Literature DB >> 33247799

Similar rates of residual disease in patients with DCIS within 2 mm of lumpectomy margin regardless of the presence of invasive carcinoma.

Bridget N Kelly1, Olga Kantor1, Rong Tang1, Suzanne B Coopey1, Barbara L Smith1, Conor R Lanahan1, Jenna E Korotkin1, Michelle C Specht2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology (SSO/ASTRO) breast-conserving surgery (BCS) margin guidelines for invasive cancer recommended "no ink on tumor" as an adequate margin width. However, 2016 SSO/ASTRO margin guidelines for pure DCIS recommended a 2 mm margin. Thus, management of a margin with DCIS > 0 mm but < 2 mm differs based on presence or absence of invasive carcinoma. We compared rates of residual disease in patients with pure DCIS to patients with invasive cancer with DCIS.
METHODS: BCS with complete shaved cavity margins (SCM) for invasive carcinoma or pure DCIS from 2004 to 2006 at our institution was reviewed. Margin width was measured on the main specimen and the presence of carcinoma in the SCM was used as a surrogate for residual disease in the cavity. Rates of residual disease were determined for varying margin widths of invasive carcinoma and DCIS.
RESULTS: Of 329 BCS patients, 123 (37%) patients had pure DCIS and 206 (63%) had invasive cancer with DCIS. In the pure DCIS cohort, 61 patients had DCIS between 0 and 2 mm from the inked margin; 32 (52%) of which had residual disease in the SCM. In the invasive cancer plus DCIS cohort, 92 had DCIS between 0 and 2 mm from the inked margin; 39 (42%) of which had residual disease in the SCM (p = 0.221).
CONCLUSION: Rates of residual disease are similar in patients treated with lumpectomy for pure DCIS and those with invasive carcinoma with DCIS when DCIS is found between 0 and 2 mm from the inked margin.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast-conserving surgery; Margin width; Margins; Residual disease

Year:  2020        PMID: 33247799     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-06026-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  25 in total

1.  The safety of multiple re-excisions after lumpectomy for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne Coopey; Barbara L Smith; Stephanie Hanson; Julliette Buckley; Kevin S Hughes; Michele Gadd; Michelle C Specht
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Lumpectomy cavity shaved margins do not impact re-excision rates in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Suzanne B Coopey; Julliette M Buckley; Barbara L Smith; Kevin S Hughes; Michele A Gadd; Michelle C Specht
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery.

Authors:  Laurence E McCahill; Richard M Single; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Heather S Feigelson; Ted A James; Tom Barney; Jessica M Engel; Adedayo A Onitilo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Anees B Chagpar; Brigid K Killelea; Theodore N Tsangaris; Meghan Butler; Karen Stavris; Fangyong Li; Xiaopan Yao; Veerle Bossuyt; Malini Harigopal; Donald R Lannin; Lajos Pusztai; Nina R Horowitz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-05-30       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Age, breast cancer subtype approximation, and local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy.

Authors:  Nils D Arvold; Alphonse G Taghian; Andrzej Niemierko; Rita F Abi Raad; Meera Sreedhara; Paul L Nguyen; Jennifer R Bellon; Julia S Wong; Barbara L Smith; Jay R Harris
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence.

Authors:  C C Park; M Mitsumori; A Nixon; A Recht; J Connolly; R Gelman; B Silver; S Hetelekidis; A Abner; J R Harris; S J Schnitt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer.

Authors:  Dalal Aziz; Ellen Rawlinson; Steven A Narod; Ping Sun; H Lavina A Lickley; David R McCready; Claire M B Holloway
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 8.  Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Karla Esbona; Zhanhai Li; Lee G Wilke
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-10-17       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer.

Authors:  Umberto Veronesi; Natale Cascinelli; Luigi Mariani; Marco Greco; Roberto Saccozzi; Alberto Luini; Marisel Aguilar; Ettore Marubini
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-10-17       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.