In cancer surgery, the single most important predictor of local recurrence is the tissue margins.1 Customary methods used to label tissue margins cause error. Medical research shows discordance rates of 31% to 52% in the identification of specimen margins between surgery, pathology and radiology.2, 3 This error may lead to unnecessary re-excisions or cancer recurrence.4
Vector Surgical's Tissue Orientation System, consisting of the MarginMarker® sterile ink kit and CorrectClips® radiographic markers, provides secure and accurate designation of specimen margins, potentially resulting in fewer unnecessary re-excisions, more accurate re-excisions, lower cancer recurrence and improved OR safety.
Radiology receives images on which the specimen is fully visible and margins are labeled with CorrectClips to indicate the orientation. The tissue is displayed without obstruction or confounding elements that can otherwise cause error or delay.
1. Dooley, W.C. and Parker, J. “Understanding the Mechanisms Creating False Positive Lumpectomy Margins.” American Journal of Surgery 190 (2005): 606-608.
2. Britton, P.D.; Sonoda, L.I.; Yamamoto, A.K.; Koo, B.; Soh, E.; and Goud, A. “Breast Surgical Specimen Radiographs: How Reliable Are They?” European Journal of Radiology 79 (2011): 245-249.
3. Molina, M.A.; Snell, S.; Franceschi, D.; Jorda, M.; Gomez, C.; Moffat, F.L.; Powell, J.; and Avisar, E. “Breast Specimen Orientation.” Annals of Surgical Oncology 16 (2009): 285-288.
4. McCahill, L.E.; Single, R.M.; Aiello Bowles, E.J.; Feigelson, H.S.; James, T.A.; Barney, T.; Engel, J.M.; and Onitilo, A.A. “Variability in Reexcision Following Breast Conservation Surgery.” Journal of the American Medical Association 307.5 (2012): 467-475.
5. Rebner, M; Pennes, D.R.; Baker, D.E.; Adler, D.D.; and Boyd, P. “Two-View Specimen Radiography in Surgical Biopsy of Nonpalpable Breast Masses.” American Journal of Roentgenology 149 (1987): 283-285.
6. “Practice Guideline for Breast Conservation Therapy in the Management of Invasive Breast Carcinoma.” American College of Radiology. Jan. 1, 2002.
7. McCormick, J.T.; Keleher, A.J.; Tikhomirov, V.B.; Budway, R.J.; and Caushaj, P.F. “Analysis of the Use of Specimen Mammography in Breast Conservation Therapy.” American Journal of Surgery 188.4 (2004): 433-436.
8. Wong, J.W.; Bai, H.; Abdul-Karim, F.W.; and MacLennan, G.T. “Simulation of Microcalcifications on Specimen Radiographs of Breast Biopsies by Inks Used in Marking the Surgical Resection Margins.”, The Breast Journal 10.5 (2004): 423-426.
9. Singh, M.; Singh, G.; Hogan, K.T.; Atkins, K.A.; and Schroen, A.T. “The Effect of Intraoperative Specimen Inking on Lumpectomy Re-excision Rates.” World Journal of Surgical Oncology 8.4 (2010).
10. Lovrics, P.J.; Cornacchi, S. D.; Farrokhyar, F.; Garnett, A.; Chen, V.; Franic, S.; and Simunovic, M. “The Relationship Between Surgical Factors and Margin Status After Breast-Conservation Surgery for Early Stage Breast Cancer.” The American Journal of Surgery (2009): 197, 740-746.
11. Gibson, G.R.; Lesnikoski, B.A.; Yoo, J.; Mott, L.A.; Cady, B.; and Barth, R.J. Jr. “A Comparison of Ink-Directed and Traditional Whole-Cavity Re-Excision for Breast Lumpectomy Specimens with Positive Margins.” Annals of Surgical Oncology 8.9 (2001): 693-704.
12. Menes, T.S.; Tartter, P.I.; Bleiweiss, I.; Godbold, J.H.; Estabrook, A.; and Smith, S.R. “The Consequence of Multiple Re-excisions to Obtain Clear Lumpectomy Margins in Breast Cancer Patients.” Annals of Surgical Oncology 12.11 (2005): 881-885.
13. Gage, I.; Schnitt, S.J.; Nixon, A.J.; Silver, B.; Recht, A.; Troyan, S.L.; Eberlein, T.; Love, S.M.; Gelman, R.; Harris, J.R.; and Connolly, J.L. “Pathologic Margin Involvement and the Risk of Recurrence in Patients Treated with Breast-Conserving Therapy.” Cancer 78.9 (1996): 1921-1928.