Predicting the likelihood of residual disease in women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND To identify women at risk for residual disease after excision of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), we assessed the relationship between characteristics of the initial biopsy and the presence of residual DCIS at a subsequent operation. STUDY DESIGN We identified 134 consecutive "paired" operations from 112 women who had undergone 2 or more operations for DCIS between February 1995 and December 1996. Cancer status of the margins, patient age and leading presentation, tumor subtype and grade, and the presence of multifocal-extensive disease were assessed as potential predictors. RESULTS Residual DCIS was found in 60 patients (45%): in 2 of 12 patients (17%) with negative margins, in 11 of 36 (31%) with close margins (< 2 mm), in 30 of 52 (58%) with positive margins, and in 17 of 34 patients (50%) with margins of unknown status. Patients with positive or unknown margins were 7.7 and 8.3 times, respectively, more likely to have residual disease than patients with negative margins (95% CI 1.1-59.1; 1.1-66.4). Patients with clinical presentations were 8.0 times more likely to have residual disease than patients who presented with abnormal mammograms (95% CI 2.3-27.6). Multifocal-extensive DCIS was associated with residual disease (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 7.7, 95% CI 2.9-20.5), as was comedo subtype (OR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-6.7). CONCLUSIONS Positive or unknown biopsy margins, a clinical presentation, multifocal-extensive cancer, and the comedo subtype are associated with higher risk of residual DCIS.

[1]  B. Cady Duct Carcinoma In Situ , 1993 .

[2]  P. Bult,et al.  Three dimensional imaging of mammary ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical implications. , 1994, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[3]  J. Johnson,et al.  In situ ductal carcinoma of the breast. , 1962, JAMA.

[4]  Joseph Costantino,et al.  Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast project (NSABP) protocol B‐17. Intraductal carcinoma (ductal carcinoma in situ) , 1995, Cancer.

[5]  K. Mokbel,et al.  Reexcision operations in nonpalpable breast cancer , 1995, Journal of surgical oncology.

[6]  M. Silverstein,et al.  A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast , 1996, Cancer.

[7]  S. Paik,et al.  Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast project (protocol 6) I. Intraductal carcinoma (DCIS) , 1986, Cancer.

[8]  P. Rosen Rosen's Breast Pathology , 2001 .

[9]  Z. Rayter,et al.  Factors affecting surgical margin clearance in screen-detected breast cancer and the effect of cavity biopsies on residual disease. , 1997, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[10]  M. Silverstein,et al.  Can intraductal breast carcinoma be excised completely by local excision? Clinical and pathologic predictors , 1994, Cancer.

[11]  Schwartz Gf The role of excision and surveillance alone in subclinical DCIS of the breast. , 1994 .

[12]  K. Hughes,et al.  Controversies in the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. , 1996, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[13]  S. Feig,et al.  Nonpalpable in situ ductal carcinoma of the breast. Predictors of multicentricity and microinvasion and implications for treatment. , 1989, Archives of surgery.

[14]  S. Schnitt,et al.  The relationship between shaved margin and inked margin status in breast excision specimens , 1997, Cancer.

[15]  J. Gazet,et al.  The importance of the resection margin in conservative surgery for breast cancer. , 1996, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[16]  S. Chan,et al.  Assessment of excision margins following wide local excision for breast carcinoma using specimen scrape cytology and tumour bed biopsy. , 1994, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[17]  B. Eisenberg,et al.  Is frozen section analysis of reexcision lumpectomy margins worthwhile? Margin analysis in breast reexcisions , 1994, Cancer.

[18]  B. Eisenberg,et al.  Incidence of Gross and Microscopic Carcinoma in Specimens from Patients with Breast Cancer After Re‐Excision Lumpectomy , 1993, Annals of surgery.

[19]  M. Lagios,et al.  Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence , 1989, Cancer.

[20]  E. Mallon,et al.  Tumour bed positivity predicts outcome after breast‐conserving surgery , 1997, The British journal of surgery.

[21]  L. Cheng,et al.  Relationship between the size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and residual disease. , 1997, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  M. Silverstein,et al.  Duct carcinoma in situ: 227 cases without microinvasion. , 1992, European journal of cancer.

[23]  D. O'hanlon,et al.  Tumour bed biopsy detects the presence of multifocal disease in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy for primary breast carcinoma. , 1996, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[24]  I. Bleiweiss,et al.  Factors associated with clear biopsy margins and clear reexcision margins in breast cancer specimens from candidates for breast conservation. , 1997, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.