TY - JOUR
T1 - Re-excision rates after breast conserving surgery following the 2014 SSO-ASTRO guidelines
AU - Heelan Gladden, Alicia A.
AU - Sams, Sharon
AU - Gleisner, Ana
AU - Finlayson, Christina
AU - Kounalakis, Nicole
AU - Hosokawa, Patrick
AU - Brown, Regina
AU - Chong, Tae
AU - Mathes, David
AU - Murphy, Colleen
N1 - Funding Information:
The project was supported by funding from the University of Colorado Department of Surgery Surgical Outcomes and Applied Research program .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2017/12
Y1 - 2017/12
N2 - Background In 2014, SSO-ASTRO published guidelines which recommended “no ink on tumor” as adequate margins for patients undergoing breast conservation for invasive breast cancer. In 2016, new SSO-ASTRO-ASCO guidelines recommended 2 mm margins for DCIS. We evaluated whether these guidelines affected re-excision rates at our institution. Methods Patients treated with breast conservation surgery from January 1, 2010–March 1, 2016 were identified. Re-excision rates, tumor characteristics, and presence of residual disease were recorded. The 2016 guidelines were retrospectively applied to the same cohort and expected re-excision rates calculated. Results Re-excision rates did not significantly decline before and after 2014 guideline adoption (11.9% before, 10.9% after; p = 0.65) or when the 2016 guidelines were retrospectively applied (8.4%; p = 0.10). Conclusions The 2014 and 2016 guidelines had minimal impact on our re-excision rates, as most re-excisions were done for DCIS and 2016 guidelines supported our prior institutional practices of 2 mm margins for these patients.
AB - Background In 2014, SSO-ASTRO published guidelines which recommended “no ink on tumor” as adequate margins for patients undergoing breast conservation for invasive breast cancer. In 2016, new SSO-ASTRO-ASCO guidelines recommended 2 mm margins for DCIS. We evaluated whether these guidelines affected re-excision rates at our institution. Methods Patients treated with breast conservation surgery from January 1, 2010–March 1, 2016 were identified. Re-excision rates, tumor characteristics, and presence of residual disease were recorded. The 2016 guidelines were retrospectively applied to the same cohort and expected re-excision rates calculated. Results Re-excision rates did not significantly decline before and after 2014 guideline adoption (11.9% before, 10.9% after; p = 0.65) or when the 2016 guidelines were retrospectively applied (8.4%; p = 0.10). Conclusions The 2014 and 2016 guidelines had minimal impact on our re-excision rates, as most re-excisions were done for DCIS and 2016 guidelines supported our prior institutional practices of 2 mm margins for these patients.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030156061&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030156061&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.023
DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.023
M3 - Article
C2 - 28974314
AN - SCOPUS:85030156061
SN - 0002-9610
VL - 214
SP - 1104
EP - 1109
JO - American journal of surgery
JF - American journal of surgery
IS - 6
ER -