Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, Aguilar M, Marubini E (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, Jeong JH, Wolmark N (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1233–1241. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arvold ND, Taghian AG, Niemierko A, Abi Raad RF, Sreedhara M, Nguyen PL, Bellon JR, Wong JS, Smith BL, Jarris JR (2011) Age, breast cancer subtype approximation, and local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol 29(29):3885–3891. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.36.1105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gage I, Schnitt SJ, Nixon AJ, Silver B, Recht A, Troyan SL, Eberlein T, Love SM, Gelman R, Harris JR, Connolly JL (1996) Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 78(9):1921–1928

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, Recht A, Connolly J, Gelman R, Silver B, Hetelekidis S, Abner A, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ (2000) 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. J Clin Oncol 18(8):1668–1675. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.8.1668

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA, Sun P, Lickley HLA, McCready DR, Holloway CMB (2006) The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J 12(4):331–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00271.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Esbona K, Li Z, Wilke LG (2012) Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 19(10):3236–3245. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2492-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Coopey SB, Buckley JM, Smith BL, Hughes KS, Gadd MA, Specht MC (2011) Lumpectomy cavity shaved margins do not impact re-excision rates in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 18(11):3036–3040. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1909-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Coopey S, Smith BL, Hanson S, Buckley J, Hughes KS, Gadd M, Specht MC (2011) The safety of multiple re-excisions after lumpectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18(13):3797–3801. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1802-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, Butler M, Stavris K, Li F, Yao X, Bossuyt V, Harigopal M, Lannin DR, Pusztai L, Horowitz NR (2015) A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 373(6):503–510. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1504473

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ et al (2012) Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA 307(5):467–475. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C et al (2014) Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004–2010. JAMA Surg 149(12):1296–1305. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Taghian A, Mohiuddin M, Jagsi R, Goldberg S, Ceilley E, Powell S (2005) Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey. Ann Surg 241(4):629–639. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000157272.04803.1b

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, Malcarne V, Beitsch PD, Ollila DW (2009) Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg 209(5):608–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.07.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, Harris JR, Khan SA, Horton J, Klimberg S, Chavez-MacGregor M, Freedman G, Houssami N, Johnson PL, Morrow M (2014) 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. Ann Surg Oncol 21(3):704–716. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3481-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, Houssami N, Chavez-MacGregor M, Harris JR, Horton J, Hwang S, Johnson PJ, Marinovich ML, Schnitt SJ, Wapnir I, Moran MS (2016) 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. Ann Surg Oncol 23(12):3801–3810. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5449-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenberger LH, Mamtani A, Fuzesi S, Stempel M, Eaton A, Morrow M, Gemignani ML (2016) Early adoption of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and ii invasive breast cancer: initial experience from memorial sloan kettering cancer center. Ann Surg Oncol 23(10):3239–3246. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5397-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Merrill AL, Coopey SB, Tang R, McEvoy MP, Specht MC, Hughes KS, Gadd MA, Smith BL (2016) Implications of new lumpectomy margin guidelines for breast-conserving surgery: changes in reexcision rates and predicted rates of residual tumor. Ann Surg Oncol 23(3):729–734. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4916-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schulman AM, Mirrielees JA, Leverson G, Landercasper J, Greenberg C, Wilke LG (2017) Reexcision surgery for breast cancer: an analysis of the american society of breast surgeons (ASBrS) MASTERYSM database following the SSO-ASTRO “no ink on tumor” guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol 24(1):52–58. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5516-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Abe SE, Hill JS, Han Y, Walsh K, Symanowski JT, Hadzikadic-Gusic L, Flippo-Morton T, Sarantou T, Forster M, White RL Jr (2015) Margin re-excision and local recurrence in invasive breast cancer: a cost analysis using a decision tree model. J Surg Oncol 112(4):443–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schnitt SJ, Abner A, Gelman R, Connolly JL, Recht A, Duba RB, Eberlein TJ, Mayzel K, Silver B, Harris JR (1994) The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 74(6):1746–1751

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby D, Davies C, Elphinstone P, Evans V, Godwin J, Gray R, Hicks C, James S, MacKinnon E, McGale P, McHugh T, Peto R, Taylor C, Wang Y, Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effect of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 366(9503):2087–2106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67887-7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Land SR, Margolese RG, Swain SM, Costantino JP, Wolmark N (2011) 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 103(6):478–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr027

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wong JS, Chen YH, Gadd MA, Gelman R, Lester SC, Schnitt SJ, Sgroi DC, Silver BJ, Smith BL, Troyan SL, Harris JR (2014) 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 143(2):343–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2813-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Bellon JR, Cirrincione CT, Berry DA, McCormick B, Muss HB, Smith BL, Hudis CA, Winer EP, Wood WC (2013) Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol 31(19):2382–2387. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2615

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Murphy CC, Bartholomew LK, Carpentier MY, Bleuthmann SM, Vernon SW (2012) Adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy among breast cancer survivors in clinical practice: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 134(2):459–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2114-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hershman DL, Kushi LH, Shao T, Buono D, Kershenbaum A, Tsai W-Y, Fehrenbacher L, Gomez SL, Miles S, Neugut AI (2010) Early discontinuation and nonadherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy in a cohort of 8,769 early-stage breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 18(27):4120–4128. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.9655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stanton AL, Petrie KJ, Partridge AH (2014) Contributors to nonadherence and nonpersistence with endocrine therapy in breast cancer survivors recruited from an online research registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 145(2):525–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-2961-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle C. Specht.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

A waiver of informed consent was obtained from the local institutional review board.

Research involved in human or animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

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

Kelly, B.N., Kantor, O., Tang, R. et al. Similar rates of residual disease in patients with DCIS within 2 mm of lumpectomy margin regardless of the presence of invasive carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 186, 807–814 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-06026-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-06026-1

Keywords

Navigation