In cancer surgery, the single most important predictor of local recurrence is the tissue margins.1,2
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.3,4 This error may lead to unnecessary re-excisions or cancer recurrence.5
Vector Surgical’s Tissue Orientation System, consisting of MarginMarker sterile tissue dyes and CorrectClips radiographic markers, provides secure and accurate designation of specimen margins, potentially resulting in more accurate re-excisions,6,7 fewer unnecessary re-excisions,6,8,9 lower cancer recurrence1,10 and improved cosmesis.7,9
Surgeons have greater confidence that if re-excision is required, it is valid and necessary to prevent cancer recurrence. Using MarginMarker and CorrectClips, there is greater certainty that the designated margin for re-excision is the correct margin featuring abnormal tissue. MarginMarker and CorrectClips help to ensure that tissue margins are interpreted consistently across the OR, radiology and pathology.
Vector Surgical’s tissue marking system, comprised of MarginMarker sterile tissue dyes and CorrectClips radiographic markers, provides a secure, complete and accurate designation of tissue margins potentially contributing to improved patient outcomes.
1. 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.
2. MacDonald, H.R.; Silverstein, M.J.; Mabry, H.; Moorthy, B.; Ye, W.; Epstein, M.S.; Holmes, D.; Silberman, H.; and Lagios, M. “Local Control in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Treated by Excision Alone: Incremental Benefit of Larger Margins.” American Journal of Surgery 190.4 (2005): 521-525.
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. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. Dooley, W.C. and Parker, J. “Understanding the Mechanisms Creating False Positive Lumpectomy Margins.” American Journal of Surgery 190 (2005): 606-608.
9. Landercasper, J., Attai, D., Atisha, D., Beitsch, P., Bosserman, L., Boughey, J., Carter, J., Edge, S., Feldman, S., Froman, J. and Greenberg, C. "Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference." Annals of Surgical Oncology 22.10 (2015): 3174-3183.
10. 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.