Camarillo-Quesada AE, Maytorena-Córdova G, Olguín-Cruces VA, Coutiño-Ruiz MG

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 696-703
PDF size: 287.71 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To know the factors associated with positive surgical edges in breast cancer patients treated with conservative surgery.
Materials and Methods: Descriptive-observational, comparative, retrospective and cross-sectional study, performed between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019 at the Unidad Médica de Alta Especialidad Hospital de Ginecoobstetricia 4 Luis Castelazo Ayala. Inclusion criteria: patients diagnosed with breast cancer operated with conservative surgery and with complete histopathological and immunohistochemical report. Exclusion criteria: patients with breast cancer treated outside the unit, with other types of neoplasms (lymphomas, sarcomas) and in advanced clinical stage or neoadjuvant treatment. Elimination criteria: patients with incomplete histopathological report and without clinical records in the unit. The statistical analysis was processed in SPSS version 25. The bivariate analysis studied the relationship between the variables by means of the 2's test. For all tests, values ‹ 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results: 153 cases were analyzed; of these 11 were patients with a positive surgical edge in the definitive report, corresponding to 7.18% of the total number of breastconserving surgeries performed in the study period. These patients required another surgical intervention, 6 of them in margin enlargement and the remaining 5 in total mastectomy. There was a statistically significant relationship between non-palpable lesions and positive surgical margin (p ‹ 0.003). Of the rest of the variables studied, no relationship with statistical significance was found.
Conclusions: The factors associated with positive margins were size 11 to 20 mm in 45.4%, age 58 ± 11.9 years in 72.7%, multifocality in 63.6%, lymphovascular invasion in 63.6%, ductal carcinoma subtype in 72.7%, histologic grade 2 in 72.7%, luminal molecular classification A with 72.7% and nonpalpable lesion with 54.5%.

REFERENCES

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. Cancer J Clin 2020; (70): 7-30. https://doi-org.pbidi.unam. mx:2443/10.3322/caac.21590

2. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, et al. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breastconserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; (3): 717-30. https://doi-org.pbidi.unam.mx:2443/10.1245/ s10434-014-3480-5

3. Tabár L, Dean PB, Chen TH, et al. The incidence of fatal breast cancer measures the increased effectiveness of therapy in women participating in mammography screening. Cancer 2019 (125): 515-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ cncr.31840

4. Van Deurzen CHM. 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

5. Linden HM, Peterson LM, Fowler AM. Clinical potential of estrogen and progesterone receptor imaging. PET Clin 2018; (13): 415-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpet.2018.02.005

6. 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; (16): 1233-41. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022152

7. Langhans L, Jensen Mb, Talman Mm, et al. Reoperation rates in ductal carcinoma in situ vs invasive breast cancer after wire-guided breast-conserving surgery. JAMA Surg 2017; (4): 378-84. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg. 2016.4751

8. 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; (10): 1352-57. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamaoncol.2017.0774

9. Schulman AM, Mirrielees JA, Leverson G, et al. Reexcision 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): 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1245/ s10434-016-5516-5

10. Morrow M, Katz SJ. Margins in ductal carcinoma in situ: is bigger really better. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; (7): 494-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs165

11. Albornoz CR, Matros E, Lee CN, et al. Bilateral mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: the role of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; (6): 1518-26. https://doi.org/10.1097/ PRS.0000000000001276

12. 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

13. 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; (10): 3321-36. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07547-w

14. 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): 2507-16. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S190852

15. Lai HW, Huang RH, Wu YT, et al. Clinicopathologic factors related to surgical margin involvement, reoperation, and residual cancer in primary operable breast cancer - An analysis of 2050 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018; (11): 1725- 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.07.056

16. Colakovic N, Zdravkovic D, Skuric Z, Mrda D, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound in breast cancer surgery-from localization of non-palpable tumors to objectively measurable excision. World J Surg Oncol 2018; (1): 184-90. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12957-018-1488-1