Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 3811–3821 | Cite as

The Association of Surgical Margins and Local Recurrence in Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Treated with Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

  • M. Luke MarinovichEmail author
  • Lamiae Azizi
  • Petra Macaskill
  • Les Irwig
  • Monica Morrow
  • Lawrence J. Solin
  • Nehmat Houssami
Breast Oncology



There is no consensus on adequate negative margins in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We systematically reviewed the evidence on margins in BCS for DCIS.


A study-level meta-analysis of local recurrence (LR), microscopic margin status and threshold distance for negative margins. LR proportion was modeled using random-effects logistic meta-regression (frequentist) and network meta-analysis (Bayesian) that allows for multiple margin distances per study, adjusting for follow-up time.


Based on 20 studies (LR: 865 of 7883), odds of LR were associated with margin status [logistic: odds ratio (OR) 0.53 for negative vs. positive/close (p < 0.001); network: OR 0.45 for negative vs. positive]. In logistic meta-regression, relative to >0 or 1 mm, ORs for 2 mm (0.51), 3 or 5 mm (0.42) and 10 mm (0.60) showed comparable significant reductions in the odds of LR. In the network analysis, ORs relative to positive margins for 2 (0.32), 3 (0.30) and 10 mm (0.32) showed similar reductions in the odds of LR that were greater than for >0 or 1 mm (0.45). There was weak evidence of lower odds at 2 mm compared with >0 or 1 mm [relative OR (ROR) 0.72, 95 % credible interval (CrI) 0.47–1.08], and no evidence of a difference between 2 and 10 mm (ROR 0.99, 95 % CrI 0.61–1.64). Adjustment for covariates, and analyses based only on studies using whole-breast radiotherapy, did not change the findings.


Negative margins in BCS for DCIS reduce the odds of LR; however, minimum margin distances above 2 mm are not significantly associated with further reduced odds of LR in women receiving radiation.


Local Recurrence Positive Margin Margin Status Online Appendix Negative Margin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



M.L. Marinovich is supported by a Cancer Institute NSW (CINSW) Early Career Fellowship. N. Houssami receives research support via a National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF) Australia Breast Cancer Research Leadership Fellowship. This work was partly supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) program Grant to the STEP.

Supplementary material

10434_2016_5446_MOESM1_ESM.docx (257 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 258 kb)


