Devon Livingston-Rosanoff1, Amy Trentham-Dietz2, John M Hampton2, Polly A Newcomb3, Lee G Wilke4. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792, USA. livingstonrosanoff@surgery.wisc.edu. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 3. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Controversy remains regarding the optimal margin width for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who undergo breast conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: Women with a primary DCIS diagnosis were enrolled in a statewide population-based cohort from 1997 to 2006. Patients were surveyed every two years with follow-up data available through 2016. Surgical pathology reports were collected for 559 participants following breast conserving surgery. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models evaluated relationships between locoregional recurrence (LRR) and margin width in the presence or absence of adjuvant radiation therapy while controlling for age, menopausal status and duration of endocrine therapy use. RESULTS: The majority of women in this study were over 50yo (74%), 34% had high grade disease, and 77% underwent radiation. The overall LRR rate was 12%. A LRR occurred in 46 women who had radiation (11%) and 23 women who did not undergo radiation (19%). Univariate analysis identified smaller margin width, younger age, premenopausal status, no radiotherapy, and shorter endocrine therapy use associated with LRR. Multivariable models demonstrated that close margins (< 2 mm) were associated with an increased risk of recurrence when compared to margins ≥ 2 mm in width whether women received radiation (HR 1.98 CI 0.87-4.54) or not (HR 1.32 CI 0.27-6.49), but confidence intervals were wide. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients with DCIS and close margins were less likely to experience recurrence after routine re-excision to margins greater than 2 mm.
PURPOSE: Controversy remains regarding the optimal margin width for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who undergo breast conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS:Women with a primary DCIS diagnosis were enrolled in a statewide population-based cohort from 1997 to 2006. Patients were surveyed every two years with follow-up data available through 2016. Surgical pathology reports were collected for 559 participants following breast conserving surgery. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models evaluated relationships between locoregional recurrence (LRR) and margin width in the presence or absence of adjuvant radiation therapy while controlling for age, menopausal status and duration of endocrine therapy use. RESULTS: The majority of women in this study were over 50yo (74%), 34% had high grade disease, and 77% underwent radiation. The overall LRR rate was 12%. A LRR occurred in 46 women who had radiation (11%) and 23 women who did not undergo radiation (19%). Univariate analysis identified smaller margin width, younger age, premenopausal status, no radiotherapy, and shorter endocrine therapy use associated with LRR. Multivariable models demonstrated that close margins (< 2 mm) were associated with an increased risk of recurrence when compared to margins ≥ 2 mm in width whether women received radiation (HR 1.98 CI 0.87-4.54) or not (HR 1.32 CI 0.27-6.49), but confidence intervals were wide. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients with DCIS and close margins were less likely to experience recurrence after routine re-excision to margins greater than 2 mm.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; DCIS; Local regional recurrence; Margins
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: 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: Audree B Tadros; Benjamin D Smith; Yu Shen; Heather Lin; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Anthony Lucci; Carlos H Barcenas; Rosa F Hwang; Gaiane Rauch; Lumarie Santiago; Eric A Strom; Sarah M DeSnyder; Wei T Yang; Dalliah M Black; Constance T Albarracin; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Min Yi; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Henry M Kuerer; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Isabelle Bedrosian; Anthony Lucci; Rosa F Hwang; Jaime R Crow; Sheng Luo; Kelly K Hunt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-17 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: M Luke Marinovich; Lamiae Azizi; Petra Macaskill; Les Irwig; Monica Morrow; Lawrence J Solin; Nehmat Houssami Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Ivana Sestak; Sarah E Pinder; Ian O Ellis; Sharon Forsyth; Nigel J Bundred; John F Forbes; Hugh Bishop; Ian S Fentiman; William D George Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 41.316
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: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544