M Luke Marinovich1, Lamiae Azizi2, Petra Macaskill2, Les Irwig2, Monica Morrow3, Lawrence J Solin4, Nehmat Houssami2. 1. Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. luke.marinovich@sydney.edu.au. 2. Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is no consensus on adequate negative margins in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We systematically reviewed the evidence on margins in BCS for DCIS. METHODS: A study-level meta-analysis of local recurrence (LR), microscopic margin status and threshold distance for negative margins. LR proportion was modeled using random-effects logistic meta-regression (frequentist) and network meta-analysis (Bayesian) that allows for multiple margin distances per study, adjusting for follow-up time. RESULTS: Based on 20 studies (LR: 865 of 7883), odds of LR were associated with margin status [logistic: odds ratio (OR) 0.53 for negative vs. positive/close (p < 0.001); network: OR 0.45 for negative vs. positive]. In logistic meta-regression, relative to >0 or 1 mm, ORs for 2 mm (0.51), 3 or 5 mm (0.42) and 10 mm (0.60) showed comparable significant reductions in the odds of LR. In the network analysis, ORs relative to positive margins for 2 (0.32), 3 (0.30) and 10 mm (0.32) showed similar reductions in the odds of LR that were greater than for >0 or 1 mm (0.45). There was weak evidence of lower odds at 2 mm compared with >0 or 1 mm [relative OR (ROR) 0.72, 95 % credible interval (CrI) 0.47-1.08], and no evidence of a difference between 2 and 10 mm (ROR 0.99, 95 % CrI 0.61-1.64). Adjustment for covariates, and analyses based only on studies using whole-breast radiotherapy, did not change the findings. CONCLUSION: Negative margins in BCS for DCIS reduce the odds of LR; however, minimum margin distances above 2 mm are not significantly associated with further reduced odds of LR in women receiving radiation.
PURPOSE: There is no consensus on adequate negative margins in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We systematically reviewed the evidence on margins in BCS for DCIS. METHODS: A study-level meta-analysis of local recurrence (LR), microscopic margin status and threshold distance for negative margins. LR proportion was modeled using random-effects logistic meta-regression (frequentist) and network meta-analysis (Bayesian) that allows for multiple margin distances per study, adjusting for follow-up time. RESULTS: Based on 20 studies (LR: 865 of 7883), odds of LR were associated with margin status [logistic: odds ratio (OR) 0.53 for negative vs. positive/close (p < 0.001); network: OR 0.45 for negative vs. positive]. In logistic meta-regression, relative to >0 or 1 mm, ORs for 2 mm (0.51), 3 or 5 mm (0.42) and 10 mm (0.60) showed comparable significant reductions in the odds of LR. In the network analysis, ORs relative to positive margins for 2 (0.32), 3 (0.30) and 10 mm (0.32) showed similar reductions in the odds of LR that were greater than for >0 or 1 mm (0.45). There was weak evidence of lower odds at 2 mm compared with >0 or 1 mm [relative OR (ROR) 0.72, 95 % credible interval (CrI) 0.47-1.08], and no evidence of a difference between 2 and 10 mm (ROR 0.99, 95 % CrI 0.61-1.64). Adjustment for covariates, and analyses based only on studies using whole-breast radiotherapy, did not change the findings. CONCLUSION: Negative margins in BCS for DCIS reduce the odds of LR; however, minimum margin distances above 2 mm are not significantly associated with further reduced odds of LR in women receiving radiation.
Authors: Frank Vicini; Peter Beitsch; Coral Quiet; Mark Gittleman; Vic Zannis; Ricky Fine; Pat Whitworth; Henry Kuerer; Bruce Haffty; Martin Keisch; Maureen Lyden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B Cutuli; C Cohen-Solal-Le Nir; B De Lafontan; H Mignotte; V Fichet; R Fay; V Servent; S Giard; C Charra-Brunaud; H Auvray; F Penault-Llorca; J C Charpentier Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: H Hiramatsu; B A Bornstein; A Recht; S J Schnitt; J K Baum; J L Connolly; R B Duda; A J Guidi; C M Kaelin; E B Silver; J R Harris Journal: Cancer J Sci Am Date: 1995 May-Jun
Authors: L L Kestin; N S Goldstein; A A Martinez; M Rebner; M Balasubramaniam; R C Frazier; J T Register; J Pettinga; F A Vicini Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: I Meattini; L Livi; D Franceschini; C Saieva; F Meacci; L Marrazzo; B Bendinelli; V Scotti; C De Luca Cardillo; J Nori; L Sanchez; L Orzalesi; P Bonomo; D Greto; M Bucciolini; S Bianchi; G Biti Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: L Cataliotti; V Distante; S Ciatto; S Bianchi; P Pacini; R Simoncini; M Rosselli Del Turco; G Cardona; F Falli Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1992 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Esther W L Chuwa; Vincent H S Tan; Puay-Hoon Tan; Wei-Sean Yong; Guy-Hui Ho; Chow-Yin Wong Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.872
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: Monica Morrow; Kimberly J Van Zee; Lawrence J Solin; Nehmat Houssami; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Jay R Harris; Janet Horton; Shelley Hwang; Peggy L Johnson; M Luke Marinovich; Stuart J Schnitt; Irene Wapnir; Meena S Moran Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-06-24
Authors: Audree B Tadros; Benjamin D Smith; Yu Shen; Heather Lin; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Anthony Lucci; Carlos H Barcenas; Rosa F Hwang; Gaiane Rauch; Lumarie Santiago; Eric A Strom; Sarah M DeSnyder; Wei T Yang; Dalliah M Black; Constance T Albarracin; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Devon Livingston-Rosanoff; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Polly A Newcomb; Lee G Wilke Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 4.872