Positive surgical margins after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in-situ: does histologic grade or estrogen receptor status matter?

PURPOSE: DCIS has been shown to have a higher rate of positive margins following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) than invasive breast cancer. We aim to analyze certain factors of DCIS, specifically histologic grade and estrogen receptor (ER) status, in patients with positive surgical margins following BCS to determine if there is an association. METHODS: A retrospective review of our institutional patient registry was performed to identify women with DCIS and microinvasive DCIS who underwent BCS by a single surgeon from 1999 to 2021. Demographics and clinicopathologic characteristics between patients with and without positive surgical margins were compared using chi-square or Student's t-test. We assessed factors associated with positive margins using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 615 patients evaluated, there was no significant difference in demographics between the patients with and without positive surgical margins. Increasing tumor size was an independent risk factor for margin positivity (P = < 0.001). On univariate analysis both high histologic grade (P = 0.009) and negative ER status (P = < 0.001) were significantly associated with positive surgical margins. However, when adjusted in multivariable analysis, only negative ER status remained significantly associated with margin positivity (OR = 0.39 [95% CI 0.20-0.77]; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The study confirms increased tumor size as a risk factor for positive surgical margins. We also demonstrated that ER negative DCIS was independently associated with a higher rate of positive margins after BCS. Given this information, we can modify our surgical approach to reduce rate of positive margins in patients with large-sized ER negative DCIS.

Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification of men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer on active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if the adoption of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance (AS) has improved the identification of occult higher-grade prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified men from the Johns Hopkins AS registry enrolled since 2013 (year of mpMRI adoption) with Grade Group (GG) 1 PCa and who underwent a single mpMRI. Men in this group were dichotomised by the presence (n = 207) or absence (negative mpMRI, n = 225) of one or more lesions with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of ≥ 3. Both groups were compared to a third cohort of men with GG1 PCa enrolled in AS prior to 2013 (pre-mpMRI era, n = 669). The risk of upgrading to GG ≥ 2 PCa on follow-up biopsies (performed with or without MRI targeting) was evaluated among the groups using survival analysis. RESULTS: Men in both mpMRI groups underwent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 2 (2-3) biopsies separated by a median (IQR) interval of 13 (12-16) months, whereas men in the pre-MRI era underwent a median (IQR) of 3 (2-5) biopsies, separated by a median (IQR) interval of 12 (12-14) months. The 2- and 4-year upgrade-free survival rates were 93% and 83%, 74% and 59%; and, 87% and 76% for the negative mpMRI, PI-RADS ≥ 3, and pre-mpMRI-era groups, respectively (P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, both mpMRI groups had significantly different risk of upgrading compared to pre-mpMRI-era group (negative mpMRI group: hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.95, P = 0.03; PI-RADS ≥ 3 group: HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.36-2.82, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: mpMRI improves the risk stratification of men on AS and should be used to aid enrolment and monitoring decisions.

Evaluating the impact of length of time from diagnosis to surgery in patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk to very-high-risk clinically localised prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of length of time from diagnostic biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) on oncological outcomes amongst men diagnosed with unfavourable intermediate- to very-high-risk clinically localised prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of men with a diagnosis of grade group (GG) ≥3 prostate cancer on biopsy, who underwent RP within 6 months of diagnosis, at our institution between 2005 and 2018. We assessed patient demographics, pre-biopsy disease characteristics, and receipt of neoadjuvant therapy. We categorised time between biopsy and RP into two intervals: <3 and 3-6 months. For each GG, we compared receipt of adjuvant therapy, pathological outcomes at RP (positive surgical margin [PSM], extraprostatic extension [EPE], seminal vesicle invasion [SVI], and lymph node involvement [LNI]), risk of 2- and 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), and 2-, 5-, and 10-year metastasis-free survival (MFS) between patients who underwent RP at <3 vs 3-6 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Amongst 2303 men who met the study inclusion criteria, 1244 (54%) had GG 3, 608 (26%) had GG 4, and 451 (20%) had GG 5 disease. In all, 72% underwent RP at <3 months after diagnosis. For each diagnostic GG, there was no significant difference in rates of adjuvant therapy, PSM, EPE, SVI, or LNI in men who had RP at <3 vs 3-6 months after diagnosis. In all, 1568 men had follow-up after RP of >1 year. For each diagnostic GG, there was no significant difference in 2- and 5-year BCRFS between patients who had RP at <3 vs 3-6 months after diagnosis (GG 3: 78% vs 83% and 69% vs 66%, respectively, P = 0.6; GG 4: 68% vs 74% and 51% vs 57%, respectively, P = 0.4; GG 5: 58% vs 74% and 48% vs 54%, respectively, P = 0.2). Similarly, for each diagnostic GG, there was no significant difference in 2-, 5-, and 10-year MFS between patients who had RP at <3 vs 3-6 months after diagnosis, although we were not able to calculate 10-year MFS for patients with GG 5 disease due to limited follow-up in that group (GG 3: 98%, 92%, and 84% vs 97%, 95%, and 91%, respectively, P = 0.4; GG 4: 97%, 90%, and 72% vs 94%, 91%, and 81%, respectively, P = 0.8; GG 5: 89% and 81% vs 91% and 71%, respectively, P = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Waiting for RP up to 6 months after diagnosis is not associated with adverse outcomes amongst patients with unfavourable intermediate- to very-high-risk prostate cancer.