↓ Skip to main content

Should New “No Ink On Tumor” Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines be Applied to Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)? A Retrospective Review Using Shaved Cavity Margins

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Should New “No Ink On Tumor” Lumpectomy Margin Guidelines be Applied to Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)? A Retrospective Review Using Shaved Cavity Margins
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, May 2016
DOI 10.1245/s10434-016-5251-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea L. Merrill, Rong Tang, Jennifer K. Plichta, Upahvan Rai, Suzanne B. Coopey, Maureen P. McEvoy, Kevin S. Hughes, Michelle C. Specht, Michele A. Gadd, Barbara L. Smith

Abstract

No consensus exists for clear margins for breast-conserving surgery for pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We examined the implications of applying a "no ink on tumor" standard for pure DCIS by correlating clear margin width with rates of residual disease. Lumpectomies with complete shaved cavity margins (SCMs) for pure DCIS at our institution from 2004 to 2007 were reviewed and patients with microinvasive cancer or multifocal disease requiring multiple wires excluded. Rates of residual disease in shaved margins were determined based on margin status of the main lumpectomy specimen using margin widths of "ink on tumor," ≤1, >1 to <2, and ≥2 mm. Overall, 182 women undergoing lumpectomy for pure DCIS met eligibility criteria. In patients with "ink on tumor" in the main lumpectomy specimen, 88 % had residual disease in the SCMs. Rates of residual disease in SCMs for lumpectomies with margins of <2 mm (but not on ink) were 52 % compared with 13 % for lumpectomies with margins ≥2 mm (p < 0.0005). Multivariate analyses confirmed the association of lumpectomy margin width and residual tumor in shaved cavity margins. Odds of residual disease in the SCM for postmenopausal patients were 74 % less than for pre/perimenopausal women (odds ratio 0.26; confidence interval 0.08-0.82). Application of a "no ink on tumor" lumpectomy margin standard to patients with DCIS results in a significant increase in the rates of residual disease in cavity margins compared with use of a ≥2-mm margin standard. Use of narrower margins may have important implications for use of adjuvant therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 14 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,805,172
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,860
of 6,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,889
of 333,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#93
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.