Diana L Lam1, Jacob Smith2, Savannah C Partridge2, Adrienne Kim2, Sara H Javid3, Daniel S Hippe2, Constance D Lehman4, Janie M Lee2, Habib Rahbar2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 1144 Eastlake Avenue East, LG2-200, Seattle, WA 98109. Electronic address: dllam@uw.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 1144 Eastlake Avenue East, LG2-200, Seattle, WA 98109. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Use of preoperative breast MRI (pMRI) to evaluate ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) extent is controversial due to limited data on its impact on surgical management. We sought to evaluate the effect of pMRI on surgical management of women with core needle biopsy (CNB)-diagnosed pure DCIS at a multidisciplinary academic institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included all women with CNB-diagnosed DCIS (1/2004-12/2013) without prior ipsilateral breast cancer and who underwent surgery within 180 days of diagnosis. Patient features, number of CNBs and surgeries, and single successful breast conserving surgery (BCS) rate were compared between pMRI and no-pMRI cohorts. Number of surgeries and single BCS success rates were also compared to published US (SEER) and Danish National Registry data. RESULTS: Among the 373 women included, no clinical differences were identified between the pMRI (n = 332) and no-pMRI (n = 41) cohorts (p > 0.05). The pMRI group experienced a higher additional CNB rate (30% vs. 7%, p = 0.002) but fewer total surgeries (mean = 1.2 vs. 1.5, p < 0.001) than the no-pMRI group. Among the 245 women for whom BCS was attempted, the pMRI cohort underwent fewer mean surgeries (1.3 vs. 1.7, p < 0.001) with a greater single successful BCS rate (77% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Compared to published data, women with pMRI who underwent BCS experienced fewer surgeries (difference (Δ) = -0.22 vs. -0.17, p < 0.001) with a higher single successful BCS rate (Δ = +20% vs. +14%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: pMRI may improve surgical management of DCIS at multidisciplinary centers with breast cancer specialists.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Use of preoperative breast MRI (pMRI) to evaluate ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) extent is controversial due to limited data on its impact on surgical management. We sought to evaluate the effect of pMRI on surgical management of women with core needle biopsy (CNB)-diagnosed pure DCIS at a multidisciplinary academic institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included all women with CNB-diagnosed DCIS (1/2004-12/2013) without prior ipsilateral breast cancer and who underwent surgery within 180 days of diagnosis. Patient features, number of CNBs and surgeries, and single successful breast conserving surgery (BCS) rate were compared between pMRI and no-pMRI cohorts. Number of surgeries and single BCS success rates were also compared to published US (SEER) and Danish National Registry data. RESULTS: Among the 373 women included, no clinical differences were identified between the pMRI (n = 332) and no-pMRI (n = 41) cohorts (p > 0.05). The pMRI group experienced a higher additional CNB rate (30% vs. 7%, p = 0.002) but fewer total surgeries (mean = 1.2 vs. 1.5, p < 0.001) than the no-pMRI group. Among the 245 women for whom BCS was attempted, the pMRI cohort underwent fewer mean surgeries (1.3 vs. 1.7, p < 0.001) with a greater single successful BCS rate (77% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Compared to published data, women with pMRI who underwent BCS experienced fewer surgeries (difference (Δ) = -0.22 vs. -0.17, p < 0.001) with a higher single successful BCS rate (Δ = +20% vs. +14%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: pMRI may improve surgical management of DCIS at multidisciplinary centers with breast cancer specialists.
Authors: Luisa C Kropcho; Shawn T Steen; Alice P Chung; Myung-Shin Sim; Daniel L Kirsch; Armando E Giuliano Journal: Breast J Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Kaoru Itakura; Juan Lessing; Theadora Sakata; Amy Heinzerling; Eline Vriens; Dorota Wisner; Michael Alvarado; Laura Esserman; Cheryl Ewing; Nola Hylton; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Julie Weiss; Rebecca A Hubbard; Cristina O'Donoghue; Wendy B DeMartini; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Martha Goodrich; Beth Virnig; Anna N A Tosteson; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega Journal: Breast J Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Amy K Alderman; Jennifer J Griggs; Sarah T Hawley; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Justin Romanoff; Seema A Khan; Ruth Carlos; Lawrence J Solin; Sunil Badve; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Ralph L Corsetti; Habib Rahbar; Derrick W Spell; Kenneth B Blankstein; Linda K Han; Jennifer L Sabol; John R Bumberry; Ilana Gareen; Bradley S Snyder; Lynne I Wagner; Kathy D Miller; Joseph A Sparano; Christopher Comstock Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Daniel S Hippe; Ahmed Alaa; Safia H Cheeney; Mihaela van der Schaar; Savannah C Partridge; Christoph I Lee Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2020-07-10
Authors: Shinn-Huey S Chou; Justin Romanoff; Constance D Lehman; Seema A Khan; Ruth Carlos; Sunil S Badve; Jennifer Xiao; Ralph L Corsetti; Sara H Javid; Derrick W Spell; Linda K Han; Jennifer L Sabol; John R Bumberry; Ilana F Gareen; Bradley S Snyder; Constantine Gatsonis; Lynne I Wagner; Antonio C Wolff; Kathy D Miller; Joseph A Sparano; Christopher E Comstock; Habib Rahbar Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 29.146