Utilization of Tumor Markers for Intraoperative Specimen Radiography Does Not Decrease the Rate of Margin Positivity in Breast Conservation Surgery (BCS).

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
American Surgeon Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-04 DOI:10.1177/00031348261448903
Rachna Prasad, Micah Brainerd, Camila Ortega, Joseph N Gabra, Caroline Mangira, Adina Brett-Morris, Christopher Mamone, Andrew Fenton, Mary Murray
{"title":"Utilization of Tumor Markers for Intraoperative Specimen Radiography Does Not Decrease the Rate of Margin Positivity in Breast Conservation Surgery (BCS).","authors":"Rachna Prasad, Micah Brainerd, Camila Ortega, Joseph N Gabra, Caroline Mangira, Adina Brett-Morris, Christopher Mamone, Andrew Fenton, Mary Murray","doi":"10.1177/00031348261448903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionMargin status after lumpectomy is crucial in determining risk of local recurrence. Current guidelines recommend \"no ink on tumor\" as adequate negative margins for invasive breast carcinoma. Still, up to 20% of patients may have positive margins and need re-excision. This study explored the use of a commercially available tumor marking system during specimen radiography and its effect on re-excision rates in breast conservation surgery.MethodsWith IRRB approval, a review was conducted of a prospectively collected cohort of 105 study patients and a retrospectively collected cohort of 92 control patients with invasive breast carcinoma undergoing breast conservation surgery. In the study group, lumpectomy specimens were labeled with clips from a commercial tumor marking system, followed by two-view radiography to assess the need for shave margins. The surgeon interpreted the radiograph, and, at their discretion, excised additional margins. A control group was managed by the same surgeons without the tumor marking system. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-Squared or Fisher's exact tests and continuous variables were compared using t-tests or Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests depending on their distribution.ResultsA total of 197 patients were divided into a study group (n = 105) and a control group (n = 92). The types of margin excision rates differed significantly between groups (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.0105). In the study group, the rates of selective and complete margin excisions were 39% and 7%, respectively, while 53% had no margins excised, as determined using the tumor marking system. In the control group, rates of selective and complete margin excisions were 42% and 21%, respectively, and 37% had no margins excised. Final pathology showed positive margins in 24% (study) vs 21% (control), with no significant difference between the groups (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.0810).ConclusionsThe tumor marking system did not decrease the rate of margin positivity compared to the control group. However, the study group demonstrated a significant decrease in the number of patients requiring selective or complete margin excision.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"2539-2545"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348261448903","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionMargin status after lumpectomy is crucial in determining risk of local recurrence. Current guidelines recommend "no ink on tumor" as adequate negative margins for invasive breast carcinoma. Still, up to 20% of patients may have positive margins and need re-excision. This study explored the use of a commercially available tumor marking system during specimen radiography and its effect on re-excision rates in breast conservation surgery.MethodsWith IRRB approval, a review was conducted of a prospectively collected cohort of 105 study patients and a retrospectively collected cohort of 92 control patients with invasive breast carcinoma undergoing breast conservation surgery. In the study group, lumpectomy specimens were labeled with clips from a commercial tumor marking system, followed by two-view radiography to assess the need for shave margins. The surgeon interpreted the radiograph, and, at their discretion, excised additional margins. A control group was managed by the same surgeons without the tumor marking system. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-Squared or Fisher's exact tests and continuous variables were compared using t-tests or Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests depending on their distribution.ResultsA total of 197 patients were divided into a study group (n = 105) and a control group (n = 92). The types of margin excision rates differed significantly between groups (P ≤ 0.0105). In the study group, the rates of selective and complete margin excisions were 39% and 7%, respectively, while 53% had no margins excised, as determined using the tumor marking system. In the control group, rates of selective and complete margin excisions were 42% and 21%, respectively, and 37% had no margins excised. Final pathology showed positive margins in 24% (study) vs 21% (control), with no significant difference between the groups (P ≤ 0.0810).ConclusionsThe tumor marking system did not decrease the rate of margin positivity compared to the control group. However, the study group demonstrated a significant decrease in the number of patients requiring selective or complete margin excision.

在保乳手术(BCS)中,术中使用肿瘤标记物并不会降低边缘阳性率。
乳房肿瘤切除术后切缘状况是决定局部复发风险的关键因素。目前的指南推荐浸润性乳腺癌的阴性切缘为“肿瘤上无墨迹”。尽管如此,高达20%的患者可能有阳性边缘,需要再次切除。本研究探讨了在标本x线摄影中使用市售肿瘤标记系统及其对保乳手术中再次切除率的影响。方法经IRRB批准,对105例前瞻性队列研究患者和92例回顾性对照组行保乳手术的浸润性乳腺癌患者进行回顾性研究。在研究组中,乳房肿瘤切除术标本用商业肿瘤标记系统的夹子进行标记,然后进行双视图x线摄影以评估是否需要刮除边缘。外科医生解释了x光片,并根据他们的判断切除了额外的边缘。对照组由同一外科医生管理,不使用肿瘤标记系统。分类变量使用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验进行比较,连续变量根据其分布使用t检验或Wilcoxon秩和检验进行比较。结果197例患者分为研究组105例和对照组92例。两组间切缘类型差异有统计学意义(P≤0.0105)。在研究组中,使用肿瘤标记系统确定的选择性和完全切缘率分别为39%和7%,而53%没有切缘。在对照组中,选择性切缘和完全切缘的比例分别为42%和21%,未切缘的比例为37%。最终病理显示阳性边缘的比例为24%(研究组)和21%(对照组),两组间差异无统计学意义(P≤0.0810)。结论与对照组相比,肿瘤标记系统未降低切缘阳性率。然而,研究组显示需要选择性或完全切除切缘的患者数量显著减少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Surgeon
American Surgeon 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
623
期刊介绍: The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书