Cargando…

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

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. AI...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tremelling, Abigail, Aft, Rebecca L., Cyr, Amy E., Gillanders, William E., Glover‐Collins, Katherine, Herrmann, Virginia, Margenthaler, Julie A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9124516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34245135
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1502
_version_ 1784711756632817664
author Tremelling, Abigail
Aft, Rebecca L.
Cyr, Amy E.
Gillanders, William E.
Glover‐Collins, Katherine
Herrmann, Virginia
Margenthaler, Julie A.
author_facet Tremelling, Abigail
Aft, Rebecca L.
Cyr, Amy E.
Gillanders, William E.
Glover‐Collins, Katherine
Herrmann, Virginia
Margenthaler, Julie A.
author_sort Tremelling, Abigail
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9124516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91245162022-05-25 Impact of consensus guidelines for breast‐conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ Tremelling, Abigail Aft, Rebecca L. Cyr, Amy E. Gillanders, William E. Glover‐Collins, Katherine Herrmann, Virginia Margenthaler, Julie A. Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Original Articles 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9124516/ /pubmed/34245135 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1502 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Tremelling, Abigail
Aft, Rebecca L.
Cyr, Amy E.
Gillanders, William E.
Glover‐Collins, Katherine
Herrmann, Virginia
Margenthaler, Julie A.
Impact of consensus guidelines for breast‐conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ
title Impact of consensus guidelines for breast‐conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ
title_full Impact of consensus guidelines for breast‐conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ
title_fullStr Impact of consensus guidelines for breast‐conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ
title_full_unstemmed Impact of consensus guidelines for breast‐conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ
title_short Impact of consensus guidelines for breast‐conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ
title_sort impact of consensus guidelines for breast‐conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9124516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34245135
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1502
work_keys_str_mv AT tremellingabigail impactofconsensusguidelinesforbreastconservingsurgeryinpatientswithductalcarcinomainsitu
AT aftrebeccal impactofconsensusguidelinesforbreastconservingsurgeryinpatientswithductalcarcinomainsitu
AT cyramye impactofconsensusguidelinesforbreastconservingsurgeryinpatientswithductalcarcinomainsitu
AT gillanderswilliame impactofconsensusguidelinesforbreastconservingsurgeryinpatientswithductalcarcinomainsitu
AT glovercollinskatherine impactofconsensusguidelinesforbreastconservingsurgeryinpatientswithductalcarcinomainsitu
AT herrmannvirginia impactofconsensusguidelinesforbreastconservingsurgeryinpatientswithductalcarcinomainsitu
AT margenthalerjuliea impactofconsensusguidelinesforbreastconservingsurgeryinpatientswithductalcarcinomainsitu