The University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Department of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
J Surg Res. 2022 Sep;277:296-302. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.027. Epub 2022 May 5.
Re-excision for positive margins (margins where tumor is positive) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) is common and burdensome for breast cancer patients. Routine shave margins can reduce positive margins and re-excision rates. Cavity shaving margin (CSM) removes margins from the lumpectomy cavity edges, whereas specimen shave margin (SSM) requires ex vivo removal of margins from the resected specimen.
We assessed breast cancer patients undergoing BCS who received CSM or SSM procedures from 2017 to 2019. CSM and SSM techniques were compared by analyzing positive rates of primary and final shaved margins, re-excision rates, and tissue volumes removed.
Of 116 patients included in this study, 57 underwent CSM and 59 underwent SSM. Primary margins were positive or close in 19 CSM patients and 21 SSM patients (33% versus 36%; P = 0.798). Seventeen CSM patients had a tumor in shaved margin specimens, compared to four patients for SSM (30% versus 7%; P < 0.001); however, final shave margins were similar (5% versus 5%; P = 0.983). Volumes of shave specimens were higher with SSM (40.7 versus 13.4 cm; P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in the total volume removed (146.8 versus 134.4 cm; P = 0.540). For tumors 2 cm or larger, the total volume removed (140 versus 206 cm; P = 0.432) and rates of final margin positivity (7.5% versus 0%; P = 0.684) were similar for both techniques.
CSM and SSM are effective techniques for achieving low re-excision rates. Our findings suggest that surgeons performing either CSM or SSM may maintain operative preferences and achieve similar results.
保乳手术后(BCS)切缘阳性(肿瘤阳性的边缘)的再次切除是常见的,并且给乳腺癌患者带来了负担。常规的磨边术可以减少阳性切缘和再次切除率。腔面磨边术(CSM)切除肿瘤切除腔边缘的切缘,而标本磨边术(SSM)需要从切除的标本上离体切除切缘。
我们评估了 2017 年至 2019 年期间接受 CSM 或 SSM 手术的接受 BCS 的乳腺癌患者。通过分析原发性和最终磨边的阳性率、再次切除率和切除组织体积,比较 CSM 和 SSM 技术。
在本研究中,116 例患者中,57 例行 CSM,59 例行 SSM。19 例 CSM 患者和 21 例 SSM 患者的原发性切缘阳性或接近(33%比 36%;P=0.798)。17 例 CSM 患者的切除标本中有肿瘤,而 4 例 SSM 患者有肿瘤(30%比 7%;P<0.001);然而,最终磨边的切缘相似(5%比 5%;P=0.983)。SSM 的磨边标本体积较大(40.7 比 13.4 cm;P<0.001),但切除组织的总体积相似(146.8 比 134.4 cm;P=0.540)。对于 2cm 或更大的肿瘤,两种技术的切除组织总体积(140 比 206 cm;P=0.432)和最终切缘阳性率(7.5%比 0%;P=0.684)相似。
CSM 和 SSM 是实现低再次切除率的有效技术。我们的发现表明,进行 CSM 或 SSM 的外科医生可以保持手术偏好并获得相似的结果。