017. We compared treatment plans for 5 women who were treated with left postmastectomy radiation therapy, with the chest wall contoured using varying dorsal borders for CTV: (1) Anterior pleural surface (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group), (2) anterior surface of pectoralis major (European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology), and (3) anterior rib surface (institutional practice). Treatment plans were generated for 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Doses to organs-at-risk were compared using paired-sample t tests. RESULTS: Institutional patterns of chest wall recurrence were 64.7% skin and subcutaneous tissue, 23.5% both anterior to and between the pectoralis muscles, and 11.8% isolated to the tissue between the pectoralis major and minor. No chest wall recurrences were noted deep to pectoralis minor. When comparing the plans generated per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group versus European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology contouring guidelines, the mean lung V20Gy, heart mean dose, and left anterior descending artery mean dose were 33.5% versus 29.4% (P < .01), 5.2 Gy versus 3.2Gy (P = .02), and 27.3Gy versus 17.8Gy (P = .04), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended variations in the dorsal chest wall CTV border have significant impact on doses to the heart and lungs. Although our study was limited by small numbers, our institutional patterns of recurrence would support a more anterior dorsal border for the chest wall CTV consistent with older literature.