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. Aim...
Saved in:
| Published in | Cancer reports Vol. 5; no. 5; pp. e1502 - n/a |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
United States
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.05.2022
John Wiley and Sons Inc Wiley |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| 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. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | 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. 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. To evaluate the impact of this consensus guideline on our institutional practices. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. BACKGROUNDConsensus 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. AIMSTo evaluate the impact of this consensus guideline on our institutional practices. METHODSWe 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. RESULTSIn 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. CONCLUSIONSOur 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. |
| Author | Herrmann, Virginia Glover‐Collins, Katherine Margenthaler, Julie A. Cyr, Amy E. Tremelling, Abigail Aft, Rebecca L. Gillanders, William E. |
| AuthorAffiliation | 1 Section of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery Washington University School of Medicine St Louis Missouri USA |
| AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 1 Section of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery Washington University School of Medicine St Louis Missouri USA |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Abigail surname: Tremelling fullname: Tremelling, Abigail organization: Washington University School of Medicine – sequence: 2 givenname: Rebecca L. surname: Aft fullname: Aft, Rebecca L. organization: Washington University School of Medicine – sequence: 3 givenname: Amy E. surname: Cyr fullname: Cyr, Amy E. organization: Washington University School of Medicine – sequence: 4 givenname: William E. surname: Gillanders fullname: Gillanders, William E. organization: Washington University School of Medicine – sequence: 5 givenname: Katherine surname: Glover‐Collins fullname: Glover‐Collins, Katherine organization: Washington University School of Medicine – sequence: 6 givenname: Virginia surname: Herrmann fullname: Herrmann, Virginia organization: Washington University School of Medicine – sequence: 7 givenname: Julie A. orcidid: 0000-0001-7028-4748 surname: Margenthaler fullname: Margenthaler, Julie A. email: jmargenthaler@wustl.edu organization: Washington University School of Medicine |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34245135$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp1kt9qFDEUhwep2Fp74QtIwBu92Db_ZjJzI5TF6kJREL0OSebMbJaZZE0yLXvnI_iMfRIzu7W0glcJJx8fJ79zXhZHzjsoitcEnxOM6YVxgZ6TEtNnxQktBVvUjNdHj-7HxVmMG4wxqStGG_aiOGac8pKw8qRYr8atMgn5DhnvIrg4RdRPtoXBOoio8wHpACqmu1-_90S4sa5HcQo9hB2yDm1VsuBSRLc2rVE7maQGZFQw1vlRzUS0aXpVPO_UEOHs_jwtflx9_L78vLj--mm1vLxemFJUdGGErjqlgbOuUk3b1oKJSrQGhCCaVdRwnEtKa22MqDqjCVcKGlzy_Cdcl-y0WB28rVcbuQ12VGEnvbJyX_ChlyokawaQTUcE8BwEVpzXhGldAq9r3TCojGBtdn04uLaTHiE34VJQwxPp0xdn17L3N7Ihc75VFry7FwT_c4KY5GijgWFQDvwUJS3z3KqSNDP69h9046fgclSS4QZTWlNGM_X-QJngYwzQPTRDsJzXQc7rIOd1yOybx90_kH-Hn4GLA3BrB9j93ySXX77RvfIPggbC2w |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1142_S1793545822430039 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1245/s10434-016-5602-8 10.1111/his.13116 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4751 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.5182 10.1245/s10434-016-5446-2 10.1245/s10434-016-5449-z 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.03.020 10.1056/NEJM199905133401902 10.1245/s10434-014-3481-4 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605513 10.1136/bmj.e4505 10.1245/s10434-009-0765-1 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2021 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2021 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. – notice: 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. – notice: 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the "License"). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| DBID | 24P WIN NPM AAYXX CITATION ABUWG AFKRA AZQEC BENPR CCPQU DWQXO PIMPY PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1002/cnr2.1502 |
