Breast cancer in patients with residual invasive carcinoma is more accurately staged with additive tumor size assessment.
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of tumor size for patients with breast cancer undergoing re-excision following breast-conserving therapy is important for appropriate staging and adjuvant treatment. We investigated the accuracy of additive vs. nonadditive size assessment in determining final tumor stage. METHODS: Patients with infiltrating carcinoma in the initial excision and in at least one additional re-excision (re-excision positive; n = 89) had tumor size assessed with additive and nonadditive techniques. This group was compared with patients undergoing re-excision but without identifiable residual carcinoma (re-excision negative; n = 105) regarding rates of lymph node (LN) metastasis. RESULTS: The re-excision positive patients had a different median final tumor size depending on the size assessment technique used (nonadditive: 1.8 cm; additive: 3.0 cm; P <.0001). Both groups of patients had a median tumor size consistent with T1c staging in nonadditive size assessment. However, re-excision positive patients had a significantly higher incidence of LN metastasis (P <.05) than did re-excision negative patients. Both groups were then separated into T1 and T2 stages and the LN metastasis rates were assessed. Compared with nonadditive size assessment, additive size assessment distributed re-excision positive patients into T stages whereby the LN metastasis rates more closely approximated those of re-excision negative patients (T1, 3% vs. 6% difference; T2, 4% vs. 13% difference). CONCLUSIONS: With regard to LN metastasis, staging for patients with residual invasive carcinoma in re-excision specimens is more accurate with additive tumor size assessment.
Hollenbeck, ST; Cellini, C; Christos, P; Varnado-Rhodes, Y; Martins, D; Nussbaum, M; Osborne, MP; Simmons, RM
Volume / Issue
Start / End Page
Pubmed Central ID
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)