Gerald Gui1, Effrosyni Panopoulou2, Sarah Tang2, Dominique Twelves2, Mohammed Kabir3, Ann Ward2, Catherine Montgomery2, Ashutosh Nerurkar4, Peter Osin4, Clare M Isacke5. 1. Department of Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London, SW3 6JJ, UK. gerald.gui@rmh.nhs.uk. 2. Department of Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London, SW3 6JJ, UK. 3. Department of Clinical Research and Development, Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London, UK. 4. Department of Histopathology, Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London, UK. 5. The Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With early detection, breast conservation surgery with adequate surgical margins is the standard of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of pre-operative duct endoscopy (DE) to target surgical resection, improve adequate margins and reduce re-excision operations. METHODS:Women with DCIS, stage I and II breast cancer suitable for breast conservation were randomized to DE-assisted wide local excision versus standard wide local excision (without DE). The primary endpoint was margin re-excision rates between the two groups. Secondary end points were: (i) volume differences of the surgical specimen; (ii) whether an extensive in situ component (EIC) influenced successful DE-guided resection. RESULTS:78 women were randomized: 44 patients to no-DE and 34 patients to the DE group. The median age was 59 (49-65) and 56 (48-64) years in the two groups respectively with mean follow-up of 9.1 (4.2-11.1) years. There were 23 positive findings in 17 women in 30 successful DE procedures (17/30 = 56.7%). The surgical specimen volume, no-DE (17 [IQR 10-29] cm3) and DE 20 [IQR 12-28] cm3), did not differ, p = 0.377. The overall re-excision rate was 20/78 (26%), 9 (20%) and 11 (32% in the no-DE and DE groups, respectively, p = 0.233. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized clinical trial was limited by incomplete accrual. DE did not contribute to improved margin excision rates whether a target lesion was visualized or not. The presence of EIC did not improve efficacy of DE.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: With early detection, breast conservation surgery with adequate surgical margins is the standard of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of pre-operative duct endoscopy (DE) to target surgical resection, improve adequate margins and reduce re-excision operations. METHODS:Women with DCIS, stage I and II breast cancer suitable for breast conservation were randomized to DE-assisted wide local excision versus standard wide local excision (without DE). The primary endpoint was margin re-excision rates between the two groups. Secondary end points were: (i) volume differences of the surgical specimen; (ii) whether an extensive in situ component (EIC) influenced successful DE-guided resection. RESULTS: 78 women were randomized: 44 patients to no-DE and 34 patients to the DE group. The median age was 59 (49-65) and 56 (48-64) years in the two groups respectively with mean follow-up of 9.1 (4.2-11.1) years. There were 23 positive findings in 17 women in 30 successful DE procedures (17/30 = 56.7%). The surgical specimen volume, no-DE (17 [IQR 10-29] cm3) and DE 20 [IQR 12-28] cm3), did not differ, p = 0.377. The overall re-excision rate was 20/78 (26%), 9 (20%) and 11 (32% in the no-DE and DE groups, respectively, p = 0.233. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized clinical trial was limited by incomplete accrual. DE did not contribute to improved margin excision rates whether a target lesion was visualized or not. The presence of EIC did not improve efficacy of DE.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast conservation surgery; Duct endoscopy; Re-excision; Surgical margins
Authors: J A van Dongen; A C Voogd; I S Fentiman; C Legrand; R J Sylvester; D Tong; E van der Schueren; P A Helle; K van Zijl; H Bartelink Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-07-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sarah Shuk-Kay Tang; Sarantos Kaptanis; James B Haddow; Giuseppina Mondani; Beatrix Elsberger; Marios Konstantinos Tasoulis; Christine Obondo; Neil Johns; Wisam Ismail; Asim Syed; Panayioti Kissias; Mary Venn; Souganthy Sundaramoorthy; Gareth Irwin; Amtul S Sami; Dalia Elfadl; Alice Baggaley; Dionysios Dennis Remoundos; Fiona Langlands; Petros Charalampoudis; Zoe Barber; Werbena L S Hamilton-Burke; Ayesha Khan; Chiara Sirianni; Louise Anne-Marie Grant Merker; Sunita Saha; Risha Arun Lane; Sharat Chopra; Sophie Dupré; Aidan T Manning; Edward R St John; Aya Musbahi; Nokwanda Dlamini; Caitlin L McArdle; Chloe Wright; James O Murphy; Ravi Aggarwal; Matei Dordea; Karen Bosch; Donna Egbeare; Hisham Osman; Salim Tayeh; Faraz Razi; Javeria Iqbal; Serena F C Ledwidge; Vanessa Albert; Yazan Masannat Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Katerina Kaczmarski; Peiqi Wang; Richard Gilmore; Heidi N Overton; David M Euhus; Lisa K Jacobs; Mehran Habibi; Melissa Camp; Matthew J Weiss; Martin A Makary Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Harold J Burstein; Christina Lacchetti; Holly Anderson; Thomas A Buchholz; Nancy E Davidson; Karen E Gelmon; Sharon H Giordano; Clifford A Hudis; Alexander J Solky; Vered Stearns; Eric P Winer; Jennifer J Griggs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Anne Kuritzky; Chantal Reyna; Kandace P McGuire; Weihong Sun; Sara M DeSnyder; Staci Aubry; Apoorve Nayyar; Paula Strassle; Kelly K Hunt; Jun-Min Zhou; Marie Catherine Lee Journal: Breast Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 4.380