These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Should ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS) be removed from the ASTRO consensus panel cautionary group for off-protocol use of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI)? A pooled analysis of outcomes for 300 patients with DCIS treated with APBI.
    Author: Vicini F, Shah C, Ben Wilkinson J, Keisch M, Beitsch P, Lyden M.
    Journal: Ann Surg Oncol; 2013 Apr; 20(4):1275-81. PubMed ID: 23054123.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To analyze outcomes in patients with ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS) treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) within a pooled set of patients. METHODS: A total of 300 women with DCIS underwent APBI between April 1993 and November 2010 as part of American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite Registry Trial (n = 192) or at William Beaumont Hospital (n = 108). Patients with pure DCIS <3 cm (n = 125) were assigned to the cautionary risk group per American Society of Radiation Oncology consensus panel guidelines for off-protocol use of APBI and analyzed compared to a pooled invasive suitable (n = 653) risk group and pooled invasive suitable/cautionary (n = 1,298) risk group. RESULTS: The rate of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) for all 300 DCIS patients was 2.6 % at 5 years with no regional recurrences, while cause-specific survival was 99.5 % and overall survival (OS) was 96.4 %. When comparing the cautionary DCIS group to the invasive suitable/cautionary group, no difference in IBTR was noted (2.6 vs. 3.1 %, P = 0.90) with significant improvements in distant metastases (0 vs. 2.5 %, P = 0.05), disease-free survival (98.5 vs. 94.4 %, P = 0.05), and OS (95.7 vs. 90.8 %, P = 0.03) noted for DCIS patients. When comparing cautionary DCIS patients to invasive suitable patients, no difference in IBTR were noted (2.6 vs. 2.4 %, P = 0.76), while improved OS for DCIS patients was noted (95.7 vs. 90.9 %, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of the largest cohort of patients with DCIS treated with APBI supports previously reported excellent outcomes; as a result of small numbers of events, further data are necessary to confirm these findings.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]