Re-excision rates after breast conserving surgery following the 2014 SSO-ASTRO guidelines
| Autor: | Patrick Hosokawa, Regina J. Brown, Christina Finlayson, Alicia A. Heelan Gladden, Ana Gleisner, David W. Mathes, Colleen Murphy, Tae W. Chong, Nicole Kounalakis, Sharon Sams |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Reoperation medicine.medical_specialty Colorado Consensus medicine.medical_treatment Breast Neoplasms Disease Mastectomy Segmental 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Breast cancer Breast-conserving surgery Humans Medicine 030212 general & internal medicine Practice Patterns Physicians' Aged Quality Indicators Health Care Breast conservation business.industry Margins of Excision General Medicine Guideline Middle Aged medicine.disease United States Surgery Treatment Outcome 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Practice Guidelines as Topic Cohort Female Guideline Adherence business |
| Zdroj: | The American Journal of Surgery. 214:1104-1109 |
| ISSN: | 0002-9610 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.023 |
| Popis: | 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. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect