Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2016

01-10-2016 | Breast Oncology

Utilization of Axillary Surgery for Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Report From the National Cancer Data Base

Authors: Megan E. Miller, MD, Alexandra Kyrillos, BS, Katharine Yao, MD, Olga Kantor, MD, Jennifer Tseng, MD, David J. Winchester, MD, Lawrence N. Shulman, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study evaluated the use of axillary surgery (AS), including sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and the factors associated with its use. To determine whether utilization of SLNB is appropriate, predictors of SLNB performance were compared with factors predictive of tumor upstaging.

Methods

The National Cancer Data Base was utilized to identify patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) clinical stage 0 breast cancer treated from 2004 to 2013. DCIS with microinvasion was excluded. Chi square tests and logistic regression were used to examine patient, tumor, and facility features associated with SLNB and tumor upstaging.

Results

Of the 218,945 total patients, 155,093 (70.8 %) underwent lumpectomy, and 63,852 (29.2 %) underwent mastectomy. SLNB was performed for 19.0 % of lumpectomy patients and 63.5 % of mastectomy patients. Multivariate analysis for 2012–2013 demonstrated that estrogen receptor (ER)-negative and grade 3 tumors were more likely to be treated with SLNB in both groups. Tumor size was significant only for the lumpectomy patients who underwent one operation. Further, 22.8 % of lumpectomy patients and 18.7 % of mastectomy patients who underwent AS were upstaged compared with 1.8 % of lumpectomy and 3.6 % of mastectomy patients who did not undergo AS. Tumor upstaging was predicted by ER-negative status (odds ratio [OR] 2.99; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.76–3.24) but not by higher grade or larger tumor size.

Conclusions

Use of SLNB for DCIS is high with mastectomy, and nearly one fifth of the lumpectomy patients underwent SLNB. However, the performance of AS was strongly associated with the likelihood of upstaging in both groups, suggesting that surgical judgment plays an important role in this decision.
Literature
1.
Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7703–20.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Lyman GH, Temin S, Edge SB, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1365–83.CrossRefPubMed
3.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2016). National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer Version 1.2016. Retrieved 28 March 2016 at www.​nccn.​org.
4.
Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, Marinovich ML, French JR, Macaskill P, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology. 2011;260:119–28.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zavotsky J, Hansen N, Brennan MB, Turner RR, Giuliano AE. Lymph node metastasis from ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Cancer. 1999;85:2439–43.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Klauber-DeMore N, Tan LK, Liberman L, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy: is it indicated in patients with high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ and ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion? Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:636–42.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Cox CE, Nguyen K, Gray RJ, et al. Importance of lymphatic mapping in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): why map DCIS? Am Surg. 2000;67:513–9.
8.
Wilkie C, White L, Dupont E, Cantor A, Cox CE. An update of sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg. 2005;190:563–6.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Ansari B, Ogston SA, Purdie CA, Adamson DJ, Brown DC, Thompson AM. Meta-analysis of sentinel node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Br J Surg. 2008;95:547–54.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Yi M, Krishnamurthy S, Kuerer HM, et al. Role of primary tumor characteristics in predicting positive sentinel lymph nodes in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or microinvasive breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2008;196:81–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Sun X, Li H, Liu YB, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast ductal carcinoma in situ: Chinese experiences. Oncol Lett. 2015;10:1932–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Park HS, Park S, Cho J, et al. Risk predictors of underestimation and the need for sentinel node biopsy in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ by preoperative needle biopsy. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107:388–92.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Moore KH, Sweeney KJ, Wilson ME, et al. Outcomes for women with ductal carcinoma in situ and a positive sentinel node: a multi-institutional audit. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2911–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Prendeville S, Ryan C, Feeley L, O’Connell F, Browne TJ, O’Sullivan MJ, Bennett MW. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is not warranted following a core needle biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. Breast. 2015;24:197–200.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Namm JP, Mueller J, Kocherginsky M, Kulkarni S. The utility of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ suspicious for microinvasion on core biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:59–65.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Francis AM, Haugen CE, Grimes LM, et al. Is sentinel lymph node dissection warranted for patients with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:4270–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Worni M, Akushevich I, Greenup R, D, Ryser MD, Myers ER, Hwang ES. Trends in treatment patterns and outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv263.
18.
19.
20.
21.
National Accreditation Program of Breast Centers. NAPBC Standards Manual 2014 Edition, American College of Surgeons, 2014.
22.
Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, Sweetland H, Stevens G, Mansel RE. Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ? Analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98:311–4.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Mittendorf EA, Arciero CA, Gutchell V, Hooke J, Shriver CD. Core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: an indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Curr Surg. 2005;62:253–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Yen TW, Hunt KK, Ross MI, et al. Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: a guide to selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:516–26.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Lee CH, Carter D, Philpotts LE, Couce ME, Horvath LJ, Lange RC, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with stereotactic core needle biopsy: can invasion be predicted? Radiology. 2000;217:466–70.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Guillot E, Vaysse C, Goetgeluck J, et al. Extensive pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: identification of predictors of associated infiltrating carcinoma and lymph node metastasis before immediate reconstructive surgery. Breast. 2014;23:97–103.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Huo L, Sneige N, Hunt KK, Albarracin CT, Lopez A, Resetkova E. Predictors of invasion in patients with core-needle biopsy-diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ and recommendations for a selective approach to sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2006;107:1760–8.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hoorntje LE, Schipper ME, Peeters PH, Bellot F, Storm RK, Borel Rinkes IH. The finding of invasive cancer after a preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: causes of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimates with stereotactic 14-gauge needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:748–53.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Lee SK, Yang JH, Woo SY, Lee JE, Nam SJ. Nomogram for predicting invasion in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1756–63.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Sato Y, Kinoshita T, Suzuki J, et al. Preoperatively diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ: risk prediction of invasion and effects on axillary management. Breast Cancer 2015. doi:10.​1007/​s12282-015-0636-5.
31.
Barnes NL, Dimopoulos N, Williams KE, Howe M, Bundred NJ. The frequency of presentation and clinico-pathological characteristics of symptomatic versus screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:249–54.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Rutstein LA, Johnson RR, Poller WR, et al. Predictors of residual invasive disease after core needle biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J. 2007;13:251–7.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Renshaw AA. Predicting invasion in the excision specimen from breast core-needle biopsy specimens with only ductal carcinoma in situ. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:39–41.PubMed
34.
Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology. 2001;218:497–502.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, Marinovich ML, et al. Accuracy of a preoperative model for predicting invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ on vacuum-assisted core-needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1364–71.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Utilization of Axillary Surgery for Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Report From the National Cancer Data Base
Authors
Megan E. Miller, MD
Alexandra Kyrillos, BS
Katharine Yao, MD
Olga Kantor, MD
Jennifer Tseng, MD
David J. Winchester, MD
Lawrence N. Shulman, MD
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5322-0

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2016 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Influential Forces in Breast Cancer Surgical Decision Making and the Impact on Body Image and Sexual Function

Breast Oncology

Acute and Chronic Complications in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Intraoperative Radiation Therapy

Breast Oncology

Early Adoption of the SSO-ASTRO Consensus Guidelines on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery with Whole-Breast Irradiation in Stage I and II Invasive Breast Cancer: Initial Experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Breast Oncology

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy (CPM) Consensus Statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: Data on CPM Outcomes and Risks

Breast Oncology

Oncological and Surgical Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Do Incisions Matter?

Breast Oncology

Percutaneous Sentinel Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer: Results of a Phase 1 Study