Retrospective trial evaluates surgical margin width and breast tumor recurrence in women with pure DCIS, suggesting individualized decisions are needed.
Background/Objectives: The optimal surgical margin width after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial; although current guidelines consider a surgical margin of ≥2 mm sufficient, the clinical safety of narrower margins is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the association between surgical margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), with a focus on the 1 mm threshold. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective single-center cohort study, 107 patients with pure DCIS treated with BCS followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) between 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2025 were analyzed. Final surgical margins were categorized as <1 mm, 1–2 mm, and ≥2 mm. The primary endpoint was IBTR. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed. Results: The median age of the study population was 52 years (IQR: 46–61). High-grade DCIS was present in 48 patients (44.9%), comedo necrosis in 68 (63.6%), and estrogen receptor positivity in 87 (81.3%). Overall, 10 patients (9.3%) underwent re-excision for margin widening. Final surgical margin widths were <1 mm in 36 patients (34%), 1–2 mm in 18 (17%), and ≥2 mm in 53 (49%). IBTR occurred in seven patients (6.5%) during a median follow-up of 48 months (range, 12–217 months), with a median time to recurrence of 33 months. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no significant difference in recurrence-free survival according to a 2 mm margin threshold, whereas margins < 1 mm were associated with significantly worse outcomes (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Margins < 1 mm were associated with increased IBTR risk, whereas margins < 2 mm did not appear to confer uniform risk. These findings suggest that margin widths between 1 and 2 mm may represent a heterogeneous group, and clinical decision-making in this range should be individualized. However, further studies are needed to validate these outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karabacak et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: