The Value of Repeated Breast Surgery as a Quality Indicator in Breast Cancer Care.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
26
03
2020
pubmed:
12
6
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
12
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Breast-conserving surgery, a major achievement in surgical oncology, has allowed an increasing number of breast cancer patients to avoid the mutilation of mastectomy. However, mastectomy still is performed in certain circumstances although breast-conserving surgery would be equally safe. Many reasons, including patients' and surgeons' personal motivations, influence the decision-making process before the final choice between breast preservation and mastectomy. The importance of quality measurement and reporting in medicine is increasingly recognized, and breast surgery is no exception. The substantial variability of re-excision rates for positive surgical margins after a first attempt at breast-conserving surgery suggests that improvement is possible. Therefore, the re-excision rate has been proposed as a quality metric for assessing and comparing the performance of different institutions. Indeed, re-excision rates can be reduced by actionable factors such as accurate preoperative local staging, localization of occult lesions, and intraoperative assessment of the oriented specimen. However, equally important non-actionable risk factors pertaining the biology, detectability, and resectability of the tumor also should be taken into account. Therefore, if the re-excision rate has to be used as a performance indicator of breast surgical care, critical interpretation of results with accurate case-mix adjustment are mandatory, and reasonable targets must be appropriately set so that surgeons treating patients at higher risk of positive margins are not unduly penalized.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32524463
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08704-2
pii: 10.1245/s10434-020-08704-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
340-352Subventions
Organisme : Ministero della Salute
ID : FPRC 5xmille 2013
Organisme : Ministero della Salute
ID : FPRC 5xmille 2015 (Strategy)
Organisme : Ministero della Salute
ID : Ricerca Corrente 2019
Références
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa022152 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152
pubmed: 12393820
Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa020989 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989
pubmed: 12393819
Showalter SL, Grover S, Sharma S, Lin L, Czerniecki BJ. Factors influencing surgical and adjuvant therapy in stage I breast cancer: a SEER 18 database analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1287–94. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2693-8 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2693-8
pubmed: 23135311
Mahmood U, Hanlon AL, Koshy M, et al. Increasing national mastectomy rates for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1436–43. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2732-5 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2732-5
pubmed: 23135312
Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31827a8d17 .
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827a8d17
pubmed: 23187751
Chiba A, Hoskin TL, Hallberg EJ, et al. Impact that timing of genetic mutation diagnosis has on surgical decision making and outcome for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3232–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5328-7 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5328-7
pubmed: 27338744
pmcid: 5113286
Ilonzo N, Tsang A, Tsantes S, Estabrook A, Thu Ma AM. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a 10-year analysis of trends and immediate postoperative outcomes. Breast. 2017;32:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.11.023 .
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.11.023
pubmed: 27988412
van Maaren MC, Strobbe LJA, Koppert LB, Poortmans PMP, Siesling S. Nationwide population-based study of trends and regional variation in breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105:1768–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10951 .
doi: 10.1002/bjs.10951
pubmed: 30091459
Riedel F, Heil J, Golatta M, et al. Changes of breast and axillary surgery patterns in patients with primary breast cancer during the past decade. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299:1043–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4982-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-4982-3
pubmed: 30478667
Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2895 .
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2895
pubmed: 25408966
Garcia-Etienne CA, Tomatis M, Heil J, et al. Mastectomy trends for early-stage breast cancer: a report from the EUSOMA multi-institutional European database. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1947–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.03.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.03.008
pubmed: 22483323
Mamtani A, Morrow M. Why are there so many mastectomies in the United States? Annu Rev Med. 2017;68:229–41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-043015-075227 .
doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-043015-075227
pubmed: 27576011
Boero IJ, Paravati AJ, Hou J, et al. The impact of surgeons on the likelihood of mastectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2019;269:951–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002698 .
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002698
pubmed: 29465454
Jonczyk MM, Jean J, Graham R, Chatterjee A. Surgical trends in breast cancer: a rise in novel operative treatment options over a 12-year analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:267–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5018-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-5018-1
pubmed: 30361873
Morrow M, Abrahamse P, Hofer TP, et al. Trends in reoperation after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer: addressing overtreatment in surgical management. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1352–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0774 .
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0774
pubmed: 28586788
pmcid: 5710510
Kantor O, Pesce C, Kopkash K, et al. Impact of the Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology margin guidelines on breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy trends. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;229:104–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.02.051 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.02.051
pubmed: 30902638
Morrow M, Katz SJ. The challenge of developing quality measures for breast cancer surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:509–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.74 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.74
pubmed: 22298680
van Deurzen CH. Predictors of surgical margin following breast-conserving surgery: a large population-based cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:627–33. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5532-5 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5532-5
pubmed: 27590331
pmcid: 5149558
Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Margins in breast cancer: how much is enough?. Cancer. 2018;124:1335–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31221 .
doi: 10.1002/cncr.31221
pubmed: 29338088
pmcid: 5894883
Brouwer de Koning SG, Vrancken Peeters MTFD, Jóźwiak K, Bhairosing PA, Ruers TJM. Tumor resection margin definitions in breast-conserving surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:e595–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2018.04.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.04.004
pubmed: 29731404
Haloua MH, Volders JH, Krekel NM, et al. A nationwide pathology study on surgical margins and excision volumes after breast-conserving surgery: there is still much to be gained. Breast. 2016;25:14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.11.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.11.003
pubmed: 26801411
Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. 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. J Clin Oncol. 2014;21:704–16. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.53.3935 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.3935
Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Morrow M. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:717–30. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3480-5 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3480-5
pubmed: 24473640
pmcid: 5705035
Toss MS, Pinder SE, Green AR, et al. Breast conservation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): what defines optimal margins?. Histopathology. 2017;70:681–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13116 .
doi: 10.1111/his.13116
pubmed: 28000325
Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology–American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:4040–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.68.3573 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.3573
pubmed: 27528719
pmcid: 5477830
Marinovich ML, Azizi L, Macaskill P, et al. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3811–21. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5446-2 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5446-2
pubmed: 27527715
pmcid: 5160992
Telli ML, Gradishar WJ, Ward JH. NCCN guidelines updates: breast cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;14:641–4. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.5006 .
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.5006
Biganzoli L, Marotti L, Hart CD, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care: an update from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:59–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.017 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.017
pubmed: 28963914
ABS Consensus Margin Width in Breast Conservation Surgery. https://associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/media/1418/abs-consensus-on-margin-width-in-breast-conservation-surgery.pdf . Accessed 25 Mar 2020.
National Breast Cancer Organization of the Netherlands. Guideline breast cancer. http://www.oncoline.nl . Accessed 25 Mar 2020.
McCahill LE, Privette A, James T, et al. Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg. 2009;144:455–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2009.56 .
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.56
pubmed: 19451489
McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in re-excision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–75. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.43 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.43
pubmed: 22298678
Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, et al. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004–2010. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:1296–305. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.926 .
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.926
pubmed: 25390819
Landercasper J, Whitacre E, Degnim AC, Al-Hamadani M. Reasons for re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery (SM) database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3185–91. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3905-1 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3905-1
pubmed: 25047472
Landercasper J, Bennie B, Parsons BM, et al. Fewer reoperations after lumpectomy for breast cancer with neoadjuvant rather than adjuvant chemotherapy: a report from the National Cancer Database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:1507–15. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5760-8 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5760-8
pubmed: 28062931
pmcid: 5413581
Isaacs AJ, Gemignani ML, Pusic A, Sedrakyan A. Association of breast conservation surgery for cancer with 90-day reoperation rates in New York state. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:648–55. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5535 .
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5535
pubmed: 26886249
Landercasper J, Borgert AJ, Fayanju OM, et al. Factors associated with reoperation in breast-conserving surgery for cancer: a prospective study of American Society of Breast Surgeon members. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3321–36. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07547-w .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07547-w
pubmed: 31342360
pmcid: 6733824
van Leeuwen MT, Falster MO, Vajdic CM, et al. Reoperation after breast-conserving surgery for cancer in Australia: statewide cohort study of linked hospital data. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020858. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020858 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020858
pubmed: 29643165
pmcid: 5898348
Talsma AK, Reedijk AM, Damhuis RA, Westenend PJ, Vles WJ. Re-resection rates after breast-conserving surgery as a performance indicator: introduction of a case-mix model to allow comparison between Dutch hospitals. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:357–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2011.01.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.01.008
pubmed: 21292434
Vos EL, Siesling S, Baaijens MHA, et al. Omitting re-excision for focally positive margins after breast-conserving surgery does not impair disease-free and overall survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164:157–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4232-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4232-6
pubmed: 28389735
pmcid: 5487695
Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, et al. Reoperation rates after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;345:e4505. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4505 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4505
pubmed: 22791786
pmcid: 3395735
Tang SS, Kaptanis S, Haddow JB, et al. Current margin practice and effect on re-excision rates following the publication of the SSO-ASTRO consensus and ABS consensus guidelines: a national prospective study of 2858 women undergoing breast-conserving therapy in the UK and Ireland. Eur J Cancer. 2017;84:315–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.032 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.032
pubmed: 28865259
Kryh CG, Pietersen CA, Rahr HB, Christensen RD, Wamberg P, Lautrup MD. Re-resection rates and risk characteristics following breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer and carcinoma in situ: a single-centre study of 1575 consecutive cases. Breast. 2014;23:784–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2014.08.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.08.011
pubmed: 25227964
Langhans L, Jensen MB, Talman MM, Vejborg I, Kroman N, Tvedskov TF. Reoperation rates in ductal carcinoma in situ versus invasive breast cancer after wire-guided breast-conserving surgery. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:378–84. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4751 .
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4751
pubmed: 28002557
pmcid: 5470426
Schulman AM, Mirrielees JA, Leverson G, Landercasper J, Greenberg C, Wilke LG. Re-excision surgery for breast cancer: an analysis of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) Mastery
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5516-5
pubmed: 27581607
Monaghan A, Chapinal N, Hughes L, Baliski C. Impact of SSO-ASTRO margin guidelines on reoperation rates following breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2019;217:862–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.01.007 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.01.007
pubmed: 30739736
Rosenberger LH, Mamtani A, Fuzesi S, et al. Early adoption of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer: initial experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3239–46. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5397-7 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5397-7
pubmed: 27411549
pmcid: 5070650
Patten CR, Walsh K, Sarantou T, et al. Changes in margin re-excision rates: experience incorporating the “no ink on tumor” guideline into practice. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116:1040–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24770 .
doi: 10.1002/jso.24770
pubmed: 28750136
Chung A, Gangi A, Amersi F, Bose S, Zhang X, Giuliano A. Impact of consensus guidelines by the Society of Surgical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology on margins for breast-conserving surgery in stages 1 and 2 invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:422–7. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4829-0 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4829-0
Heelan Gladden AA, Sams S, Gleisner A, et al. Re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery following the 2014 SSO-ASTRO guidelines. Am J Surg. 2017;214:1104–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.023 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.023
pubmed: 28974314
Merrill AL, Coopey SB, Tang R, et al. Implications of new lumpectomy margin guidelines for breast-conserving surgery: changes in re-excision rates and predicted rates of residual tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:729–34. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4916-2 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4916-2
pubmed: 26467458
Mamtani A, Zabor EC, Rosenberger LH, Stempel M, Gemignani ML, Morrow M. Was reexcision less frequent for patients with lobular breast cancer after publication of the SSO-ASTRO margin guidelines?. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3856–62. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07751-8 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07751-8
pubmed: 31456094
pmcid: 6788977
Piper ML, Wong J, Fahrner-Scott K, et al. Success rates of re-excision after positive margins for invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2019;5:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-019-0125-7 .
doi: 10.1038/s41523-019-0125-7
Havel L, Naik H, Ramirez L, Morrow M, Landercasper J. Impact of the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline on rates of re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:1238–44. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07247-5 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07247-5
pubmed: 30790112
Houvenaeghel G, Lambaudie E, Bannier M, et al. Positive or close margins: reoperation rate and second conservative resection or total mastectomy? Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:2507. https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s190852 .
doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S190852
pubmed: 30992681
pmcid: 6445211
Balleyguier C, Dunant A, Ceugnart L, et al. Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging in women with local ductal carcinoma in situ to optimize surgical outcomes: results from the randomized phase III trial IRCIS. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:885–92. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.18.00595 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00595
pubmed: 30811290
Cowppli-Bony A, Trétarre B, Marrer E, et al. Compliance with clinical guidelines for breast cancer management: a population-based study of quality-of-care indicators in France. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0224275. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224275 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224275
pubmed: 31644603
pmcid: 6808419
Meier-Meitinger M, Rauh C, Adamietz B, et al. Accuracy of radiological tumour size assessment and the risk for re-excision in a cohort of primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2011.10.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.10.008
pubmed: 22032911
Rosato R, Sacerdote C, Pagano E, et al. Appropriateness of early breast cancer management in relation to patient and hospital characteristics: a population-based study in Northern Italy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117:349–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0252-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0252-6
pubmed: 19051008
Sacerdote C, Bordon R, Pitarella S, et al. Compliance with clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer treatment: a population-based study of quality-of-care indicators in Italy. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-28 .
