Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors of Reexcision following Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

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

Abstract

Background

Reexcision following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) results in adjuvant treatment delays, higher health care costs, and undesirable cosmetic outcomes. The purpose of this study is to determine patient, imaging, pathological, and surgical predictors of reexcision following BCS for DCIS.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective review of women with DCIS who had BCS from 2007 to 2016 was conducted. Patient, imaging, pathological, and surgical features, in addition to surgical outcomes, were collected from medical records. Standard statistical tests were used to compare features between patients who did and did not undergo at least one reexcision. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to assess features associated with reexcision.

Results

A total of 547 women (mean age 59 years; range 30–88 years) diagnosed with DCIS at core needle biopsy underwent BCS. Of all women, 31.6% (173/547) had at least one reexcision. With multivariable analysis, features associated with reexcision included younger patient age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–1.0, p = 0.049), African-American race (aOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.13–6.26, p = 0.03), biopsy modality of ultrasound (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.22–4.53, p = 0.01), and earlier year of surgery (aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86–0.98, p = 0.01). No pathological features of DCIS were associated with reexcision risk.

Conclusions

In our cohort of nearly 550 women with DCIS who underwent BCS, 31.6% had at least one reexcision. Features associated with reexcision include younger patient age, African-American race, biopsy modality of ultrasound, and earlier year of surgery.

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. American Cancer Society. How common is breast cancer? https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-cancer.html. Accessed 1 June 2020.

  2. Shehata M, Grimm L, Ballantyne N, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: current concepts in biology, imaging, and treatment. J Breast Imaging 2019;1(3):166–176. https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz039

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen PH, Ghosh ET, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL. Segmental breast calcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199(5):W532–542. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.11.8198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, et al. Breast Cancer, Version 4.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018;16(3):310–320. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.0012

  5. Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA, et al. Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation: long-term outcome and prognostic significance of patient age and margin status. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50(4):991–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01517-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Margins in breast cancer: How much is enough? Cancer 2018;124(7):1335–1341. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Decker MR, Trentham-Dietz A, Loconte NK, et al. The role of intraoperative pathologic assessment in the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23(9):2788–2794. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5192-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lange M, Reimer T, Hartmann S, Glass A, Stachs A. The role of specimen radiography in breast-conserving therapy of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast 2016;26:73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.12.014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heelan Gladden AA, Sams S, Gleisner A, et al. Re-excision rates after breast conserving surgery following the 2014 SSO-ASTRO guidelines. Am J Surg 2017;214(6):1104–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Langhans L, Jensen MB, Talman MM, Vejborg I, Kroman N, Tvedskov TF. Reoperation rates in ductal carcinoma in situ vs invasive breast cancer after wire-guided breast-conserving surgery. JAMA Surg 2017;152(4):378–384. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4751

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Layfield DM, See H, Stahnke M, Hayward L, Cutress RI, Oeppen RS. Radiopathological features predictive of involved margins in ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2017;99(2):137–144. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy BL, Boughey JC, Keeney MG, et al. Factors associated with positive margins in women undergoing breast conservation surgery. Mayo Clin Proc 2018;93(4):429–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.11.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Philpott A, Wong J, Elder K, Gorelik A, Mann GB, Skandarajah A. Factors influencing reoperation following breast-conserving surgery. ANZ J Surg 2018;88(9):922–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Houvenaeghel G, Lambaudie E, Bannier M, et al. Positive or close margins: reoperation rate and second conservative resection or total mastectomy? Cancer Manag Res 2019;11:2507–2516. https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s190852

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, et al. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ 2012;345:e4505. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Jung W, Kang E, Kim SM, et al. Factors associated with re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Breast Cancer 2012;15(4):412–419. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2012.15.4.412

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolf JH, Wen Y, Axelrod D, et al. Higher volume at time of breast conserving surgery reduces re-excision in DCIS. Int J Surg Oncol 2011;2011:785803. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/785803

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Joste M, Mendes V, Tixier S, et al. Non-menopausal status, high nuclear grade, tumor size > 30 mm and positive resection margins are predictors of residual tumor after lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Anticancer Res 2015;35(6):3471–3477.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. So A, De La Cruz LM, Williams AD, et al. The impact of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and lumpectomy cavity shavings on re-excision rate in pure ductal carcinoma in situ-A single institution’s experience. J Surg Oncol 2018;117(4):558–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Unzeitig A, Kobbermann A, Xie XJ, et al. Influence of surgical technique on mastectomy and reexcision rates in breast-conserving therapy for cancer. Int J Surg Oncol 2012;2012:725121. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/725121

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ballal H, Taylor DB, Bourke AG, Latham B, Saunders CM. Predictors of re-excision in wire-guided wide local excision for early breast cancer: a Western Australian multi-centre experience. ANZ J Surg 2015;85(7–8):540–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rath MG, Uhlmann L, Heil J, et al. Predictors of residual tumor in breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22 Suppl 3:S451–458. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4736-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2016;34(33):4040–4046. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.68.3573

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. American College of Radiology. Testing overview: breast MRI. https://accreditationsupport.acr.org/support/solutions/articles/11000068086-testing-overview-breast-mri-revised-12-12-19-. Accessed 1 June 2020.

  25. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.

  26. Clough KB, Gouveia PF, Benyahi D, et al. Positive margins after oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22(13):4247–4253. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4514-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. DeSnyder SM, Hunt KK, Dong W, et al. American Society of Breast Surgeons’ practice patterns after publication of the SSO-ASTRO-ASCO DCIS consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25(10):2965–2974. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6580-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sabel MS, Rogers K, Griffith K, et al. Residual disease after re-excision lumpectomy for close margins. J Surg Oncol 2009;99(2):99–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang J, Kollias J, Boult M, et al. Patterns of surgical treatment for women with breast cancer in relation to age. Breast J 2010;16(1):60–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00828.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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):888–896. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dillon MF, Mc Dermott EW, O’Doherty A, Quinn CM, Hill AD, O’Higgins N. Factors affecting successful breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14(5):1618–1628. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9246-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Agfa HealthCare/Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Research Scholar Grant (PI: Dr. Manisha Bahl) and the Electronic Space Systems Corporation (ESSCO)-MGH Breast Cancer Research Fund (PI: Dr. Manisha Bahl and Dr. Tawakalitu O. Oseni).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Leslie R. Lamb MD, MSc, Sarah Mercaldo PhD & Manisha Bahl MD, MPH

  2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Tawakalitu O. Oseni MD

Authors
  1. Leslie R. Lamb MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Mercaldo PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tawakalitu O. Oseni MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manisha Bahl MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manisha Bahl MD, MPH.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lamb, L.R., Mercaldo, S., Oseni, T.O. et al. Predictors of Reexcision following Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Ann Surg Oncol 28, 1390–1397 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09101-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09101-5

Search

Navigation