OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between negative margin width and locoregional recurrence (LRR) in a contemporary cohort of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients. BACKGROUND: Recent national consensus guidelines recommend an optimal margin width of 2 mm or greater for the management of DCIS; however, controversy regarding re-excision remains when managing negative margins <2 mm. METHODS: One thousand four hundred ninety-one patients with DCIS who underwent breast-conserving surgery from 1996 to 2010 were identified from a prospectively managed cancer center database and analyzed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models to determine the relationship between negative margin width and LRR with or without adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). RESULTS: A univariate analysis revealed that age <40 years (n = 89; P = 0.02), no RT (n = 298; P = 0.01), and negative margin width <2 mm (n = 120; P = 0.005) were associated with LRR. The association between margin width and LRR differed by adjuvant RT status (interaction P = 0.02). There was no statistical significant difference in LRR between patients with <2 mm and ≥2 mm negative margins who underwent RT (10-yr LRR rate, 4.8% vs 3.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-3.2; P = 0.72). For patients who did not undergo RT, those with margins <2 mm were significantly more likely to develop a LRR than were those with margins ≥2 mm (10-yr LRR rate, 30.9% vs 5.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.8-16.8, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Routine additional surgery may not be justified for patients with negative margins <2 mm who undergo RT but should be performed in patients who forego RT.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between negative margin width and locoregional recurrence (LRR) in a contemporary cohort of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients. BACKGROUND: Recent national consensus guidelines recommend an optimal margin width of 2 mm or greater for the management of DCIS; however, controversy regarding re-excision remains when managing negative margins <2 mm. METHODS: One thousand four hundred ninety-one patients with DCIS who underwent breast-conserving surgery from 1996 to 2010 were identified from a prospectively managed cancer center database and analyzed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models to determine the relationship between negative margin width and LRR with or without adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). RESULTS: A univariate analysis revealed that age <40 years (n = 89; P = 0.02), no RT (n = 298; P = 0.01), and negative margin width <2 mm (n = 120; P = 0.005) were associated with LRR. The association between margin width and LRR differed by adjuvant RT status (interaction P = 0.02). There was no statistical significant difference in LRR between patients with <2 mm and ≥2 mm negative margins who underwent RT (10-yr LRR rate, 4.8% vs 3.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-3.2; P = 0.72). For patients who did not undergo RT, those with margins <2 mm were significantly more likely to develop a LRR than were those with margins ≥2 mm (10-yr LRR rate, 30.9% vs 5.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.8-16.8, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Routine additional surgery may not be justified for patients with negative margins <2 mm who undergo RT but should be performed in patients who forego RT.
Authors: Harrison X Bai; Sabin B Motwani; Susan A Higgins; Bruce G Haffty; Lynn D Wilson; Donald R Lannin; Suzanne B Evans; Meena S Moran Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: B Fisher; J Dignam; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; J Costantino; W Poller; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Deutsch; R Margolese; N Dimitrov; M Kavanah Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rosalinda Alvarado; Sara A Lari; Robert E Roses; Benjamin D Smith; Wei Yang; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Banu K Arun; Anthony Lucci; Gildy V Babiera; Jamie L Wagner; Abigail S Caudle; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Rosa F Hwang; Isabelle Bedrosian; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J P Julien; N Bijker; I S Fentiman; J L Peterse; V Delledonne; P Rouanet; A Avril; R Sylvester; F Mignolet; H Bartelink; J A Van Dongen Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-02-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Fredrik Wärnberg; Hans Garmo; Stefan Emdin; Veronica Hedberg; Linda Adwall; Kerstin Sandelin; Anita Ringberg; Per Karlsson; Lars-Gunnar Arnesson; Harald Anderson; Karin Jirström; Lars Holmberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-13 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: 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: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 5.344
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
Authors: Kyubo Kim; Jin Hee Kim; Yong Bae Kim; Chang-Ok Suh; Kyung Hwan Shin; Jin Ho Kim; Tae Hyun Kim; So-Youn Jung; Doo Ho Choi; Won Park; Seung Do Ahn; Su Ssan Kim; Ji Woon Yea; Min Kyu Kang; Dong Won Kim; Yi-Jun Kim Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.588
Authors: Henry M Kuerer; Benjamin D Smith; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Constance Albarracin; Carlos H Barcenas; Lumarie Santiago; Mary E Edgerton; Gaiane M Rauch; Sharon H Giordano; Aysegul Sahin; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Wendy Woodward; Debasish Tripathy; Wei T Yang; Kelly K Hunt Journal: J Cancer Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Gurdeep S Mannu; Zhe Wang; John Broggio; Jackie Charman; Shan Cheung; Olive Kearins; David Dodwell; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-05-27