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-28
pubmed: 23351327
pmcid: 3566978
Escribà JM, Esteban L, Gálvez J, et al. Reoperations after primary breast-conserving surgery in women with invasive breast cancer in Catalonia, Spain: a retrospective study. Clin Transl Oncol. 2017;19:448–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-016-1546-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s12094-016-1546-5
pubmed: 27624712
Funk A, Heil J, Harcos A, et al. Efficacy of intraoperative specimen radiography as margin assessment tool in breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;179:425–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05476-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05476-6
pubmed: 31654190
Fisher S, Yasui Y, Dabbs K, Winget M. Re-excision and survival following breast-conserving surgery in early-stage breast cancer patients: a population-based study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2882-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2882-7
pubmed: 29422097
pmcid: 5806481
Bodilsen A, Bjerre K, Offersen BV, et al. The influence of repeat surgery and residual disease on recurrence after breast-conserving surgery: a Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:476–85. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4707-9 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4707-9
Kahlert S, Kolben TM, Schmoeckel E, et al. Prognostic impact of residual disease in simultaneous additional excision specimens after one-step breast-conserving therapy with negative final margin status in primary breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:1318–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.06.014 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.06.014
pubmed: 30041974
Sorrentino L, Agozzino M, Albasini S, et al. Involved margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer: always to be re-excised?. Surg Oncol. 2019;30:141–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2019.08.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2019.08.002
pubmed: 31500779
Boundouki G, Wong Sik Hee JR, Croghan N, et al. Comparing long-term local recurrence rates of surgical and non-surgical management of close anterior margins in breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;176:311–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05242-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05242-8
pubmed: 31012033
Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, et al. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: the American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3174–83. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4759-x .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4759-x
pubmed: 26215198
pmcid: 4550635
McEvoy MP, Landercasper J, Naik HR, Feldman S. Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic. Gland Surg. 2018;7:536. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2018.11.03 .
doi: 10.21037/gs.2018.11.03
pubmed: 30687627
pmcid: 6323258
Gray RJ, Pockaj BA, Garvey E, Blair S. Intraoperative margin management in breast-conserving surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5756-4 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5756-4
pubmed: 28058560
Versteegden DPA, Keizer LGG, Schlooz-Vries MS, Duijm LEM, Wauters CAP, Strobbe LJA. Performance characteristics of specimen radiography for margin assessment for ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166:669–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4475-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4475-2
pubmed: 28831674
Rhee D, Pockaj B, Wasif N, et al. Operative outcomes of conventional specimen radiography versus in-operating room specimen radiography in radioactive seed-localized segmental mastectomies. Am J Surg. 2018;215:151–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.07.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.07.019
pubmed: 28784236
St John ER, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265:300–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001897 .
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001897
pubmed: 27429028
Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity-shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:503–10. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1504473 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1504473
pubmed: 26028131
pmcid: 5584380
Wang K, Ren Y, He J. Cavity-shaving plus lumpectomy versus lumpectomy alone for patients with breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0168705. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168705 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168705
pubmed: 28046058
pmcid: 5207394
Clough KB, Meredith I. The oncoplastic frenzy: beware the swing of the pendulum. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3792–3. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07755-4 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07755-4
pubmed: 31456095
Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Buccimazza I, Sarfati IM. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1375–91. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0792-y .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0792-y
pubmed: 20140531
Chatterjee A, Gass J, Patel K, et al. A consensus definition and classification system of oncoplastic surgery developed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3436–44. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07345-4 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07345-4
pubmed: 30977016
De La Cruz L, Blankenship SA, Chatterjee A, Geha R, Nocera N, Czerniecki BJ, et al. Outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients: a systematic literature review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3247–58. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5313-1 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5313-1
Kosasih S, Tayeh S, Mokbel K, Kasem A. Is oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery oncologically safe? A meta-analysis of 18,103 patients. Am J Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.12.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.12.019
pubmed: 31926592
Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:145–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0b013e3182605598 .
