↓ Skip to main content

Implications of New Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines for Breast-Conserving Surgery: Changes in Reexcision Rates and Predicted Rates of Residual Tumor

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Implications of New Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines for Breast-Conserving Surgery: Changes in Reexcision Rates and Predicted Rates of Residual Tumor
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, October 2015
DOI 10.1245/s10434-015-4916-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea L. Merrill, Suzanne B. Coopey, Rong Tang, Maureen P. McEvoy, Michele C. Specht, Kevin S. Hughes, Michelle A. Gadd, Barbara L. Smith

Abstract

The 2014 guidelines endorsed by Society of Surgical Oncology, the American Society of Breast Surgeons, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology advocate "no ink on tumor" as the new margin requirement for breast-conserving therapy (BCT). We used our lumpectomy margins database from 2004 to 2006 to predict the effect of these new guidelines on BCT. Patients with neoadjuvant therapy, pure ductal carcinoma-in situ, or incomplete margin data were excluded. We applied new ("no ink on tumor") and old (≥2 mm) margin guidelines and compared rates of positive margins, reexcision, and rates of residual disease found at reexcision. A total of 437 lumpectomy surgeries met the eligibility criteria. Eighty-six percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, 12 % invasive lobular carcinoma, and 2 % invasive ductal carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma. Using a ≥2 mm margin standard, 36 % of lumpectomies had positive margins compared to 18 % using new guidelines (p < 0.0001). Seventy-seven percent of patients with "ink on tumor" had residual disease found at reexcision. Fifty percent of subjects with margins <2 mm had residual disease (p = 0.0013) but would not have undergone reexcision under the new guidelines. With margins of ≥2 mm, residual tumor was seen in the shaved margins of 14 % of lumpectomies. Residual tumor was more common in reexcisions for ductal carcinoma-in situ <2 mm from a margin than for invasive cancer (53 vs. 40 %), although this was not statistically significant. Use of new lumpectomy margin guidelines would have reduced reoperation for BCT by half in our patient cohort. However, residual disease was present in many patients who would not have been reexcised with the new guidelines. Long-term follow-up of local recurrence rates is needed to determine if this increase in residual disease is clinically significant.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 19%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 43%
Engineering 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,699,563
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,211
of 6,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,332
of 279,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#52
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.