Is Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Required for a Core Biopsy Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ with Microinvasion?
Adenocarcinoma
/ diagnosis
Aged
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast
/ diagnosis
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
/ diagnosis
Carcinoma, Papillary
/ diagnosis
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Lymphatic Metastasis
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Invasiveness
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
/ standards
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
04
01
2019
pubmed:
31
5
2019
medline:
10
1
2020
entrez:
1
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Among patients with a core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), approximately 10% have microinvasion (DCISM), which, like DCIS, is subject to upstaging by surgical excision, but for which the rates of T and N upstaging are unknown, as is the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), since current studies of SLNB for DCISM are based on the final pathologic report, not the core needle biopsy. In this study, we identified the rates of T and N upstaging following surgical excision in patients with a suspected versus definite core needle biopsy diagnosis of DCISM. Overall, 369 consecutive patients (2007-2017) with a core biopsy diagnosis of suspected versus definite DCISM and surgical excision were stratified by extent of DCISM on core biopsy: suspicious focus, single focus, multiple foci/single biopsy, and multiple foci/multiple biopsies. Within strata, we identified clinicopathologic features associated with T and N upstaging. Across core biopsy strata, there were no clear differences in imaging characteristics or median invasive tumor size (0.2 cm). Among 105 patients with a core biopsy suspicious for DCISM versus 264 with definite DCISM, 28% and 37%, respectively, were upstaged to at least pT1a, but only 1% and 6%, respectively, to pN1. Although 28% of patients with suspected DCISM on core biopsy were surgically upstaged to invasive cancer, the frequency of pN1 SLN metastasis (1%) was comparable with that of DCIS, and was insufficient to recommend SLNB at initial surgery. SLNB remains reasonable for patients with definite DCISM on core biopsy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Among patients with a core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), approximately 10% have microinvasion (DCISM), which, like DCIS, is subject to upstaging by surgical excision, but for which the rates of T and N upstaging are unknown, as is the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), since current studies of SLNB for DCISM are based on the final pathologic report, not the core needle biopsy. In this study, we identified the rates of T and N upstaging following surgical excision in patients with a suspected versus definite core needle biopsy diagnosis of DCISM.
METHODS
METHODS
Overall, 369 consecutive patients (2007-2017) with a core biopsy diagnosis of suspected versus definite DCISM and surgical excision were stratified by extent of DCISM on core biopsy: suspicious focus, single focus, multiple foci/single biopsy, and multiple foci/multiple biopsies. Within strata, we identified clinicopathologic features associated with T and N upstaging.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Across core biopsy strata, there were no clear differences in imaging characteristics or median invasive tumor size (0.2 cm). Among 105 patients with a core biopsy suspicious for DCISM versus 264 with definite DCISM, 28% and 37%, respectively, were upstaged to at least pT1a, but only 1% and 6%, respectively, to pN1.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although 28% of patients with suspected DCISM on core biopsy were surgically upstaged to invasive cancer, the frequency of pN1 SLN metastasis (1%) was comparable with that of DCIS, and was insufficient to recommend SLNB at initial surgery. SLNB remains reasonable for patients with definite DCISM on core biopsy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31147995
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07475-9
pii: 10.1245/s10434-019-07475-9
pmc: PMC6684408
mid: NIHMS1530563
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2738-2746Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Cancer Institute
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Surg Oncol. 1999 Aug;8(2):85-91
pubmed: 10732960
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):162-77
pubmed: 20956824
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jan;19(1):212-6
pubmed: 21633867
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Oct;19(11):3416-21
pubmed: 22576061
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Mar;20(3):811-8
pubmed: 22956068
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Aug;20(8):2576-81
pubmed: 23468047
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jan;40(1):5-11
pubmed: 24238761
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 1;32(13):1365-83
pubmed: 24663048
Mod Pathol. 2014 Nov;27(11):1489-98
pubmed: 24743214
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Jan;22(1):59-65
pubmed: 25063009
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Oct;21(10):3330-5
pubmed: 25092160
Breast Cancer. 2016 Jul;23(4):640-8
pubmed: 25981971
Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 06;7:42045
pubmed: 28165014
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30
pubmed: 29313949
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Jul;25(7):1783-1785
pubmed: 29671136