Literature DB >> 26952595

Importance of Surgical Margin Status in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Talha Shaikh1, Tianyu Li2, Colin T Murphy1, Nicholas G Zaorsky1, Richard J Bleicher3, Elin R Sigurdson3, Robert Carlson4, Shelly B Hayes1, Penny Anderson5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to identify the effect of final surgical margin (SM) status and re-excision on outcomes in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who underwent breast conservation therapy (BCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of women diagnosed with DCIS who underwent BCT between 1989 and 2014. All women received adjuvant whole breast radiation and a boost. The primary end point was local control (LC). Final SMs were defined according to margin width: negative SM was defined as > 2 mm, close SM was defined as > 0 to ≤ 2 mm, and a positive SM was defined as tumor on ink. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine predictors of outcomes on multivariable analysis. Actuarial incidence of LC was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: A total of 498 patients were included; 400 patients had a final negative SM, 87 had a close SM, and 11 had a positive SM. A total of 172 patients received adjuvant hormonal therapy, 265 patients required ≥ 1 re-excision. Patients with positive or close SMs were more likely to receive a radiation dose > 60 Gy (P < .001) and undergo re-excision (P < .01). The 10-year LC rates were not significantly different between patients with a negative (93.5%), close (91.8%), or positive (100%) SM (P = .57). There was no difference in LC in patients who underwent re-excision for initial close or positive SMs (P = .55).
CONCLUSION: This single-institution experience showed that risks of local recurrence remain poorly characterized. Re-excision and whole breast radiation with boost resulted in excellent LC for women with DCIS. Trials aimed at personalized deintensified local therapy are warranted.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Boost; Breast conservation; DCIS; Hormonal therapy; Re-excision

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26952595     DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2016.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer        ISSN: 1526-8209            Impact factor:   3.225


  4 in total

1.  Wherein the authors attempt to minimize the confusion generated by their study "Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ" by several commentators who disagree with them and a few who don't: a qualitative study.

Authors:  S A Narod; H Ahmed; V Sopik
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Association of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and a 12-Gene Expression Assay With Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Treatment.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Justin Romanoff; Seema A Khan; Ruth Carlos; Lawrence J Solin; Sunil Badve; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Ralph L Corsetti; Habib Rahbar; Derrick W Spell; Kenneth B Blankstein; Linda K Han; Jennifer L Sabol; John R Bumberry; Ilana Gareen; Bradley S Snyder; Lynne I Wagner; Kathy D Miller; Joseph A Sparano; Christopher Comstock
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

3.  Optical tissue measurements of invasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ for surgical guidance.

Authors:  Lisanne L de Boer; Esther Kho; Koen K Van de Vijver; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vranken Peeters; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Benno H W Hendriks; Henricus J C M Sterenborg; Theo J M Ruers
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 6.466

4.  Comparison of Recurrence Rate Between Re-Excision With Radiotherapy and Radiotherapy-Only Groups in Surgical Margin Involvement of In Situ Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jun-Hee Lee; Hyunjun Lee; Yoon Ju Bang; Jai Min Ryu; Se Kyung Lee; Jonghan Yu; Jeong Eon Lee; Seok Won Kim; Seok Jin Nam; Byung Joo Chae
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 2.922

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.