Minimizing re-excision after breast conserving surgery – a review of radiofrequency spectroscopy for real-time, intraoperative margin assessment

References

• Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(25):4082–4088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, et al. Nationwide Trends in Mastectomy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(1):9–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landercasper J, Whitacre E, Degnim AC, et al. 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(10):2250–2255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEvoy M, Landercasper J, Naik H, et al. Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic. Gland Surg. 2018;7(6):536–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 Dec;149(12):1296–1305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havel L, Naik H, Ramirez L, et al. Impact of the SSO-ASTRO Margin Guideline on Rates of Re-excision After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer: a Meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 May;26(5):1238–1244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 stage I and II invasive breast cancer: initial experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3239–3246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulman AM, Mirrielees JA, Leverson G, et al. Re-excision surgery for breast cancer: an analysis of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) Mastery SM database following the SSO-ASTRO “no ink on tumor” guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(1):52–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(12):3801–3810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langhans L, Jensen M, Talman MM, et al. Reoperation Rates in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ vs Invasive Breast Cancer After Wire-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(4):378–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 [Published 2019 Mar 28];11:2507–2516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decker MR, Trentham-Dietz A, Loconte NK, et al. The Role of Intraoperative Pathologic Assessment in the Surgical Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(9):2788–2794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaczmarski K, Wang P, Gilmore R, et al. Surgeon Re-Excision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery: a Measure of Low-Value Care. J Am Coll Surg. 2019 Apr;228(4):504–512.e2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2021; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Cody HS, Van Zee, KJ. Re-excision – the other breast cancer epidemic. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):568–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Ann Surg Oncol. 21(3): 704–716. 2014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA, et al. The role of re-excision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J. 2006;12(4):331-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan MJ, Li T, Freedman G, et al. The effect of multiple re-excisions on the risk of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3133–3140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali AN, Vapiwala N, Guo M, et al. The impact of re-excision and residual disease on local recurrence after breast conservation treatment for patients with early-stage breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2011;11(6):400–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams BJ, Zoon CK, Stevenson C, et al. The role of margin status and re-excision in local recurrence following breast conservation surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(7):2250–2255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennigs A, Fuchs V, Sinn H-P, et al., Do patients after Re-excision due to involved or close margins have the same risk of local recurrence as those after one-step breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 23(6): 1831–1837. 2016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalfe LN, Zysk AM, Yemul KS, et al., Beyond the Margins - Economic Costs and Complications Associated with Repeated Breast-Conserving Surgeries. JAMA Surg. 152(11): 1084–1086. 2017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(2):300–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guidi AJ, Tworek JA, Mais DD, et al. Breast specimen processing and reporting with an emphasis on margin evaluation: a College of American Pathologists survey of 866 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142(4):496–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunez A, Jones V, Schulz-Costello K, et al. Accuracy of gross intraoperative margin assessment for breast cancer: experience since the SSO-ASTRO margin consensus guidelines. Sci Rep. 2020;10(17344). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74373-6.
   Google Scholar
• 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(6):503–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupont E, Tsangaris T, Garcia-Cantu C, et al. Resection of Cavity Shave Margins in Stage 0-III Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Surgery: a Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2021 May 1;273(5):876–881.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard-mcnatt M, Dupont E, Tsangaris T, et al. SHAVE2 Group. Impact of Cavity Shave Margins on Margin Status in Patients with Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. J Am Coll Surg. 2021 Apr;232(4):373–378.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cartagena LC, McGuire K, Zot P, et al. Breast-Conserving Surgeries With and Without Cavity Shave Margins Have Different Re-excision Rates and Associated Overall Cost: institutional and Patient-Driven Decisions for Its Utilization. Clin Breast Cancer. 2021 Oct;21(5):e594-e601.
   Google Scholar
• Foster KR, Schepps JL. Dielectric properties of tumor and normal tissues at radio through microwave frequencies. J Micro Power. 1981;16(2):107–119
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Joines WT, Zhang Y, Li C, et al. The measured electrical properties of normal and malignant human tissues from 50 to 900 MHz. Med Phys. 1994;21(4):547–550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sha L, Ward ER, Stroy B. A review of dielectric properties of normal and malignant breast tissue. PIEEE SoutheastCon. 2002: 457–462
   Google Scholar
• Pappo I, Spector R, Schindel A, et al. Diagnostic performance of a novel device for real-time margin assessment in lumpectomy specimens. J Surg Res. 2010 May 15;160(2):277–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allweis TM, Kaufman Z, Lelcuk S, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of a real-time, intraoperative probe for positive margin detection in breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):483–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnabel F, Boolbol SK, Gittleman M, et al. A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 May;21(5):1589–1595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geha RC, Taback B, Cadena L, et al. A Single institution’s randomized double-armed prospective study of lumpectomy margins with adjunctive use of the MarginProbe in nonpalpable breast cancers. Breast J. 2020;00:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Thill M, Dittmer C, Baumann K, et al. MarginProbe® – final results of the German post-market study in breast conserving surgery of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast. 2014;23(1):94–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebastian M, Akbari S, Anglin B, et al. The impact of use of an intraoperative margin assessment device on re-excision rates. Springerplus. 2015;4:198. Published 2015 Apr 28.
   Google Scholar
• Blohmer JU, Tanko J, Kueper J, et al. MarginProbe reduces the rate of re-excision following breast conserving surgery for breast cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Aug;294(2):361–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coble J, Reid V. Achieving clear margins. Directed shaving using MarginProbe®, as compared to a full cavity shave approach. Am J Surg. 2017 Apr;213(4):627–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupstas A, Ibrar W, Hayward RD, et al. A novel modality for intraoperative margin assessment and its impact on re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2018 Mar;215(3):400–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gooch J, Yoon E, Chun J, et al. The relationship of breast density and positive lumpectomy margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(6):1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermann N, Haas I, Malinger P, et al. Margin assessment before intraoperative radiotherapy during breast conserving surgery—Does the addition of MarginProbe decrease the need for addition of fractionated whole breast radiation? Breast J. 2020;00:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Cen C, Chun J, Kaplowitz E, et al. Margin assessment and Re-excision rates for patients Who Have Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(9):5142–5148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vacek PM, Geller BM. A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(5):715–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(17):1204–1214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc; 2009-2010.
   Google Scholar
• Engmann NJ, Golmakani MK, Miglioretti DL, et al. for the breast cancer surveillance consortium. population-attributable risk proportion of clinical risk factors for breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(9):1228–1236*.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246(2):376–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bani MR, Lux MP, Heusinger K, et al. Factors correlating with re-excision after breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Jan;35(1):32–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh SM, Brennan SB, Zabor EC, et al. Does breast density increase the risk of Re-excision for women with breast cancer having breast-Conservation Therapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Dec;26(13):4246–4253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• About the National Quality Strategy. Agency for healthcare research and quality, Rockville, MD. https://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/about/index.html Accessed November 23, 2020
   Google Scholar
• Institute for Healthcare Improvement. IHI Triple Aim Initiative: better care for individuals, better health for populations and lower per capita costs. http://www.ihi.org/engage/initiatives/tripleaim/pages/default.aspx. Accessed November 23, 2020
   Google Scholar
• Fuzesi S, Zabor E, Stempel M, et al. Satisfaction with breast-conserving therapy after Re-excision: a study using the breast-Q, A patient reported outcomes measure in breast surgery. Poster session presented at: Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) 71st Annual Cancer Symposium; 2018 Mar 21-24; Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar