Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Should New “No Ink On Tumor” Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines be Applied to Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)? A Retrospective Review Using Shaved Cavity Margins

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

No consensus exists for clear margins for breast-conserving surgery for pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We examined the implications of applying a “no ink on tumor” standard for pure DCIS by correlating clear margin width with rates of residual disease.

Methods

Lumpectomies with complete shaved cavity margins (SCMs) for pure DCIS at our institution from 2004 to 2007 were reviewed and patients with microinvasive cancer or multifocal disease requiring multiple wires excluded. Rates of residual disease in shaved margins were determined based on margin status of the main lumpectomy specimen using margin widths of “ink on tumor,” ≤1, >1 to <2, and ≥2 mm.

Results

Overall, 182 women undergoing lumpectomy for pure DCIS met eligibility criteria. In patients with “ink on tumor” in the main lumpectomy specimen, 88 % had residual disease in the SCMs. Rates of residual disease in SCMs for lumpectomies with margins of <2 mm (but not on ink) were 52 % compared with 13 % for lumpectomies with margins ≥2 mm (p < 0.0005). Multivariate analyses confirmed the association of lumpectomy margin width and residual tumor in shaved cavity margins. Odds of residual disease in the SCM for postmenopausal patients were 74 % less than for pre/perimenopausal women (odds ratio 0.26; confidence interval 0.08–0.82).

Conclusions

Application of a “no ink on tumor” lumpectomy margin standard to patients with DCIS results in a significant increase in the rates of residual disease in cavity margins compared with use of a ≥2-mm margin standard. Use of narrower margins may have important implications for use of adjuvant therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bornstein BA, Recht A, Connolly JL, et al. Results of treating ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer. 1991;67(1):7–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Morrow M, Strom EA, Bassett LW, et al. Standard for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS). CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(5):256–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuske RR, Bean JM, Garcia DM, et al. Breast conservation therapy for intraductal carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26(3):391–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Solin LJ, Kurtz J, Fourquet A, et al. Fifteen-year results of breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(3):754–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, Meric F, et al. Ductal carcinoma-in situ: Long-term results of breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7(9):656–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: Findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast And Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(2):441–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S, et al. The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(19):1455–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, et al. A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 1996;77(11):2267–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(6):478–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang SY, Chu H, Shamliyan T, et al. Network meta-analysis of margin threshold for women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(7):507–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang SY, Shamliyan T, Virnig BA, Kane R. Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127(1):1–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dillon MF, Mc Dermott EW, O’Doherty A, et al. Factors affecting successful breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(5):1618–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dillon MF, Maguire AA, McDermott EW, et al. Needle core biopsy characteristics identify patients at risk of compromised margins in breast conservation surgery. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(1):39–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meijnen P, Oldenburg HS, Peterse JL, Bartelink H, Rutgers EJ. Clinical outcome after selective treatment of patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(1):235–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1551–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(2):558–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, Kell MR. Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(10):1615–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, et al. Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: Is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(5):608–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tartter PI, Kaplan J, Bleiweiss I, et al. Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2000;179(2):81-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of surgical oncology-american society for radiation oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(3):553–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Rizzo M, Iyengar R, Gabram SG, et al. The effects of additional tumor cavity sampling at the time of breast-conserving surgery on final margin status, volume of resection, and pathologist workload. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(1):228–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Narod SA, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Sun P. Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):888–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Esserman L, Yau C. Rethinking the standard for ductal carcinoma in situ treatment. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):881–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S, et al. Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(8):739–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hughes KS. DCIS does not need treatment…really? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;154:1–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Faverly DR, Burgers L, Bult P, Holland R. Three-dimensional imaging of mammary ductal carcinoma in situ: Clinical implications. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11(3):193–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Zee KJ, Subhedar P, Olcese C, Patil S, Morrow M. Relationship between margin width and recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 2996 women treated with breast-conserving surgery for 30 years. Ann Surg. 2015;262(4):623–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fisher ER, Dignam J, Tan-Chiu E, et al. Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast project (NSABP) eight-year update of protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86(3):429–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hughes LL, Wang M, Page DL, et al. Local excision alone without irradiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: A trial of the eastern cooperative oncology group. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5319–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. McCormick B, Winter K, Hudis C, et al. RTOG 9804: a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with observation. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(7):709–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wong JS, Kaelin CM, Troyan SL, et al. Prospective study of wide excision alone for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(7):1031–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wong JS, Chen YH, Gadd MA, et al. Eight-year update of a prospective study of wide excision alone for small low- or intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;143(2):343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rauch GM, Hobbs BP, Kuerer HM, et al. Microcalcifications in 1657 patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Correlation with clinical, histopathologic, biologic features, and local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(2):482–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Merrill AL, Coopey SB, Tang R, et al. Implications of new lumpectomy margin guidelines for breast-conserving surgery: changes in reexcision rates and predicted rates of residual tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(3):729–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Andrea L. Merrill MD, Rong Tang MD, Jennifer K. Plichta MD, MS, Upahvan Rai BS, Suzanne B. Coopey MD, Maureen P. McEvoy MD, Kevin S. Hughes MD, Michelle C. Specht MD, Michele A. Gadd MD & Barbara L. Smith MD, PhD

  2. Division of Breast Surgery, Hunan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xiangya Medical School of Central South University, Changsha, China

    Rong Tang MD

Authors
  1. Andrea L. Merrill MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rong Tang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer K. Plichta MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Upahvan Rai BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Suzanne B. Coopey MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maureen P. McEvoy MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kevin S. Hughes MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michelle C. Specht MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michele A. Gadd MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Barbara L. Smith MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara L. Smith MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Merrill, A.L., Tang, R., Plichta, J.K. et al. Should New “No Ink On Tumor” Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines be Applied to Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)? A Retrospective Review Using Shaved Cavity Margins. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 3453–3458 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5251-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5251-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation