4.4 Review

Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re-excision rates? A systematic review

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 307, Issue 4, Pages 1295-1309

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06512-5

Keywords

Cavity shaving; Margin shaving; Cavity margin shaving; Lumpectomy; Breast-conserving surgery; therapy; Breast cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cavity shaving is a surgical technique that can reduce re-excision rates and margin positivity in breast conserving surgery for breast cancer. Although the results vary, most studies show that cavity shaving can be beneficial.
Purpose Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical technique used in the treatment of breast cancer (BC). It may reduce margin positivity in histologic assessment and consequently reduces re- excision rates in breast conserving surgery (BCS). The evidence for this assumption is described in the present review. Methods A systematic review of relevant literature in English from January 1999 to April 2019 was conducted. The analysis included studies on CS and its effects on re-excision rates and margin positivity. We searched PubMed databases for relevant publications. In total, 22 studies were included in the present review. Results The benefit from CS on re-excision rates and histologic margin positivity was variable. Out of 22 studies, 17 reported a reduction in both re-excision rates and histologic margin positivity in margin shaved patients. Four studies could not find a significant reduction of second surgeries and residual tumor rates. One study suggested that CS after BCS was superior to single BCS only in subgroup analysis in IDC tumors. Conclusion CS is a surgical technique that was shown to reduce re-excision and margin positivity rates in most of the studies. Furthermore, it can be a useful tool to assess specimen margins and detect multifocality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available