Surgical planning depends on precise preoperative assessment of the radiological extent of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Despite different modalities used, reoperation rates for DCIS due to involved margins are high.
Purpose
To evaluate the impact of additional imaging views (spot magnification, tomosynthesis) on surgical reoperation rate of DCIS.
Material and Methods
The retrospective single institute study includes 157 patients with biopsy-proven pure DCIS seen on mammogram as microcalcifications and treated with breast-conserving surgery. Patients have been divided into three groups according to additional imaging performed: spot magnification, tomosynthesis, and none. All breast images (mammograms, spot magnification, tomosynthesis) were reviewed and the maximum extent of pathological microcalcifications was recorded. Radiological size was compared to final histopathological size. Reoperation rate due to inadequate margins was recorded.
Results
Reoperation rates (25%) due to inadequate margins were as follows: spot (18%), tomosynthesis (27%), none (31%); P = 0.488. Spot magnification, tomosynthesis, and digital zoom of full-field digital mammography predicted similarly the final histopathological size. Reoperation group had a significantly greater preoperative radiological median size (26 mm vs. 20 mm; P = 0.014) as well as median size of disease on final histopathological report (29 mm vs. 14 mm; P < 0.001). Discrepancy between radiological and final histopathological size became greater with increasing DCIS extent.
Conclusion
The main factors for reoperations are DCIS size and discordance between radiological and histopathological sizes. The use of additional imaging views (spot magnification, tomosynthesis) did not reduce reoperation rate.
RomingerMWisgicklCTimmesfeldN. Breast microcalcifications as type descriptors to stratify risk of malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10665 cases with special focus on round/punctate microcalcifications. Fortschr Rontg Neuen2012;184:1144–1152.
2.
WilkinsonLThomasVSharmaN. Microcalcification on mammography: approaches to interpretation and biopsy. Br J Radiol 2017;90:20160594.
3.
SvahnTMHoussamiNSechopoulosI, et al.Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast2015;24:93–99.
4.
LawJ. Breast dose from magnification films in mammography. Br J Radiol2005;78:816–820.
5.
ThébergeIVandalNLangloisA, et al.Detection rate, recall rate, and positive predictive value of digital compared to screen-film mammography in the Quebec population-based breast cancer screening program. Can Assoc Radiol J2016;67:330–338.
6.
NederendJDuijmLEMLouwmanMWJ, et al.Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment-A population based study from the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer2014;50:31–39.
7.
del TurcoMRMantelliniPCiattoS, et al.Full-Field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Rontgenol2007;189:860–866.
8.
HyeSKHanBKChooKS, et al.Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications. Korean J Radiol2005;6:214–220.
9.
FischerUBaumFObenauerS, et al.Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol2002;12:2679–2683.
10.
HakimCMChoughDMGanottMA, et al.Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Rontgenol2010;195:W172–W176.
11.
ZuleyMLBandosAIGanottMA, et al.Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology2013;266:89–95.
12.
TagliaficoAAstengoDCavagnettoF, et al.One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol2012;22:539–544.
13.
SpanglerMLZuleyMLSumkinJH, et al.Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Rontgenol2011;196:320–324.
14.
KopansDGavenonisSHalpernE, et al.Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J2011;17:638–644.
15.
PoplackSPTostesonTDKogelCA, et al.Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Rontgenol2007;189:616–623.
16.
BarreauBde MascarelIFeugaC, et al.Mammography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiographic-pathologic correlations. Eur J Radiol2005;54:55–61.
17.
KellMRDunneCBurkeJP, et al.Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol2009;27:1615–1620.
18.
CutuliBCohen-Solal-le NirCde LafontanB, et al.Breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the French cancer centers’ experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2002;53:868–879.
19.
VargasCKestinLGoN, et al.Factors associated with local recurrence and cause-specific survival in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2005;63:1514–1521.
20.
SmithMAllisonKde ParedesES. Nonmammographic evaluation of the extent of breast carcinoma.Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI2006;27:308–319.
21.
FancelluATurnerRMDixonJM, et al.Meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative breast MRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg2015;102:883–893.
22.
MeijnenPOldenburgHSAPeterseJL, et al.Clinical outcome after selective treatment of patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breastAnn Surg Oncol2008;15:235–243.
23.
PhilpottAWongJElderK, et al.Factors influencing reoperation following breast-conserving surgery. ANZ J Surg2018;88:922–927.
24.
LanghansLJensenMBTalmanMLM, et al.Reoperation rates in ductal carcinoma in situ vs invasive breast cancer after wire-guided breast-conserving surgery. JAMA Surg2017;152:378–384.
25.
HanbyAMWalkerCTavassoliFA,et al.Pathology and genetics: tumours of the breast and female genital organs. WHO classification of tumours series - volume IV. Lyon, France: IARC press: 2003. 250pp. ISBN 92 832 2412 4. Breast Cancer Res2004;6:133.
26.
LeideniusMHKVironenJHHeikkiläPS,et al.Influence of isolated tumor cells in sentinel nodes on outcome in small, node-negative (pT1N0M0) breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol2010;17:254–262.
27.
ThomasJEvansAMacArtneyJ, et al.Radiological and pathological size estimations of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, specimen handling and the influence on the success of breast conservation surgery: a review of 2564 cases from the Sloane project. Br J Cancer2010;102:285–293.
28.
LayfieldDMSeeHStahnkeM, et al.Radiopathological features predictive of involved margins in ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann R Coll Surg Engl2017;99:137–144.
29.
EvansAClementsKMaxwellA, et al.Mammographic bi-dimensional product: a powerful predictor of successful excision of ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Radiol2007;62:787–791.
30.
DillonMFMc DermottEWO’DohertyA, et al.Factors affecting successful breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol2007;14:1618–1628.
31.
HassanRMaesakaJRicciM, et al.Predictive factors for positive surgical margins in the treatment of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. J Cancer Res Ther2016;12:995–998.
32.
ChakrabartiJEvansAJJamesJ, et al.Accuracy of mammography in predicting histological extent of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Eur J Surg Oncol2006;32:1089–1092.
33.
YoonGYChoiWJKimHH, et al.Surgical outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ: impact of preoperative MRI. Radiology2020;295:296–303.
34.
ØynesMStrømBTveitoB, et al.Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review. Eur Radiol2020;30:4223–4233.
35.
LiJZhangHJiangH, et al.Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast suspicious calcifications from various populations: a comparison with full-field digital mammography. Comput Struct Biotechnol J2019;17:82.
36.
HadjipanteliAElangovanPMackenzieA, et al.The effect of system geometry and dose on the threshold detectable calcification diameter in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med Biol2017;62:858.
37.
SundellVMJousiMHukkinenK, et al.A phantom study comparing technical image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems. Phys Med2019;63:122–130.
38.
González C, Sasaki Y, Alexakhin YM et al. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann. ICRP 2007;37:1–332.
39.
ZhangXDaiHLiuB, et al.Predictors for local invasive recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev2016;25:19–28.
40.
HabelLADignamJJLandSR, et al.Mammographic density and breast cancer after ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst2004;96:1467–1472.
41.
HouvenaeghelG. Re-Operation and Mastectomy Rates after Breast Conservative Surgery for Positive or Close Margins: A Review. 2018. Available at: http://clinicsinsurgery.com/ (accessed 29 October 2020).
