Skip to main content

Table 12 Studies reporting margin positivity with breast-conserving surgery (BCS)*,#

From: Standardized and reproducible methodology for the comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer

Citation

Positive margin status (results and definition)

McCormick 1987 [20]

24.1% (26/108), defined as tumor at edge

Umpleby 1988 [21]

25.0% (13/52), defined as tumor in cavity bed specimens and not based on BCS specimen

England 1994 [22]

35.0% (28/80), defined as tumor < 1 mm from edge

MacMillan 1994 [23]

38.3% (101/264), defined as tumor in cavity bed specimens and not based on BCS specimen

Schnitt 1994 [24]

47.5% (86/181), defined as tumor at edge; 61.3% (111/181), defined as tumor ≤ 1 mm from edge

Beron 1996 [25]

51.9% (41/79), defined as tumor < 1 mm from edge

Gage 1996 [26]

38.5% (131/340), defined as tumor at edge, 54.4% (185/340), defined as tumor ≤ 1 mm from edge

MacMillan 1997 [27]

39.3% (118/300), defined as tumor in cavity bed specimens and not based on BCS specimen

Saarela 1997 [28]

14.5% (8/55), defined as tumor at edge

Weber 1997 [29]

15.0% (21/140), defined as tumor in cavity bed specimens and not based on BCS specimen

Beck 1998 [30]

27.1% (39/141), defined as tumor at edge

DiBiase 1998 [31]

19.0% (86/453), defined as tumor in cavity bed specimens and not based on BCS specimen

Taylor 1998 [32]

25.4% (68/268), defined as tumor in cavity bed specimens and not based on BCS specimen

Horiguchi 1999 [33]

22.4% (36/161), defined as tumor < 5 mm from edge

Malik 1999 [34]

36.8% (200/543), defined as tumor in cavity bed specimens and not based on BCS specimen

Papa 1999 [35]

29.1% (115/395), defined as tumor at edge

Park 2000 [36]

36.0% (192/533), defined as tumor at edge; 53.7% (286/533), defined as tumor ≤ 1 mm from edge

Gibson 2001 [37]

44.5% (243/546), defined as tumor at edge

Jenkinson 2001 [38]

18.8% (19/101), defined as tumor at edge

Moore 2001 [39]

15.7% (8/51), defined as tumor at edge

Swanson 2002 [40]

32.7% (85/260), defined as tumor at edge; 45.0% (117/260), defined as tumor < 2 mm from edge

Mai 2003 [41]

25.8% (16/62), defined as tumor < 1 mm from edge

Chagpur 2004 [42]

12.4% (329/2658), defined as tumor at edge

Keskek 2004 [43]

39.6% (120/303), defined as tumor ≤ 2 mm from edge

Miller 2004 [44]

18.4% (26/141), defined as tumor at edge

Fleming 2004 [45]

9.1% (20/220), defined as tumor < 5 mm from edge

Balch 2005 [46]

25.1% (64/255), defined as tumor < 2 mm from edge

Cao 2005 [47]

81.7% (103/126), defined as tumor ≤ 2 mm from edge

Cendán 2005 [48]

44.3% (43/97), defined as tumor in cavity bed specimens and not based on BCS specimen

Dooley 2005 [49]

11.4% (25/220), defined as tumor ≤ 1 mm from edge

Nadeem 2005 [50]

30.0% (39/130), defined a tumor < 1 mm from edge

Aziz 2006 [51]

14.3% (205/1430), defined as tumor at edge

Dillon 2006 [52]

34.5% (211/612), defined as tumor < 5 mm from edge

Huston 2006 [53]

61.4% (105/171), defined as tumor < 2 mm from edge

Janes 2006 [54]

44.2% (96/217), defined as tumor < 5 mm from edge

Méndez 2006 [55]

64.6% (115/178), defined as tumor ≤ 2 mm from edge

Cabioglu 2007 [56]

13.6% (27/200), defined as tumor at edge; 32.7% (65/200), defined as tumor ≤ 2 mm from edge

Kotwall 2007 [57]

52.6% (306/582), defined as tumor at edge

Smitt 2007 [58]

43.5% (172/395), defined as tumor at edge

Wright 2007 [59]

16.0% (42/263), defined as tumor at edge; 41.8% (110/263), defined as tumor ≤ 1 mm from edge

Dillon 2008 [60]

19.9% (56/281), defined as tumor < 2 mm from edge; 32.0% (90/281), defined as tumor < 5 mm from edge

Jacobson 2008 [61]

66.4% (83/125), defined as tumor ≤ 2 mm from edge

Schiller 2008 [62]

17.0% (124/730), defined as tumor at edge; 34.9% (255/730), defined as tumor < 1 mm from edge

Soucy 2008 [63]

18.4% (88/478), defined as tumor at edge

Lovrics 2008 [64]

19.6% (65/332), defined as tumor at edge

Sabel 2009 [65]

18.2% (173/948), defined as tumor at edge; 32.0% (303/948), defined as tumor ≤ 2 mm from edge

Tengher-Barna 2009 [66]

43.9% (47/107), defined as tumor ≤ 3 mm from edge

Munhoz 2009 [67]

28.8% (63/218), no definition of margin positivity given

Hewes 2009 [68]

20.5% (196/957), defined a tumor < 1 mm from edge

Povoski 2009

6.4% (13/204), defined as tumor at edge, 10.8% (22/204), defined as tumor ≤ 1 mm from edge

  1. BCS, breast-conserving surgery
  2. * This table excludes any previous studies that included in their analyses a significant percentage of patients with an "unknown" or "indeterminate" margin status in comparison to the reported percentage of patients with a positive margin status since this "unknown" or "indeterminate" variable would not allow for an accurate determination of the percentage of patients with margin positivity.
  3. # Some of these previous studies not only included individual undergoing a definitive BCS procedure, but also individuals undergoing only a diagnostic surgical excisional breast biopsy. In many such cases, this subtle distinction was not well articulated and likely accounted for their relatively high reported margin positivity rates.