Close Margins Less Than 2 mm Are Not Associated With Higher Risks of 10-Year Local Recurrence and Breast Cancer Mortality Compared With Negative Margins in Women Treated With Breast-Conserving Therapy

Abstract

Purpose: The 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus suggested "no ink on tumor" is a sufficient surgical margin for invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Whether close margins <2 mm are associated with inferior outcomes remains controversial. This study evaluated 10-year outcomes by margin status in a population-based cohort treated with BCS and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT).

Methods and materials: The subjects were 10,863 women with invasive cancer categorized as pT1 to T3, any N, and M0 referred from 2001 to 2011, an era in which the institutional policy was to re-excise close or positive margins, except in select cases. All women underwent BCS and whole-breast RT with or without boost RT. Local recurrence (LR) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were examined using competing-risk analysis in cohorts with negative (≥2 mm; n = 9241, 85%), close (<2 mm; n = 1310, 12%), or positive (tumor touching ink; n = 312, 3%) margins. Multivariable analysis and matched-pair analysis were performed.

Results: The median follow-up period was 8 years. Systemic therapy was used in 87% of patients. Boost RT was used in 34.1%, 76.9%, and 79.5% of patients with negative, close, and positive margins, respectively. In the negative, close, and positive margin cohorts, the 10-year cumulative incidence of LR was 1.8%, 2.0%, and 1.1%, respectively (P = .759). Corresponding BCSS estimates were 93.9%, 91.8%, and 87.9%, respectively (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, close margins were not associated with increased LR (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.97; P = .350) or reduced BCSS (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.58, P = .071) relative to negative margins. On matched-pair analysis, close margin cases had similar LR (P = .114) and BCSS (P = .100) to negative margin controls.

Conclusions: Select cases with close or positive margins in this population-based analysis had similar LR and BCSS to cases with negative margins. While these findings do not endorse omitting re-excision for all cases, the data support a policy of accepting carefully selected cases with close margins for adjuvant RT without re-excision.