Monica Morrow1, Kimberly J Van Zee2, Lawrence J Solin3, Nehmat Houssami4, Mariana Chavez-MacGregor5, Jay R Harris6, Janet Horton7, Shelley Hwang8, Peggy L Johnson9, M Luke Marinovich4, Stuart J Schnitt10, Irene Wapnir11, Meena S Moran12. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: morrowm@mskcc.org. 2. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia. 5. Departments of Medical Oncology and Health Service Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 8. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 9. Advocate in Science, Susan G. Komen. 10. Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 11. Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 12. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the optimal negative margin width for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast irradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multidisciplinary consensus panel used a meta-analysis of margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) from a systematic review of 20 studies including 7883 patients and other published literature as the evidence base for consensus. RESULTS: Negative margins halve the risk of IBTR compared with positive margins defined as ink on DCIS. A 2-mm margin minimizes the risk of IBTR compared with smaller negative margins. More widely clear margins do not significantly decrease IBTR compared with 2-mm margins. Negative margins narrower than 2 mm alone are not an indication for mastectomy, and factors known to affect rates of IBTR should be considered in determining the need for re-excision. CONCLUSION: Use of a 2-mm margin as the standard for an adequate margin in DCIS treated with whole-breast irradiation is associated with lower rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs. Clinical judgment should be used in determining the need for further surgery in patients with negative margins narrower than 2 mm.
PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the optimal negative margin width for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast irradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multidisciplinary consensus panel used a meta-analysis of margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) from a systematic review of 20 studies including 7883 patients and other published literature as the evidence base for consensus. RESULTS: Negative margins halve the risk of IBTR compared with positive margins defined as ink on DCIS. A 2-mm margin minimizes the risk of IBTR compared with smaller negative margins. More widely clear margins do not significantly decrease IBTR compared with 2-mm margins. Negative margins narrower than 2 mm alone are not an indication for mastectomy, and factors known to affect rates of IBTR should be considered in determining the need for re-excision. CONCLUSION: Use of a 2-mm margin as the standard for an adequate margin in DCIS treated with whole-breast irradiation is associated with lower rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs. Clinical judgment should be used in determining the need for further surgery in patients with negative margins narrower than 2 mm.
Authors: Lawrence J Solin; Robert Gray; Lorie L Hughes; William C Wood; Mary Ann Lowen; Sunil S Badve; Frederick L Baehner; James N Ingle; Edith A Perez; Abram Recht; Joseph A Sparano; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Irene L Wapnir; James J Dignam; Bernard Fisher; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Stephanie R Land; Richard G Margolese; Sandra M Swain; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Beryl McCormick; Kathryn Winter; Clifford Hudis; Henry Mark Kuerer; Eileen Rakovitch; Barbara L Smith; Nour Sneige; Jennifer Moughan; Amit Shah; Isabelle Germain; Alan C Hartford; Afshin Rashtian; Eleanor M Walker; Albert Yuen; Eric A Strom; Jeannette L Wilcox; Laura A Vallow; William Small; Anthony T Pu; Kevin Kerlin; Julia White Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Soren M Bentzen; Candace R Correa; Carol A Hahn; Patricia H Hardenbergh; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Beryl McCormick; Julie R McQueen; Lori J Pierce; Simon N Powell; Abram Recht; Alphonse G Taghian; Frank A Vicini; Julia R White; Bruce G Haffty Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-07-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Douglas W Arthur; Thomas A Buchholz; Bruce G Haffty; Carol A Hahn; Patricia H Hardenbergh; Thomas B Julian; Lawrence B Marks; Dorin A Todor; Frank A Vicini; Timothy J Whelan; Julia White; Jennifer Y Wo; Jay R Harris Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Ivana Sestak; Sarah E Pinder; Ian O Ellis; Sharon Forsyth; Nigel J Bundred; John F Forbes; Hugh Bishop; Ian S Fentiman; William D George Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 41.316
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: M Valli; S Cima; D Gaudino; R Cartolari; L Deantonio; M Frapolli; D Daniele; G A Pesce; F Martucci; N C Azinwi; D Bosetti; S Presilla; A Richetti Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Michael G Giacomelli; Tadayuki Yoshitake; Lucas C Cahill; Hilde Vardeh; Liza M Quintana; Beverly E Faulkner-Jones; Jeff Brooker; James L Connolly; James G Fujimoto Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Sara Ravaioli; Maria Maddalena Tumedei; Flavia Foca; Roberta Maltoni; Andrea Rocca; Ilaria Massa; Elisabetta Pietri; Sara Bravaccini Journal: Int J Exp Pathol Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Nicholas E Wojtynek; Madeline T Olson; Timothy A Bielecki; Wei An; Aaqib M Bhat; Hamid Band; Scott R Lauer; Edibaldo Silva-Lopez; Aaron M Mohs Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Benjamin W Maloney; David M McClatchy; Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen; Wendy A Wells; Richard J Barth Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.170