Retrospective quantative study of margins in breast conserving surgery

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    A retrospective quantitative study of margins after breast conserving surgery to identify prognostic factors to avoid re-excision.

  • IRAS ID

    136664

  • Contact name

    Loraine kalra

  • Contact email

    loraine.kalra@wsht.nhs.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    Sussex NHS Research Consortium

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 7 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    Summary- Current best practises do not define what width of tissue needs to be excised around an invasive cancer in breast conserving surgery (BCS). Its importance is linked with tumour recurrence yet it remains a matter of debate and controversy. Re-excision depends entirely on what constitutes a negative margin in a particular institution and prevailing practise guides treatment. Most of the research available specifies different measurements as negative margins, and so the conclusions on Ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence being based on different assumptions may not be entirely accurate. For surgeons and researchers around the world it would be beneficial to have a standard negative margin measurement, predictors which can indicate residual disease and recommendations for reexcision. Since 1985 the Breast unit at a Hospital in South East England have accepted 1mm of clearance from the tumour in BCS as being negative, and re excision was only preformed if it was less than 1mm. The significance of re excision is poor cosmesis, increased morbidity and costs, and most studies show that more than half of the re excised margins have shown no residual disease. The aims of this research proposal are to review this practise and compare the rates of local recurrence, to see if a margin width of 1mm can be considered a standard negative margin, when re-excision can be avoided, and if there are predictors of residual disease.

  • REC name

    East of England - Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    14/EE/1196

  • Date of REC Opinion

    21 Oct 2014

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion