Laura H Rosenberger1, Anita Mamtani1, Sarah Fuzesi1, Michelle Stempel1, Anne Eaton2, Monica Morrow1, Mary L Gemignani3. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. gemignam@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reexcision rates in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for early-stage invasive breast cancer are highly variable. The Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) published consensus guidelines to help standardize practice. We sought to determine reexcision rates before and after guideline adoption at our institution. METHODS: We identified patients with stage I or II invasive breast cancer initially treated with BCS between June 1, 2013, and October 31, 2014. Margins were defined as positive (tumor on ink), close (≤1 mm), or negative (>1 mm), and were recorded for both invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma-in situ (DCIS) components. Reexcision rates were quantified, characteristics were compared between groups, and multivariable logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1205 patients were identified, 504 before and 701 after the guideline adoption (January 1, 2014). Clinical and pathologic characteristics were similar between time periods. Reexcision rates significantly declined from 21.4 to 15.1 % (p = 0.006) after guideline adoption. A multivariable model identified extensive intraductal component (odds ratio [OR] 2.5, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.2-5.2), multifocality (OR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2-3.6), positive (OR 844.4, 95 % CI 226.3-5562.5) and close (OR 38.3, 95 % CI 21.5-71.8) ductal carcinoma-in situ margin, positive (OR 174.2, 95 % CI 66.2-530.0) and close (OR 6.4, 95 % CI 3.0-13.6) invasive margin, and time period (OR 0.5, 95 % CI 0.3-0.9 for post vs. pre) as independently associated with reexcision. CONCLUSIONS: Overall reexcision rates declined significantly after guideline adoption. Close invasive margins were associated with higher rates of reexcision than negative invasive margins in both time periods; however, the effect diminished in the postguideline adoption period. Thus, we expect continued decline in reexcision rates as adherence to guidelines becomes more uniform.
BACKGROUND: Reexcision rates in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for early-stage invasive breast cancer are highly variable. The Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) published consensus guidelines to help standardize practice. We sought to determine reexcision rates before and after guideline adoption at our institution. METHODS: We identified patients with stage I or II invasive breast cancer initially treated with BCS between June 1, 2013, and October 31, 2014. Margins were defined as positive (tumor on ink), close (≤1 mm), or negative (>1 mm), and were recorded for both invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma-in situ (DCIS) components. Reexcision rates were quantified, characteristics were compared between groups, and multivariable logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1205 patients were identified, 504 before and 701 after the guideline adoption (January 1, 2014). Clinical and pathologic characteristics were similar between time periods. Reexcision rates significantly declined from 21.4 to 15.1 % (p = 0.006) after guideline adoption. A multivariable model identified extensive intraductal component (odds ratio [OR] 2.5, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.2-5.2), multifocality (OR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2-3.6), positive (OR 844.4, 95 % CI 226.3-5562.5) and close (OR 38.3, 95 % CI 21.5-71.8) ductal carcinoma-in situ margin, positive (OR 174.2, 95 % CI 66.2-530.0) and close (OR 6.4, 95 % CI 3.0-13.6) invasive margin, and time period (OR 0.5, 95 % CI 0.3-0.9 for post vs. pre) as independently associated with reexcision. CONCLUSIONS: Overall reexcision rates declined significantly after guideline adoption. Close invasive margins were associated with higher rates of reexcision than negative invasive margins in both time periods; however, the effect diminished in the postguideline adoption period. Thus, we expect continued decline in reexcision rates as adherence to guidelines becomes more uniform.
Authors: L Hadzikadic Gusic; K P McGuire; T Ozmen; A Soran; C R Thomas; P F McAuliffe; E J Diego; M Bonaventura; R R Johnson; G M Ahrendt Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Laurence E McCahill; Richard M Single; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Heather S Feigelson; Ted A James; Tom Barney; Jessica M Engel; Adedayo A Onitilo Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sarah M DeSnyder; Kelly K Hunt; Benjamin D Smith; Meena S Moran; Suzanne Klimberg; Anthony Lucci Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Laura S Dominici; Monica Morrow; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Jennifer Bellon; Tari A King Journal: Curr Probl Surg Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Julie B Siegel; Rupak Mukherjee; Yeonhee Park; Abbie R Cluver; Catherine Chung; David J Cole; Mark A Lockett; Nancy Klauber-DeMore; Andrea M Abbott Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anita Mamtani; Emily C Zabor; Laura H Rosenberger; Michelle Stempel; Mary L Gemignani; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Siun M Walsh; Sandra B Brennan; Emily C Zabor; Laura H Rosenberger; Michelle Stempel; Lizza Lebron-Zapata; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jennifer Yu; Leisha C Elmore; Amy E Cyr; Rebecca L Aft; William E Gillanders; Julie A Margenthaler Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Kate R Pawloski; Nicole Christian; Andrea Knezevic; Hannah Y Wen; Kimberly J Van Zee; Monica Morrow; Audree B Tadros Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Bridget N Kelly; Olga Kantor; Rong Tang; Suzanne B Coopey; Barbara L Smith; Conor R Lanahan; Jenna E Korotkin; Michelle C Specht Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 4.872