BACKGROUND: Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful imaging modality for invasive cancer, its role in preoperative surgical planning for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has not been established. We sought to determine whether preoperative MRI affects surgical treatment and outcomes in women with pure DCIS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed consecutive records of women diagnosed with pure DCIS on core biopsy between 2000 and 2007. Patient characteristics, surgical planning, and outcomes were compared between patients with and without preoperative MRI. Multivariable regression was performed to determine which covariates were independently associated with mastectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). RESULTS: Of 149 women diagnosed with DCIS, 38 underwent preoperative MRI. On univariate analysis, patients undergoing MRI were younger (50 years vs. 59 years; P < .001) and had larger DCIS size on final pathology (1.6 cm vs. 1.0 cm; P = .007) than those without MRI. Mastectomy and SLNB rates were significantly higher in the preoperative MRI group (45% vs. 14%, P < .001; and 47% vs. 23%, P = .004, respectively). However, there were no differences in number of re-excisions, margin status, and margin size between the two groups. On multivariate analysis, preoperative MRI and age were independently associated with mastectomy (OR, 3.16, P = .018; OR, 0.95, P = .031, respectively), while multifocality, size, and family history were not significant predictors. CONCLUSION: We found a strong association between preoperative MRI and mastectomy in women undergoing treatment for DCIS. Additional studies are needed to examine the increased rates of mastectomy as a possible consequence of preoperative MRI for DCIS.
BACKGROUND: Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful imaging modality for invasive cancer, its role in preoperative surgical planning for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has not been established. We sought to determine whether preoperative MRI affects surgical treatment and outcomes in women with pure DCIS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed consecutive records of women diagnosed with pure DCIS on core biopsy between 2000 and 2007. Patient characteristics, surgical planning, and outcomes were compared between patients with and without preoperative MRI. Multivariable regression was performed to determine which covariates were independently associated with mastectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). RESULTS: Of 149 women diagnosed with DCIS, 38 underwent preoperative MRI. On univariate analysis, patients undergoing MRI were younger (50 years vs. 59 years; P < .001) and had larger DCIS size on final pathology (1.6 cm vs. 1.0 cm; P = .007) than those without MRI. Mastectomy and SLNB rates were significantly higher in the preoperative MRI group (45% vs. 14%, P < .001; and 47% vs. 23%, P = .004, respectively). However, there were no differences in number of re-excisions, margin status, and margin size between the two groups. On multivariate analysis, preoperative MRI and age were independently associated with mastectomy (OR, 3.16, P = .018; OR, 0.95, P = .031, respectively), while multifocality, size, and family history were not significant predictors. CONCLUSION: We found a strong association between preoperative MRI and mastectomy in women undergoing treatment for DCIS. Additional studies are needed to examine the increased rates of mastectomy as a possible consequence of preoperative MRI for DCIS.
Authors: Anjali S Kumar; Daniel F Chen; Alfred Au; Yunn-Yi Chen; Jessica Leung; Elisabeth R Garwood; Jessica Gibbs; Nola Hylton; Laura J Esserman Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Hee Jung Shin; Hak Hee Kim; Sun Mi Kim; Gui Young Kwon; Gyungyub Gong; On Koo Cho Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: K Schelfout; M Van Goethem; E Kersschot; C Colpaert; A M Schelfhout; P Leyman; I Verslegers; I Biltjes; J Van Den Haute; J P Gillardin; W Tjalma; J C Van Der Auwera; P Buytaert; A De Schepper Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Diana L Lam; Jacob Smith; Savannah C Partridge; Adrienne Kim; Sara H Javid; Daniel S Hippe; Constance D Lehman; Janie M Lee; Habib Rahbar Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: A García-Fernández; C Chabrera; M García-Font; M Fraile; I Barco; S González; L Cirera; J M Lain; C González; E Veloso; L Codina; M Piqueras; A Pessarrodona; N Gimenez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Michael R Harowicz; Ashirbani Saha; Lars J Grimm; P Kelly Marcom; Jeffrey R Marks; E Shelley Hwang; Maciej A Mazurowski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: E Shelley Hwang; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Barbara Fowble; Christina A Clarke Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kathryn L Davis; Richard J Barth; Jiang Gui; Elizabeth Dann; Burton Eisenberg; Kari Rosenkranz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Kandace P McGuire; E Shelley Hwang; Alan Cantor; Mehra Golshan; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Janet K Horton; Rita Nanda; Keith D Amos; Andres Forero; Cliff A Hudis; Ingrid Meszoely; Jennifer F De Los Santos Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 5.344