The Pathologist

Vector Surgical, the Vector Surgical Logo and MarginMarker are trademarks of Vector Surgical LLC. Reg U.S. Pat & TM Off | © 2021 Vector Surgical, LLC References: (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) 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). (6) Landercasper, J.; Attai, D.; Atisha, D.; Beitsch, P., Bosserman, L.; Boughey, J.; Carter, J.; Edge, S.; Feldman, S.; Froman, J.; Greenberg, C.; Kaufman, C.; Morrow, M.; Pockaj, B.; Silverstein, M.; Solin, L.; Staley, A.; Vicini, F.; Wilke, L.; Yang, W.; & Cody III, H. “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. (7) 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 197.6 (2009): 740-746. (8) Gibson, G. R.; Lesnikoski, B.A.; Yoo, J.; Mott, L.A.; Cady, B.; 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. (9) 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. (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. | MM THE PATH FALL 2021 Pathology Receives Specimens With Margins Clearly Marked by the Surgeon 50% fewer unnecessary re-excisions 1,5,6 Fewer delays of critical adjuvant therapy 7 More accurate re-excisions 5,8 Lower cancer recurrence 9,10 Improved cosmesis 6,8 In cancer surgery, the single most important predictor of local recurrence is the tissue margins. 1 Research shows discordance rates as high as 52% in the identification of specimen margins. 2,3 Re-excision rates exceed 20% in breast surgery. 4 Use of Vector Surgical’s MarginMarker can result in: View Pathology Slides and Video Demonstrations | Request a Sample | VectorSurgical.com | +1 (262) 798-7970 Medial Superior Lateral Inferior Inks adhere throughout processing Colors show brightly on slides Surgeon applies ink to designate each margin MarginMarker Sterile Ink Kit for Intraoperative Use