| DatabaseName | Wiley Online Library Open Access Wiley Online Library Open Access PubMed CrossRef ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Korea Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | PubMed CrossRef Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Central ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central Korea ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Academic ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | PubMed CrossRef Publicly Available Content Database MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: 24P name: Wiley Online Library url: https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-science/open-access/browse-journals.html sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 3 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 4 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| DocumentTitleAlternate | Tremelling et al |
| EISSN | 2573-8348 |
| EndPage | n/a |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_9f17e44510a44813bb5e488b93e6c73d 10_1002_cnr2_1502 34245135 CNR21502 |
| Genre | article Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | 0R~ 1OC 24P 34L 53G AAHHS AAZKR ABCUV ACCFJ ACGFS ACPOU ACXQS ADBBV ADKYN ADPDF ADXAS ADZMN ADZOD AEEZP AEQDE AFKRA AIURR AIWBW AJBDE ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMYDB AVUZU BENPR BFHJK CCPQU DCZOG EBS EJD GROUPED_DOAJ HGLYW IAO IHR INH LATKE LEEKS LUTES LYRES M~E O9- OK1 OVD OVEED P2W PIMPY ROL RPM SUPJJ TEORI WIN ZZTAW ITC NPM AAYXX CITATION ABUWG AZQEC DWQXO PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c5762-c7b6fabe43f6a9dd873767dce771b362c40873abbbcc76fcb14aae90543420853 |
| IEDL.DBID | RPM |
| ISSN | 2573-8348 |
| IngestDate | Thu Jul 04 21:08:48 EDT 2024 Tue Sep 17 21:26:26 EDT 2024 Fri Aug 16 22:13:41 EDT 2024 Tue Sep 17 10:41:46 EDT 2024 Thu Sep 26 16:14:19 EDT 2024 Sat Sep 28 08:19:22 EDT 2024 Sat Aug 24 01:08:39 EDT 2024 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 5 |
| Keywords | ductal carcinoma in situ margins breast-conserving surgery |
| Language | English |
| License | Attribution 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c5762-c7b6fabe43f6a9dd873767dce771b362c40873abbbcc76fcb14aae90543420853 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-7028-4748 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9124516/ |
| PMID | 34245135 |
| PQID | 3090228232 |
| PQPubID | 6860424 |
| PageCount | 5 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_9f17e44510a44813bb5e488b93e6c73d pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9124516 proquest_miscellaneous_2550265196 proquest_journals_3090228232 crossref_primary_10_1002_cnr2_1502 pubmed_primary_34245135 wiley_primary_10_1002_cnr2_1502_CNR21502 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | May 2022 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2022-05-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 05 year: 2022 text: May 2022 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: Hoboken |
| PublicationTitle | Cancer reports |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cancer Rep (Hoboken) |
| PublicationYear | 2022 |
| Publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc John Wiley and Sons Inc Wiley |
| Publisher_xml | – name: John Wiley & Sons, Inc – name: John Wiley and Sons Inc – name: Wiley |
| References | 1999; 13 2017; 152 2017; 70 2012; 345 2010; 17 2009; 27 2017; 225 2016; 23 2014; 21 2010; 102 e_1_2_10_12_1 e_1_2_10_9_1 e_1_2_10_13_1 e_1_2_10_10_1 e_1_2_10_11_1 e_1_2_10_2_1 e_1_2_10_4_1 e_1_2_10_3_1 e_1_2_10_6_1 e_1_2_10_5_1 e_1_2_10_8_1 e_1_2_10_7_1 |
| References_xml | – volume: 70 start-page: 681 year: 2017 end-page: 692 article-title: Breast conservation in ductal carcinoma (DCIS): what defines optimal margins? publication-title: Histopathology. – volume: 13 start-page: 1455 year: 1999 end-page: 1461 article-title: The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast publication-title: N Engl J Med – volume: 102 start-page: 285 issue: 2 year: 2010 end-page: 293 article-title: 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 publication-title: Br J Cancer. – volume: 225 start-page: 294 issue: 2 year: 2017 end-page: 301 article-title: Cost analysis of a surgical consensus guideline in breast‐conserving surgery publication-title: J Am Coll Surg – volume: 345 year: 2012 article-title: Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics publication-title: BMJ – volume: 23 start-page: 3811 year: 2016 end-page: 3821 article-title: The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast‐conserving therapy: a meta‐analysis publication-title: Ann Surg Oncol. – volume: 23 start-page: 656 issue: Suppl 5 year: 2016 end-page: 664 article-title: Surgeon volume, patient age, and tumor‐related factors influence the need for re‐excision after breast‐conserving surgery publication-title: Ann Surg Oncol – volume: 21 start-page: 704 issue: 3 year: 2014 end-page: 716 article-title: Society of Surgical Oncology‐American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast‐conserving surgery with whole‐breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer publication-title: Ann Surg Oncol – volume: 27 start-page: 1615 issue: 10 year: 2009 end-page: 1620 article-title: Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ publication-title: J Clin Oncol – volume: 152 start-page: 378 issue: 4 year: 2017 end-page: 384 article-title: Reoperation rates in ductal carcinoma in situ vs invasive breast cancer after wire‐guided breast‐conserving surgery publication-title: JAMA Surg. – volume: 17 start-page: 558 year: 2010 end-page: 563 article-title: What is an adequate margin for breast‐conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates publication-title: Ann Surg Oncol. – volume: 23 start-page: 3801 issue: 12 year: 2016 end-page: 3810 article-title: Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology–American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast‐conserving surgery with whole‐breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ publication-title: Ann Surg Oncol – ident: e_1_2_10_9_1 doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5602-8 – ident: e_1_2_10_5_1 doi: 10.1111/his.13116 – ident: e_1_2_10_7_1 doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4751 – ident: e_1_2_10_3_1 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.5182 – ident: e_1_2_10_4_1 doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5446-2 – ident: e_1_2_10_12_1 doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5449-z – ident: e_1_2_10_13_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.03.020 – ident: e_1_2_10_2_1 doi: 10.1056/NEJM199905133401902 – ident: e_1_2_10_11_1 doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3481-4 – ident: e_1_2_10_6_1 doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605513 – ident: e_1_2_10_8_1 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4505 – ident: e_1_2_10_10_1 doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0765-1 |
| SSID | ssj0001863293 |
| Score | 2.259583 |
