{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.050728548300053966, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03939557474365893, 'mean_word_length': 5.078688524590164, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Surgical margins for borderline and malignant phyllodes tumours.

BACKGROUND
Phyllodes tumours represent less than 1% of all UK breast neoplasms. Histological features allow classification into benign, borderline or malignant, which has a significant impact on prognosis and recurrence. Currently, there is no consensus for the optimal surgical excision margin. This systematic review aims to provide a comparative summary of outcomes (local recurrence, metastasis and survival) for borderline and malignant phyllodes tumours resected with either ≥1 cm or <1 cm margins.


METHODS
MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched (1990 to July 2019), in line with PRISMA guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.


RESULTS
Ten retrospective studies were included (Newcastle-Ottawa scale mean score: 5.6, range: 8-4). Nine reported local recurrence rates, four reported distant metastasis and four reported survival. Meta-analysis pooling demonstrated no statistically significant difference between <1 cm and ≥1 cm margins in terms of local recurrence rates (relative risk [RR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.70 - 2.93; p=0.33, n=456), distant metastasis (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.35 - 10.63; p=0.45, n=72) or mortality (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.42 - 8.77; p=0.40, n=58) for borderline and malignant tumours. Additionally, two studies demonstrated no significant difference in local recurrence for borderline tumours excised with <0.1 cm margins compared to ≥1 cm.


CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that margins <1 cm may provide adequate tumour excision. This could enable breast conservation in patients with smaller breast-to-tumour volume ratios, with improved cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. A prospective, multi-institutional trial would be appropriate to further elucidate the safety of smaller margins.