Cancer treatment and research communications · 2024
Surgical margin and local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Co Michael, Fung Maggie Wai Yin, Kwong Ava
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the association between surgical margin status and local recurrence of DCIS.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained 20-year DCIS database was performed. >=2 mm margin was defined as clear margin. Local relapse rate between the patients with clear versus close margins were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier analyses.
RESULTS: 654 patients were analyzed. Median age was 46.5 (Range 18 - 80). 205 (31.3%) were high grade, 194 (29.7%) were intermediate grade, 143 (21.9%) were low grade. 112 (18.3%) were unknown. 202 (30.9%) were estrogen receptor positive, 49 (7.4%) were negative, 403 (61.6%) patients were unknown. 403 (61.6%) patients received mastectomy while 251 (38.4%) patients received BCS and radiotherapy. 549 (83.9%) patients had clear surgical margin, 50 (7.7%) patients had involved (positive) resection margin, 55 (8.4%) had close margin (<2 mm margin). All patients with involved margin received re-excision of margin, while 21 patients (out of 55 who had close resection margins) received re-excision of margin. Negative surgical margins were achieved after the re-excision. 34 patients with close resection margin decided not to receive re-excision but to undergo adjuvant radiotherapy. After median follow-up of 128 months, the 10-year ipsilateral breast tumor relapse (IBTR) was 4.5% (N = 28), Of which 27 (96.4%) patients had clear margin after the initial surgical treatment of DCIS. 1 (3.6%) patient had close surgical margin. Difference in IBTR between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.692).
CONCLUSION: Close surgical margin for DCIS is not associated with increased risk of IBTR.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained 20-year DCIS database was performed. >=2 mm margin was defined as clear margin. Local relapse rate between the patients with clear versus close margins were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier analyses.
RESULTS: 654 patients were analyzed. Median age was 46.5 (Range 18 - 80). 205 (31.3%) were high grade, 194 (29.7%) were intermediate grade, 143 (21.9%) were low grade. 112 (18.3%) were unknown. 202 (30.9%) were estrogen receptor positive, 49 (7.4%) were negative, 403 (61.6%) patients were unknown. 403 (61.6%) patients received mastectomy while 251 (38.4%) patients received BCS and radiotherapy. 549 (83.9%) patients had clear surgical margin, 50 (7.7%) patients had involved (positive) resection margin, 55 (8.4%) had close margin (<2 mm margin). All patients with involved margin received re-excision of margin, while 21 patients (out of 55 who had close resection margins) received re-excision of margin. Negative surgical margins were achieved after the re-excision. 34 patients with close resection margin decided not to receive re-excision but to undergo adjuvant radiotherapy. After median follow-up of 128 months, the 10-year ipsilateral breast tumor relapse (IBTR) was 4.5% (N = 28), Of which 27 (96.4%) patients had clear margin after the initial surgical treatment of DCIS. 1 (3.6%) patient had close surgical margin. Difference in IBTR between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.692).
CONCLUSION: Close surgical margin for DCIS is not associated with increased risk of IBTR.