| Snippet | Background
Consensus guidelines published in 2016 recommended a 2 mm free margin as the standard for negative margins in patients undergoing breast‐conserving... Consensus guidelines published in 2016 recommended a 2 mm free margin as the standard for negative margins in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery... Abstract Background Consensus guidelines published in 2016 recommended a 2 mm free margin as the standard for negative margins in patients undergoing... Background Consensus guidelines published in 2016 recommended a 2 mm free margin as the standard for negative margins in patients undergoing breast‐conserving... BACKGROUNDConsensus guidelines published in 2016 recommended a 2 mm free margin as the standard for negative margins in patients undergoing breast-conserving... Abstract Background Consensus guidelines published in 2016 recommended a 2 mm free margin as the standard for negative margins in patients undergoing... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest crossref pubmed wiley |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
| StartPage | e1502 |
| SubjectTerms | Biopsy Breast cancer breast‐conserving surgery ductal carcinoma in situ Electronic health records Mammography margins Mastectomy Medical records Oncology Original Pathology Patients Surgeons Surgery Surgical techniques |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3BTtwwELUqTlwqKqANBWQQh15SEjux4yMgVoAEB9SVuFm248Ae6kWbzb2f0G_kS5hxsqtdFcSlt8hxEmfGzrxxZt4QcpJJW1dg2tOiyhpwUJDylimR1lXlZKacsRKTk2_vxNW4uHkoH1ZKfWFMWE8P3AvuVDW59MiilRnwJHJubelh0lnFvXCS1_Hrm5crzlTcXakEB0O2oBLK2KkLM_YT0A9bM0CRp_8tcPlvjOQqdo3GZ7RFPg-okZ71o_1CPvmwTZ6uY4YjnTbUYUx0aLuWPnbIW4Wx7BTgKLUYcz5_-fM39pjh7gFt-0xoOgl0YFVtKW7HUqR-hac4LC8Upr8N9mgn826HjEeXvy6u0qFwQurAfWCpk1Y0xvqCN8Kouq4kcrbAq0iZW7BYrsigyVhrnZOicTYvjPEqwzRTrNnJd8lGmAb_jVAmauE5gKhSqKLkjcpqWxsFsA0-T1bmCTleSFM_9_wYumdCZhpFrlHkCTlHOS87IKV1bABF60HR-iNFJ2R_oSU9rLNWcwwrBa-RwzOOlqdhheBvDxP8tGs1OE3gaAJSFQn52it1ORKOP35zXiZErql7bajrZ8LkKbJwqxwvhXv-iBPj_bfXF3f3DA_2_ocYvpNNhhkYMeZyn2zMZ50_AFw0t4dxCbwCVzAMTw priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: ProQuest Central dbid: BENPR link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwELZKe-GCQLwCbWUQBy5hEzux41NFq1YLEitUUak3y6-0PdQpm829P6G_kV_CTB7brnjcosS7iceP-WY88w0hHzJpfQWqPS2qrAYDBSlvmRKpryonM-WMlZic_G0h5mfF1_PyfIvMp1wYDKuc9sR-o_aNQx_5jGMAIdgHnM2MRS-AW80Obn6mWD8Kz1nHYhqPyA7LCzyw3Tk8Xnw_vfe3VIKDapvIhTI2c3HJPgEeYhsqqWfu_xvc_DNq8iGa7dXRyVPyZMSR9PMw8M_IVojPyeWXPueRNjV1GCUd266lFx0yWWF0OwWASi1Goa9-3d71LZboT6DtkBtNryIdeVZbig5aimSw8BaHBYdic22wBYihe0HOTo5_HM3TsZRC6sCgYKmTVtTGhoLXwijvK4ksLtAVKXMLOswVGdwy1lrnpKidzQtjgsow8RSrePKXZDs2MbwmlAkvAgdYVQpVlLxWmbfeKABysGFZmSfk_SRNfTMwZuiBG5lpFLlGkSfkEOW8boAk1_2NZnmhxzWjVZ3LgARqmQEjMufWlgH2G6t4EE5yn5DdaZT0uPJafT9PEvJu_RjWDB6EmBiartVgRoHpCdhVJOTVMKjrL-F4FJzzMiFyY7g3PnXzSby67Hm5VY4_hf_82E-Mf_deHy1OGV68-X8P3pLHDLMt-vjKXbK9WnZhDzDQyu6P0_s3PGwJbQ priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest – databaseName: Wiley Online Library Open Access dbid: 24P link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV3LbtUwELWqsmGDQNA2UJBBXbBJm9iJH2IFFVWp1AohKnVn2Y7T3gUOurnZ8wl8Y7-kM05uylVBYhf5ET_HPmPPHBNyUEjXKNja80oVLSgoSHnLtMgbpbwstLdOonPy-YU4vazOruqrLfJh7Qsz8kPMB24oGWm9RgG3rj-6Jw31cckOAc7A-vsIYI3CKc2qr_cHLEpwlkh3YVbyXPFKrZmFCnY0597YjxJt_9-w5kOTyT-hbNqLTp6SJxOIpB_HUX9GtkJ8Tm6-JIdH2rXUo4l07IeeXg9IY4Wm7RTQKXVogr66_fU7pVjiYQLtR8douoh0IlntKZ7OUmSChVI8vjYUux8WU_SL1fCCXJ58_n58mk_vKOQetAmWe-lEa12oeCusbholkcIFmiJl6WAD81UBQdY5570UrXdlZW3QBXqd4hOefIdsxy6GPUKZaETggKlqoauat7poXGM1oDhYrZwsM_Ju3Zvm50iXYUZiZGawyw12eUY-YT_PCZDhOgV0y2szCYzRbSkDsqcVFjTIkjtXB1hsnOZBeMmbjOyvR8lMYtcbjlamoERyKOPtHA0Cg7cgNoZu6A3oUKB3AnAVGdkdB3WuCcd74JLXGZEbw71R1c2YuLhJpNy6xKzwz_dpYvy79eb44hvDj5f_n_QVeczQ7SIZWu6T7dVyCK8BDK3cmzTp7wBKwwZS priority: 102 providerName: Wiley-Blackwell |
