Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Apr 1;152(4):378-384.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4751.

Reoperation Rates in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ vs Invasive Breast Cancer After Wire-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery

Linnea Langhans  1 , Maj-Britt Jensen  2 , Maj-Lis M Talman  3 , Ilse Vejborg  4 , Niels Kroman  1 , Tove F Tvedskov  1
Affiliations

Reoperation Rates in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ vs Invasive Breast Cancer After Wire-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery

Linnea Langhans et al. JAMA Surg. .

Abstract

Importance: New techniques for preoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions may decrease the reoperation rate in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) compared with rates after surgery with the standard wire-guided localization. However, a valid reoperation rate for this procedure needs to be established for comparison, as previous studies on this procedure include a variety of malignant and benign breast lesions.

Objectives: To determine the reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS in patients with histologically verified nonpalpable invasive breast cancer (IBC) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to examine whether the risk of reoperation is associated with DCIS or histologic type of the IBC.

Design, setting, and participants: This nationwide study including women with histologically verified IBC or DCIS having wire-guided BCS performed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013, used data from the Danish National Patient Registry that were cross-checked with the Danish Breast Cancer Group database and the Danish Pathology Register.

Main outcomes and measures: Reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS in patients with IBC or DCIS.

Results: Wire-guided BCS was performed in 4118 women (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [8.7] years). A total of 725 patients (17.6%) underwent a reoperation: 593 were reexcisions (14.4%) and 132 were mastectomies (3.2%). Significantly more patients with DCIS (271 of 727 [37.3%]) than with IBC (454 of 3391 [13.4%]) underwent a reoperation (adjusted odds ratio, 3.82; 95% CI, 3.19-4.58; P < .001). After the first reexcision, positive margins were still present in 97 patients (16.4%). The risk of repeated positive margins was significantly higher in patients with DCIS vs those with IBC (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.42-3.43; P < .001). The risk of reoperation was significantly increased in patients with lobular carcinoma vs those with ductal carcinoma (adjusted odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.95; P = .02). A total of 202 patients (4.9%) had a subsequent completion mastectomy, but no difference was found in the type of reoperation between patients with DCIS and those with IBC.

Conclusions and relevance: A lower reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS was found in this study than those shown in previous studies. However, the risk of reoperation in patients with DCIS was 3 times higher than in those with IBC. The widespread use of mammographic screening will increase the number of patients diagnosed with DCIS, making a precise localization of nonpalpable DCIS lesions even more important.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. Inclusion of Patients in the Study
Inclusion of patients from the Danish National Patient Registry from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2013. BCS indicates breast-conserving surgery; DBCG, the Danish Breast Cancer Group; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; DNPR, the Danish National Patient Registry; DPR, the Danish Pathology Registry; and IBC, invasive breast cancer.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Vejborg I, Mikkelsen E, Garne JP, et al. . Mammography screening in Denmark. Dan Med Bull. 2011;58(6):C4287. - PubMed
    1. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998-2005. - PubMed
    1. Cheung S, Booth ME, Kearins O, Dodwell D. Risk of subsequent invasive breast cancer after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Breast. 2014;23(6):807-811. - PubMed
    1. Dansk Kvalitetsdatabase for Mammografiscreening Arsrapport 2014: Tredje nationale screeningsrunde. https://www.sundhed.dk/content/cms/78/4678_dkms-rapport-version-4_final_.... Accessed January 11, 2016.
    1. Pleijhuis RG, Graafland M, de Vries J, Bart J, de Jong JS, van Dam GM. Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(10):2717-2730. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types