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
. 2022 May;5(5):e1502.
doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1502. Epub 2021 Jul 10.

Impact of consensus guidelines for breast-conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ

Abigail Tremelling  1 , Rebecca L Aft  1 , Amy E Cyr  1 , William E Gillanders  1 , Katherine Glover-Collins  1 , Virginia Herrmann  1 , Julie A Margenthaler  1
Affiliations

Impact of consensus guidelines for breast-conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ

Abigail Tremelling et al. Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2022 May.

Abstract

Background: Consensus guidelines published in 2016 recommended a 2 mm free margin as the standard for negative margins in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The goal of the guideline recommendation was standardization of re-excision practices.

Aims: To evaluate the impact of this consensus guideline on our institutional practices.

Methods: We identified all patients at our institution with pure DCIS who were initially treated with BCS from September 2014 to August 2018 using a prospectively-maintained institutional database. A retrospective chart review was performed to determine margin status and re-excision rates during the 2 years before and the 2 years after the guideline was published in order to determine the effect on our re-excision rates. Close margins were defined as <2 mm.

Results: In the 2 years before the consensus guideline was published, 184 patients with DCIS underwent BCS. Twenty-six patients had positive margins and 24 underwent re-excision, including three who had completion mastectomy. Of the remaining 159 patients, 76 had ≥2 mm (negative) margins. The remaining 82 patients had close margins and 48 of these patients (58.5%) underwent re-excision, including one who had a completion mastectomy. Excluding the patients with positive margins, our re-excision rate was 30.4% prior to the guideline. In the 2 years after the consensus guideline was published, 192 patients with DCIS underwent initial BCS. Twenty-four patients had positive margins and 22 underwent re-excision, including three who had completion mastectomy. Of the remaining 168 patients, 95 patients had ≥2 mm (negative) margins. The remaining 73 patients had close margins and 45 of those patients (61.6%) underwent re-excision, including six who had completion mastectomy. Excluding the patients with positive margins, our re-excision rate was 26.8% after the guideline.

Conclusions: Our institution's re-excision rate did not change significantly during the 2 years before and after the publication of the consensus guideline on adequate margins for patients undergoing BCT for DCIS. Our overall re-excision rate decreased slightly. However, of the patients who had close margins, a larger proportion underwent re-excision after the guideline was published. The guideline publication appears to have affected our institutional practices slightly, but not dramatically as many of our surgeons' practices were comparable to the guideline recommendations prior to 2016. We continue to use clinical judgment based on patient and tumor characteristics in deciding which patients will benefit from margin re-excision.

Keywords: breast-conserving surgery; ductal carcinoma in situ; margins.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(A) Pre‐guideline index procedure margin status and re‐excisions. (B) Post‐guideline index procedure margin status and re‐excisions
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S. The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med. 1999;13:1455‐1461. - PubMed
    1. 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):1615‐1620. - PubMed
    1. Marinovich ML, Azizi L, Macaskill P, et al. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast‐conserving therapy: a meta‐analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3811‐3821. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Toss MS, Pinder SE, Green AR, et al. Breast conservation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): what defines optimal margins? Histopathology. 2017;70:681‐692. - PubMed
    1. Thomas J, Evans A, Macartney J, et al. Radiological and pathological size estimations of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, specimen handling and the influence on the success of breast conservation surgery: a review of 2564 cases from the Sloane Project. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(2):285‐293. - PMC - PubMed