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182605598
pubmed: 23503430
Chen JY, Huang YJ, Zhang LL, Yang CQ, Wang K. Comparison of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery alone: a meta-analysis. J Breast Cancer. 2018;21:321–9. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2018.21.e36 .
doi: 10.4048/jbc.2018.21.e36
pubmed: 30275861
pmcid: 6158154
Campbell EJ, Romics L. Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2017;9:521. https://doi.org/10.2147/bctt.s113742 .
doi: 10.2147/BCTT.S113742
Volders JH, Haloua MH, Krekel NM, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast-conserving surgery: consequences on margin status and excision volumes: a nationwide pathology study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:986–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.252 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.252
pubmed: 27211343
Spronk PER, Volders JH, van den Tol P, Smorenburg CH, Vrancken Peeters MTFD. Breast-conserving therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: data from the Dutch Breast Cancer Audit. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:110–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.09.027 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.09.027
pubmed: 30348601
Devane LA, Baban CK, O’Doherty A, Quinn C, McDermott EW, Prichard RS. The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on margin re-excision in breast-conserving surgery (published online ahead of print, 30 January 2020). World J Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05383-8 .
Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Raab G, et al. Surgical procedures after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: results of the GEPARDUO trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:1434–42. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9011-2 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-006-9011-2
pubmed: 16983592
Volders JH, Negenborn VL, Spronk PE, et al. Breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review on surgical outcomes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4598-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4598-5
pubmed: 29214416
Chagpar AB, Wilke LG. Should reexcision rates in breast cancer care be a quality measure? Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2818–22. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6576-5 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6576-5
pubmed: 29947002
Dragun AE, Huang B, Tucker TC, Spanos WJ. Increasing mastectomy rates among all age groups for early-stage breast cancer: a 10-year study of surgical choice. Breast J. 2012;18:318–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2012.01245.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2012.01245.x
pubmed: 22607016
Neuburger J, Macneill F, Jeevan R, van der Meulen JH, Cromwell DA. Trends in the use of bilateral mastectomy in England from 2002 to 2011: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003179. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003179 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003179
pubmed: 23906951
pmcid: 3733300
Fisher CS, Martin-Dunlap T, Ruppel MB, Gao F, Atkins J, Margenthaler JA. Fear of recurrence and perceived survival benefit are primary motivators for choosing mastectomy over breast conservation therapy regardless of age. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3246–50. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2525-x .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2525-x
pubmed: 22833001
Tan M, Silva E. If not now, when? The case for a target rate of re-excision for breast-conserving surgery as a standard of care quality measure. Breast J. 2019;25:1306–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13467 .
doi: 10.1111/tbj.13467
pubmed: 31502313
Cellini C, Huston TL, Martins D, et al. Multiple re-excisions versus mastectomy in patients with persistent residual disease following breast conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2005;189:662–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.03.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.03.005
pubmed: 15910716
Christiansen P, Carstensen SL, Ejlertsen B, et al. Breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy: overall and relative survival: a population-based study by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Acta Oncol. 2018;57:19–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186x.2017.1403042 .
doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1403042
pubmed: 29168674
Lei X, Liu F, Luo S, et al. Evaluation of guidelines regarding surgical treatment of breast cancer using the AGREE Instrument: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e014883. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014883 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014883
pubmed: 29138191
pmcid: 5695453
Hassett MJ, Hughes ME, Niland JC, et al. Selecting high-priority quality measures for breast cancer quality improvement. Med Care. 2008;46:762. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0b013e318178ead3 .
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318178ead3
pubmed: 18665055
pmcid: 3538153
van der Heiden-van der Loo M, de Munck L, Visser O, et al. Variation between hospitals in surgical margins after first breast-conserving surgery in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:691–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1809-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1809-3
pubmed: 21987038
Gooiker GA, Veerbeek L, van der Geest LG, et al. De prestatie-indicator ‘irradicaliteit na borstsparende operatie’: geen zuiver zicht op goede zorg [The quality indicator “tumour-positive surgical margin following breast-conserving surgery” does not provide transparent insight into care]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2010;154:A1142.
pubmed: 20482902
Landercasper J, Bailey L, Buras R, et al. The American Society of Breast Surgeons and Quality Payment Programs: ranking, defining, and benchmarking more than 1 million patient quality measure encounters. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3093–106. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5940-1 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-5940-1
pubmed: 28766206
pmcid: 5594033
van Dam PA, Tomatis M, Marotti L, et al. Time trends (2006–2015) of quality indicators in EUSOMA-certified breast centres. Eur J Cancer. 2017;85:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.040 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.040
pubmed: 28881247
Guarneri V, Pronzato P, Bertetto O, et al. Use of electronic administrative databases to measure quality indicators of breast cancer care: experience of five regional oncology networks in Italy. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020;16:e211–20. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.19.00466 .
doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00466
pubmed: 31855497
Hassett MJ. Quality improvement in the era of big data. J Clin Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.74.1181 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.1181
pubmed: 28737974