| Title | Impact of consensus guidelines for breast‐conserving surgery in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ |
| URI | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002%2Fcnr2.1502 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34245135 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3090228232/abstract/ https://search.proquest.com/docview/2550265196 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC9124516 https://doaj.org/article/9f17e44510a44813bb5e488b93e6c73d |
| Volume | 5 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Nb9QwELW65cIFgfgKlJVBHLhkN4kTOz62q1YFqatVxaKKixU7TrsS61Sbzb0_ob-RX8KMkyxdARdOiRJL_s68cd68IeRjJHSZg2kP0zyqwEFBydtE8rDMcyMiaQotMDj5Ys7Pl-mXq-zqgGRDLIwn7Ru9mrgf64lb3Xhu5e3aTAee2HRxMZNglLKYT0dkJBh74KL7g5WcM7Bhg4pQlEyN2yQTAD6YuYbhn77YJ3f7bYa8Wv_fIOafTMmHCNaboLOn5EmPHelx18Zn5MC65-Tms49zpHVFDTKjXdM29LpF9SpktFMApVQj83z78-7el9jgGQJtunhounK011ZtKB7KUhSAhVoMJhly9brAEs1q274gy7PTr7PzsE-fEBpwIpLQCM2rQtuUVbyQZZkLVG6BrggRa7BbJo3gUaG1Nkbwyug4LQorIww2xcyd7CU5dLWzrwlNeMktAyiVcZlmrJJRqctCAniDj5QWcUA-DKOpbjuVDNXpIScKR1_h6AfkBMd5VwCFrf2DenOt-ulVsoqFRdG0qADHMWZaZxa-MVoyy41gZUCOhllS_W5rFENyKfiODOp4v3sN-wR_fhTO1m2jwHUCdxPwKg_Iq25Sdy0ZFkVAxN507zV1_w0sTa_F3S_FgHzyC-PfvVez-WWCN2_-u5K35HGCwReebnlEDreb1r4DSLTVYzJK0sWYPDr-tvy-hOvJ6XxxOfYHDGO_PX4B4fgScw |
| link.rule.ids | 230,315,733,786,790,870,891,2115,11589,21416,27957,27958,33779,33780,43840,46087,46511,50849,50958,53827,53829 |
| linkProvider | National Library of Medicine |
| linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwEB7B9gAXRMUrUIpBHLiEJnZixyfUVq220K5Q1Uq9WbbjtD2QlM3mzk_gN_JLmEmy26543KLEu4nHj_lmPPMNwPtEubJA1R5nRVKhgUKUt1zLuCwKrxLtrVOUnHwyk9Pz7PNFfjE63NoxrHK5J_Ybddl48pHvCAogRPtA8E8332OqGkWnq2MJjfuwkQk0VSawsXcw-3p662UppECFtqQUSviOr-f8I6IgvqaIer7-v4HMP2Ml72LYXgkdPoZHI3pku8Nwb8K9UD-Bq6M-05E1FfMUG123XcsuO-Kvoph2hrCUOYo9X_z68bNvMScvAmuHjGh2XbORXbVl5JZlRAGLb_FUZqhuvllqgWLonsL54cHZ_jQeCyjEHs0IHnvlZGVdyEQlrS7LQhF3C3ZFqdSh5vJZgresc857JSvv0szaoBNKN6XaneIZTOqmDi-AcVnKIBBM5VJnuah0UrrSaoRvuE05lUbwbilNczPwZJiBEZkbErkhkUewR3JeNSBq6_5GM78040oxukpVINq0xKLpmArn8oC7jNMiSK9EGcHWcpTMuN5aczs7Ini7eowrhY4_bB2arjVoPKHBiYhVRvB8GNTVlwg6AE5FHoFaG-61T11_Ul9f9WzcOqWf4n9-6CfGv3tv9mennC5e_r8Hb-DB9Ozk2Bwfzb68goec8i36CMstmCzmXXiNKGjhtsep_htQfQig |
| linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1Lb9QwELaqVkJcEBWvQAGDOHAJTeLED_UEhVXLY1UhKvVm-ZV2DyTVZnPvT-hv5Jd0xsmmrACJWxTbiT322N_YM58JeZMJ6yUs7WkpsxoMFKS8LRRPvZROZMoZKzA4-ducH52Wn8-qsy1ysI6FGfghpg031Iw4X6OCX_p6_5Y01DXL4h3AGZh_d0qeSbS8ivLkdoNFclZE0l0YlSyVrJRrZqGs2J9Kb6xHkbb_b1jzT5fJ36FsXItm98m9EUTS90Ov75Kt0DwgF8cx4JG2NXXoIt10fUfPe6SxQtd2CuiUWnRBX_26uo45lriZQLshMJouGjqSrHYUd2cpMsHCXxzeNtS0Pw3m6Bar_iE5nX36cXiUjvcopA6siSJ1wvLa2FCymhvlvRRI4QJNESK3sIC5EqTHjLXWOcFrZ_PSmKAyjDrFKzzZI7LdtE14QmjBPQ8MMFXFVVmxWmXeeqMAxcFsZUWekNdraerLgS5DD8TIhUaRaxR5Qj6gnKcMyHAdX7TLcz0qjFZ1LgKyp2UGLMicWVsFmGysYoE7wXxC9ta9pEe16zRDL1MwIhn849WUDAqDpyCmCW3fabChwO4E4MoT8njo1KkmDM-Bc1YlRGx090ZVN1OaxUUk5VY5FoVvvo0D49-t14fz7wU-PP3_rC_JnZOPM_31eP7lGbmLN95Hj2G2R7ZXyz48B1y0si_i-L8BurgI6g |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact+of+consensus+guidelines+for+breast-conserving+surgery+in+patients+with+ductal+carcinoma+in+situ&rft.jtitle=Cancer+reports&rft.au=Tremelling%2C+Abigail&rft.au=Aft%2C+Rebecca+L&rft.au=Cyr%2C+Amy+E&rft.au=Gillanders%2C+William+E&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.eissn=2573-8348&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e1502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fcnr2.1502&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F34245135&rft.externalDocID=34245135 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2573-8348&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2573-8348&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2573-8348&client=summon |