Clinical trials established the value of breast‐conserving treatment (BCT) including the macroscopic removal of the tumor followed by local radiation therapy (RT) for Stage I and II invasive carcinomas. The occurrence of local tumor recurrence is related to the extent and multifocality of the tumor. Various studies aim to identify those tumors that could be proper candidates for conventional BCT. Furthermore, recent studies have focused on the identification of tumors that may be treated by breast‐conserving surgery alone without RT. Small, localized tumors theoretically should be the potential candidates for this type of treatment. The mammographic and pathologic criteria for the identification of tumors with limited extent are not yet established; furthermore, the optimal extent of the surgical excision and the method for margin examination are controversial.

Surgical breast‐conserving procedures were simulated in a review of 135 mastectomy specimens of patients treated for an invasive carcinoma (≤4 cm in size, all pathologic types except invasive lobular carcinoma) who were theoretically eligible for conservative treatment. Tumor spread including possible multifocality and multicentricity was studied by the technique of correlated specimen radiography and pathology. Breast carcinoma of limited extent (BCLE), the proper tumor profile for BCT, was defined as having no invasive carcinoma, ductal carcinoma in situ, and lymphatic emboli foci beyond 1 cm from the edge of the dominant mass.

Fifty‐three percent of the patients in this series had a BCLE. No statistically significant relation was found between BCLE and patient age, pathologic size, type and grade of the tumor, lymph node status, mode of detection, and mammographic aspect of the index tumor. Based on mammography, the absence of calcification or tumor density beyond the edge of index tumor appears to be the best predictor for BCLE (P < 0.0001). A 1‐cm microscopically tumor free margin as the outer rim of a macroscopic surgical margin of 2 cm gives the best positive predictive value based on pathology (P < 0.0001). By applying the above conditions, 72 of the 135 cancers were identified as being potential BCLE cases in this series. However, whereas 64 of these 72 tumors (89%) were correctly identified as being true BCLE, 8 (11%) were erroneously identified as such (non‐BCLE cases), having “residual” tumor foci beyond 2 cm from the edge of the dominant tumor.

We conclude, that approximately 50% of invasive ductal carcinomas may have limited extent. The accuracy of identifying this group of cancers, the proper candidates for BCT, by applying state‐of‐the‐art mammography and pathology may be as high as 90%. A subset of these tumors might represent the potential candidates for treatment with surgery alone without RT. As a result, the routine application of BCT complemented by RT would have led to the overtreatment of 89% of the patients with a BCLE in this series; conversely, 11% of the tumors may have recurred without the use of RT. Considering that these conclusions are based on a theoretic morphologic model, further clinical studies with facilities for high quality team approach in diagnosis and therapy are needed to evaluate the impact of BCLE on BCT strategies. The results of this study should not justify the withholding of RT outside the context of clinical trials. Cancer 2001;91:647–59. © 2001 American Cancer Society.