Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25(10):2965-2974. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6580-9. Epub 2018 Jul 9.
The SSO-ASTRO-ASCO consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) recommended a 2-mm margin. We sought to determine the impact of guideline publication on clinician practice.
A total of 3081 members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) received a survey. Respondents' clinical practice type and duration, guideline familiarity, and margin width preferences before and after publication were assessed. Clinical practice pattern differences before and after publication were investigated using McNemar's test.
A total of 767 (24.9%) of those surveyed responded. Most (92.4%) indicated guideline familiarity. Of those familiar, re-excision preference for DCIS and a positive margin remained the same before (94.4%) and after (94.3%) publication (McNemar's test p = 1.0). Following publication, surgeons were more likely to avoid re-excision to achieve margins wider than 2-mm (82.3% pre versus 87.5% post, p = 0.002). More surgeons performed re-excision for a close margin with pure DCIS (25.9% pre versus 36.5% post, p < 0.001) and with DCIS with microinvasion (DCIS-M) (40.7% pre versus 52.3% post, p < 0.001). For patients with invasive disease with extensive intraductal component (EIC) and a close margin, preference to avoid re-excision was similar (51.2% per versus 55.2% post, p = 0.071).
Since guideline publication, surgeons are less likely to perform re-excision to obtain a margin greater than 2-mm and more likely to perform re-excision to obtain a 2-mm margin for both pure DCIS and DCIS-M. Preference to avoid re-excision with a close margin and EIC was similar before and after publication.
SSO-ASTRO-ASCO 关于保乳手术联合全乳放疗治疗导管原位癌(DCIS)的切缘共识指南建议切缘为 2mm。我们旨在探讨该指南发表对临床医生实践的影响。
共向美国乳腺外科学会(ASBrS)的 3081 名成员发送了一份调查问卷。评估了受访者的临床实践类型和持续时间、对指南的熟悉程度,以及发表前后对切缘宽度的偏好。使用 McNemar 检验比较发表前后的临床实践模式差异。
共收到 767 份(24.9%)调查问卷回复。大多数(92.4%)表示熟悉指南。在熟悉指南的受访者中,对于 DCIS 的再次切除术和阳性切缘的偏好,在发表前后(McNemar 检验 p=1.0)没有变化。发表后,更多的外科医生倾向于避免再次手术以获得大于 2mm 的切缘(82.3% vs. 87.5%,p=0.002)。更多的外科医生对于纯 DCIS(25.9% vs. 36.5%,p<0.001)和 DCIS 伴微浸润(DCIS-M)(40.7% vs. 52.3%,p<0.001)有接近切缘时会进行再次切除术。对于浸润性疾病伴广泛导管内成分(EIC)和接近切缘的患者,避免再次手术的偏好相似(51.2% vs. 55.2%,p=0.071)。
自指南发表以来,外科医生不太可能为获得大于 2mm 的切缘而进行再次切除术,而更倾向于为获得纯 DCIS 和 DCIS-M 的 2mm 切缘而进行再次切除术。发表前后,对于接近切缘和 EIC,避免再次手术的偏好相似。