  1. 1.
    Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:170–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;103:478–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Irwig L, Bennetts A. Quality of life after breast conservation or mastectomy: a systematic review. Aust N J Surg. 1997;67:750–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang S-Y, Chu H, Shamliyan T, et al. Network meta-analysis of margin threshold for women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:507–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;27:1615–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Extent and role of margin control for DCIS managed by breast-conserving surgery. In: Newman LA, Bensenhaver JM, editors. Ductal carcinoma in situ and microinvasive/borderline breast cancer. New York: Springer; 2015. pp. 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1507–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Society of Breast Surgeons. The American Society of Breast Surgeons position statement on breast cancer lumpectomy margins. 2013. Accessed 28 Jul 2016.
  9. 9.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology, breast cancer version 1. 2016. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
  10. 10.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment: NICE guidelines [CG80]. 2009. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
  11. 11.
    New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG). Ductal carcinoma in situ. Management of early breast cancer: evidence-based best practice guideline. Wellington: New Zealand Guidelines Group; 2015. pp. 133–41.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:v8–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5449-z.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vicini FA, Recht A. Age at diagnosis and outcome for women with ductal carcinoma-in situ of the breast: a critical review of the literature. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2736–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kong I, Narod SA, Taylor C, et al. Age at diagnosis predicts local recurrence in women treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based outcomes analysis. Curr Oncol. 2014;21:e96–104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Morrow M. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:717–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:3219–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vicini F, Beitsch P, Quiet C, et al. Five-year analysis of treatment efficacy and cosmesis by the American Society of Breast Surgeons mammosite breast brachytherapy registry trial in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:808–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hathout L, Hijal T, Theberge V, et al. Hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87:1058–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ben-David MA, Sturtz DE, Griffith KA, et al. Long-term results of conservative surgery and radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ using lung density correction: The University of Michigan experience. Breast J. 2007;13:392–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA, et al. Long-term outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 2005;103:1137–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodrigues N, Carter D, Dillon D, Parisot N, Choi DH, Haffty BG. Correlation of clinical and pathologic features with outcome in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:1331–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cutuli B, Cohen-Solal-Le NC, De LB, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast results of conservative and radical treatments in 716 patients. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:2365–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hiramatsu H, Bornstein BA, Recht A, et al. Local recurrence after conservative surgery and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: possible importance of family history. Cancer J Sci Am. 1995;1:55–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cataliotti L, Distante V, Ciatto S, et al. Intraductal breast cancer: review of 183 consecutive cases. Eur J Cancer. 1992;28:917–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turaka A, Freedman GM, Li T, et al. Young age is not associated with increased local recurrence for DCIS treated by breast-conserving surgery and radiation. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:25–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 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;262:623–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meattini I, Livi L, Franceschini D, et al. Role of radiotherapy boost in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: a single-center experience in a series of 389 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:613–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chuwa EWL, Tan VHS, Tan P-H, Yong W-S, Ho G-H, Wong C-Y. Treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ in an Asian population: outcome and prognostic factors. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:42–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    MacAusland SG, Hepel JT, Chong FK, et al. An attempt to independently verify the utility of the Van Nuys prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2007;110:2648–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853. A study by the EORTC breast cancer cooperative group and EORTC radiotherapy group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3381–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chasle J, Delozier T, Denoux Y, Marnay J, Michels J-J. Immunohistochemical study of cell cycle regulatory proteins in intraductal breast carcinomas: a preliminary study. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1363–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nakamura S, Woo C, Silberman H, Streeter J, Lewinsky BS, Silverstein MJ. Breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: A 20 year experience with excision plus radiation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:403–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neuschatz AC, DiPetrillo T, Safaii H, Lowther D, Landa M, Wazer DE. Margin width as a determinant of local control with and without radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. Int J Cancer. 2001;96:97–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fowble B, Hanlon AL, Fein DA, et al. Results of conservative surgery and radiation for mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38:949–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sweldens C, Peeters S, Van LE, et al. Local relapse after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a European single-center experience and external validation of the memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center DCIS nomogram. Cancer J. 2014;20:1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim H, Noh JM, Choi DH, et al. Excision alone for small size ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast. 2014;23:586–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23:3105–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, et al. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17:157–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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;86:429–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fish EB, Chapman J-A, Miller NA, et al. Assessment of treatment for patients with primary ductal carcinoma in situ in the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5:724–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sahoo S, Recant WM, Jaskowiak N, Tong L, Heimann R. Defining negative margins in DCIS patients treated with breast conservation therapy: The University of Chicago experience. Breast J. 2005;11:242–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Macdonald HR, Silverstein MJ, Mabry H, et al. Local control in ductal carcinoma in situ treated by excision alone: incremental benefit of larger margins. Am J Surg. 2005;190:521–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Correa C, McGale P, Taylor C, et al. Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;162–77.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cutuli B, Cohen-Solal-Le NC, De LB, et al. Breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the French Cancer Centers’ experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:868–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tunon-De-Lara C, De-Mascarel I, Mac-Grogan G, et al. Analysis of 676 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast from 1971 to 1995: diagnosis and treatment. The experience of one institute. Am J Clin Oncol Cancer Clin Trials. 2001;24:531–36.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fisher B, Land S, Mamounas E, Dignam J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N. Prevention of invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: an update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. Semin Oncol. 2001;28:400–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chan KC, Fiona KW, Sinha G, et al. Extent of excision margin width required in breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2001;91:9–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Warneke J, Grossklaus D, Davis J, et al. Influence of local treatment on the recurrence rate of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:683–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kestin LL, Goldstein NS, Martinez AA, et al. Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ treated with conservative surgery with or without radiation therapy. Patterns of failure and 10 year results. Ann Surg. 2000;231:235–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ringberg A, Idvall I, Ferno M, et al. Ipsilateral local recurrence in relation to therapy and morphological characteristics in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2000;26:444–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rudloff U, Brogi E, Reiner AS, et al. The influence of margin width and volume of disease near margin on benefit of radiation therapy for women with DCIS treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg. 2010;251:583–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gelman A, Rubin DB. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences (with discussion). Stat Sci. 1992;7:457–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Series B. 2002;64:583–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Luke Marinovich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lamiae Azizi
    • 1
  • Petra Macaskill
    • 1
  • Les Irwig
    • 1
  • Monica Morrow
    • 2
  • Lawrence J. Solin
    • 3
  • Nehmat Houssami
    • 1
  1. 1.Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical SchoolThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyAlbert Einstein Healthcare NetworkPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations