• 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008

The journal «ONCOSURGERY» 2014, Vol.6, No 1

The control of surgical margins for organ-preserving treatment of breast cancer

Semiglazov VF1, Semiglazov VV2, Nikolaev KS1, Komyakhov AV2, Bryantseva GV3

1) NN Petrov Research Institute of Oncology,
2) IP Pavlov Saint-Petersburg State Medical University,
3) II Mechnikov Northwest State Medical University,
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact: Nikolaev Kirill Stanislavovich, e-mail:

The definition of optimal surgical margin for organ-preserving treatment (OPT) of breast cancer remains controversial. Historically, this controversy is based on original studies, proved the safety of OPT and numerous conflicting retrospective studies tried to determine the correlation between margin width and long-term outcomes over the last 20 years. It is important to realize that assessment of surgical margin is inaccurate and currant laboratory methods for surgical margin assessment represent only selected evaluation. Current data show that assessment of surgical margin for OPT should be done according to biological specifics of breast cancer and also correlation between tumor biology, adjuvant treatment and long-term outcomes. The consensus on definition of surgical margin for OPT should have clinical priority because it allows to decrease the extent of surgery on breast cancer with no compromising long-term treatment outcomes.

KEY WORDS: breast cancer, organ-preserving treatment, surgical margin.


  1. Semiglazov VF, Semiglazov VV, Paltuev RM. Biological basis of treatment planning for breast cancer. Vrach, 2012; 11: 2-4.
  2. 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.
  3. Klimberg VS, Harms S, Korourian S. Assessing margin status. Surg Oncol, 1999; 8: 77-84.
  4. Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer-bigger is not better. N Engl I Med. 2012; 367: 79-82.
  5. Taghian A, Mohiuddin M, Tagsi R, et al. Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey. Ann Surg, 2005; 241: 629-39.
  6. Ananthakrishnan P, Balci FL, Crowe JP. Optimizing surgical margins in breast conservation. Int J Surg Oncol, 2012; 2012: 585-670. Epub 2012 Dec 9.
  7. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA, 2012; 307: 467-75.
  8. Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg, 2002; 184: 383-93.
  9. Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ, et al. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long-term results of breast conservation. Cancer, 1995; 76: 259-67.
  10. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer, 2010; 46: 3219-32.
  11. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2011; 103: 478-88.
  12. Julien JP, Bijker N, Fentiman IS, et al. Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomised phase III trial 10853. EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. Lancet, 2000; 355: 528-33.
  13. Rudloff U, Brogi E, Reiner AS, et al. The influence of margin width and volume of disease near margin on benefit of radiation therapy for women with DCIS treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg, 2010; 251: 583-91.
  14. Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, et al. Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Oncol, 2009; 27: 1615-20.
  15. Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, et al. Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: Is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg, 2009; 209: 608-13.
  16. Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, et al. What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol, 2010; 17: 558-63.
  17. 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.
  18. Rosen PP, Fracchia AA, Urban JA, et al. «Residual» mammary carcinoma following simulated partial mastectomy. Cancer, 1975: 35: 739-47.
  19. Wazer DE, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Ruthazer R, et al. The influence of age and extensive intraductal component histology upon breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 1999; 45: 885-91.
  20. Cellini C, Hollenbeck ST, Christos Р, et al. Factors associated with residual breast cancer after re-excision for close or positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol, 2004; 11: 915-20.
  21. Ratanawichitrasin A, Rybicki LA, Steiger E, et al. Predicting the likelihood of residual disease in women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg, 1999; 188: 17-21.
  22. Morrow M. Breast conservation and negative margins: how much is enough? Breast, 2009; 3: S84-6.
  23. Graham RA, Homer MJ, Katz J, et al. The pancake phenomenon contributes to the inaccuracy of margin assessment in patients with breast cancer. Am I Surg, 2002; 184: 89-93.
  24. Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Buchhotz ТА, et al. Improving local control with breast-conserving therapy: a 27-year single-institution experience. Cancer 2005; 104: 20-9.
  25. Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, et al. Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst, 1996; 88: 1529-42.
  26. Fisher B, Dignam J, Mamounas EP, et al. Sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil for the treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors: eight-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and first report of findings from NSABP B-19 comparing methotrexate and fluorouracil with conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol, 1996; 14: 1982-92.
  27. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 2005; 353: 1659-72.
  28. Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol, 2007; 25: 3259-65.
  29. Nguyen PL, Taghian AG, Katz MS, et al. Breast cancer subtype approximated by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 is associated with local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol, 2008; 26: 2373-8.
  30. Nuyten DS, Kreike B, Hart AA, et al. Predicting a local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy by gene expression profiling. Breast Cancer Res, 2006; 8: R62.
  31. Early Вreast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, Correa C, McGale P, et al. Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 2010; 2010: 162-77.
  32. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature, 2012; 490: 61-70.
  33. Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowan KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 1995; 332: 907-11.
  34. Arriagada RMG, Rochard F, et al. Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: Patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data. Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol, 1996; 14: 1558-64.
  35. van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2000; 92: 1143-50.
  36. 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.

P. 58-63

«Oncokhirurgia Info»

10 Vostochnaia ul., suite 16, Moscow, 115280
Tel./fax: +7(499) 426-46-22
Tel.: +7(915) 356-03-07
URL: oncosurgery.oncology.ru