Radiological Underestimation of Tumor Size as a Relevant Risk Factor for Positive Margin Rate in Breast-Conserving Therapy of Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)
- PMID: 35625972
- PMCID: PMC9139437
- DOI: 10.3390/cancers14102367
Radiological Underestimation of Tumor Size as a Relevant Risk Factor for Positive Margin Rate in Breast-Conserving Therapy of Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)
Abstract
Background: Radiological underestimation of the actual tumor size is a relevant problem in reaching negative margins in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) associated with microcalcifications in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the radiological underestimation of tumor size has an influence on the histopathological margin status. Methods: Patients who underwent BCT with preoperatively diagnosed pure DCIS were included (pooled analysis of two trials). Multiple factors were analysed regarding radiological underestimation ≥10 mm. Radiological underestimation was defined as mammographic minus histological tumor size in mm. Results: Positive margins occurred in 75 of 189 patients. Radiological underestimation ≥10 mm was an independent influencing factor (OR 5.80; 95%CI 2.55−13.17; p < 0.001). A radiological underestimation was seen in 70 patients. The following parameters were statistically significant associated with underestimation: pleomorphic microcalcifications (OR 3.77; 95%CI 1.27−11.18), clustered distribution patterns (OR 4.26; 95%CI 2.25−8.07), and mammographic tumor sizes ≤20 mm (OR 7.47; 95%CI 3.49−15.99). Only a mammographic tumor size ≤20 mm was an independent risk factor (OR 6.49; 95%CI 2.30−18.26; p < 0.001). Grading, estrogen receptor status, and comedo necrosis did not influence the size estimation. Conclusion: Radiological underestimation is an independent risk factor for positive margins in BCT of DCIS associated with microcalcifications predominantly occurring in mammographic small tumors.
Keywords: breast-conserving surgery; ductal carcinoma in situ; positive margin rate; radiological underestimation.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Rauch G.M., Hobbs B.P., Kuerer H.M., Scoggins M.E., Benveniste A.P., Park Y.M., Caudle A.S., Ms P.S.F., Smith B.D., Adrada B.E., et al. Microcalcifications in 1657 Patients with Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: Correlation with Clinical, Histopathologic, Biologic Features, and Local Recurrence. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015;23:482–489. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4876-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Canelo-Aybar C., Taype-Rondan A., Zafra-Tanaka J.H., Rigau D., Graewingholt A., Lebeau A., Gómez E.P., Rossi P.G., Langendam M., Posso M., et al. Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: A systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Eur. Radiol. 2021;31:5880–5893. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07873-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
