Linnea Langhans1, Maj-Britt Jensen2, Maj-Lis M Talman3, Ilse Vejborg4, Niels Kroman1, Tove F Tvedskov1. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Breast Surgery and Burns, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Radiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
Importance: New techniques for preoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions may decrease the reoperation rate in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) compared with rates after surgery with the standard wire-guided localization. However, a valid reoperation rate for this procedure needs to be established for comparison, as previous studies on this procedure include a variety of malignant and benign breast lesions. Objectives: To determine the reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS in patients with histologically verified nonpalpable invasive breast cancer (IBC) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to examine whether the risk of reoperation is associated with DCIS or histologic type of the IBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide study including women with histologically verified IBC or DCIS having wire-guided BCS performed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013, used data from the Danish National Patient Registry that were cross-checked with the Danish Breast Cancer Group database and the Danish Pathology Register. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS in patients with IBC or DCIS. Results: Wire-guided BCS was performed in 4118 women (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [8.7] years). A total of 725 patients (17.6%) underwent a reoperation: 593 were reexcisions (14.4%) and 132 were mastectomies (3.2%). Significantly more patients with DCIS (271 of 727 [37.3%]) than with IBC (454 of 3391 [13.4%]) underwent a reoperation (adjusted odds ratio, 3.82; 95% CI, 3.19-4.58; P < .001). After the first reexcision, positive margins were still present in 97 patients (16.4%). The risk of repeated positive margins was significantly higher in patients with DCIS vs those with IBC (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.42-3.43; P < .001). The risk of reoperation was significantly increased in patients with lobular carcinoma vs those with ductal carcinoma (adjusted odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.95; P = .02). A total of 202 patients (4.9%) had a subsequent completion mastectomy, but no difference was found in the type of reoperation between patients with DCIS and those with IBC. Conclusions and Relevance: A lower reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS was found in this study than those shown in previous studies. However, the risk of reoperation in patients with DCIS was 3 times higher than in those with IBC. The widespread use of mammographic screening will increase the number of patients diagnosed with DCIS, making a precise localization of nonpalpable DCIS lesions even more important.
Importance: New techniques for preoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions may decrease the reoperation rate in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) compared with rates after surgery with the standard wire-guided localization. However, a valid reoperation rate for this procedure needs to be established for comparison, as previous studies on this procedure include a variety of malignant and benign breast lesions. Objectives: To determine the reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS in patients with histologically verified nonpalpable invasive breast cancer (IBC) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to examine whether the risk of reoperation is associated with DCIS or histologic type of the IBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide study including women with histologically verified IBC or DCIS having wire-guided BCS performed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013, used data from the Danish National Patient Registry that were cross-checked with the Danish Breast Cancer Group database and the Danish Pathology Register. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS in patients with IBC or DCIS. Results: Wire-guided BCS was performed in 4118 women (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [8.7] years). A total of 725 patients (17.6%) underwent a reoperation: 593 were reexcisions (14.4%) and 132 were mastectomies (3.2%). Significantly more patients with DCIS (271 of 727 [37.3%]) than with IBC (454 of 3391 [13.4%]) underwent a reoperation (adjusted odds ratio, 3.82; 95% CI, 3.19-4.58; P < .001). After the first reexcision, positive margins were still present in 97 patients (16.4%). The risk of repeated positive margins was significantly higher in patients with DCIS vs those with IBC (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.42-3.43; P < .001). The risk of reoperation was significantly increased in patients with lobular carcinoma vs those with ductal carcinoma (adjusted odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.95; P = .02). A total of 202 patients (4.9%) had a subsequent completion mastectomy, but no difference was found in the type of reoperation between patients with DCIS and those with IBC. Conclusions and Relevance: A lower reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS was found in this study than those shown in previous studies. However, the risk of reoperation in patients with DCIS was 3 times higher than in those with IBC. The widespread use of mammographic screening will increase the number of patients diagnosed with DCIS, making a precise localization of nonpalpable DCIS lesions even more important.
Authors: Lee G Wilke; Tomasz Czechura; Chih Wang; Brittany Lapin; Erik Liederbach; David P Winchester; Katharine Yao Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Sarah A McLaughlin; Lisa M Ochoa-Frongia; Sujata M Patil; Hiram S Cody; Lisa M Sclafani Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: R Jeevan; D A Cromwell; M Trivella; G Lawrence; O Kearins; J Pereira; C Sheppard; C M Caddy; J H P van der Meulen Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-07-12
Authors: Friedrich Kühn; Charlotte Emmi Elisabeth Simon; Ilhamiyya Aliyeva; Julia KUßMAUL; Jessica GROß; Oliver Schweizerhof; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Maria Margarete Karsten Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Rebekah H Griesenauer; Jared A Weis; Lori R Arlinghaus; Ingrid M Meszoely; Michael I Miga Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-02-08
Authors: Esther Kho; Behdad Dashtbozorg; Lisanne L de Boer; Koen K Van de Vijver; Henricus J C M Sterenborg; Theo J M Ruers Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 3.732
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