The primary objective of this study was to identify preoperative factors that could be associated with positive resection margins. We also tried to analyze the local recurrence and overall survival in patients who received conservative treatment for early-stage breast cancer and correlate these parameters with preoperative factors. A retrospective examination was conducted on the medical records and pathological reports of 143 patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer in our department from 2009 to 2017. Postoperative outcomes were assessed through phone contact and statistical analyses, including GraphPad Prism, and Fisher’s exact test, the Chi-square test, and the log-rank test were employed. The results revealed positive resection margins in 7.69% (11 cases) of the 143 patients, with an overall mortality rate of 16.66% for those with positive margins and 6.59% for those with negative margins. Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in the overall (p = 0.5) or specific (p = 0.53) survival between the positive and negative margin groups. The positive margins were significantly associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.0001) and the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (p = 0.01). Among the analyzed factors, two out of sixteen were significantly linked to positive resection margins in BCS, emphasizing their importance in surgical management planning for early-stage breast cancer.

Introduction: Various techniques for intraoperative measurement of resection margins have been explored to prevent positive margins in breast-conserving surgery. Although multiple methods exist, none is perfect, and most are costly and not easily accessible. Material and Methods: This prospective study was conducted at the Surgical Clinic of Mures County Clinical Hospital, utilizing data from breast cancer patients who underwent conservative treatment between 2014 and 2019. Resection margins were measured using ultrasound and mammography, and these values were compared with histopathological reports. Results: A total of 166 patients were enrolled, with 10 patients (6.02%) having positive resection margins. For ultrasound, at a 2 mm cut-off, sensitivity was 63.86% and specificity was 93.98%; at a 5 mm cut-off, sensitivity increased to 95.78% with the same specificity of 93.98%. For mammography, at a 2 mm cut-off, sensitivity was 6.627% and specificity was 93.98%; at a 5 mm cut-off, sensitivity was 37.35% with the specificity remaining at 93.98%. Conclusions: Ultrasound at a 5 mm cut-off showed higher sensitivity compared to a 2 mm cut-off, while mammography showed low sensitivity at both cut-offs. These results indicate that, while both methods have high specificity, their accuracy and sensitivity vary, necessitating cautious interpretation for clinical use.