Oncoplastic versus standard breast-conserving surgery for extensive ductal carcinoma in situ: a retrospective cohort study of lesions 4 cm or larger treated 1995–2018
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: The management of large-volume ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is challenging, and evidence comparing standard breast-conserving surgery (S-BCS) with oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) is limited. This study aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of O-BCS and S-BCS in patients with large-volume DCIS treated at a single specialist breast unit.Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with DCIS measuring 4 cm or greater who underwent initial breast-conserving surgery (BCS) at the Nottingham Breast Institute (NBI) between 1995 and 2018. Demographic, operative, pathological, and outcome data were analysed. Primary outcomes included BCS success, margin status, re-excision, conversion to mastectomy, local recurrence, and survival. Fisher’s exact tests, independent samples t-tests, and multivariable logistic regression were used for group comparisons. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank testing.Results: A total of 139 patients were included: 94 underwent S-BCS and 45 underwent O-BCS. The mean follow-up was 6 years. O-BCS achieved a significantly higher rate of negative margins than S-BCS (73.3% vs. 23.4%, P
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Oncoplastic versus standard breast-conserving surgery for extensive ductal carcinoma in situ: a retrospective cohort study of lesions 4 cm or larger treated 1995–2018
- Date Crossref
- 01/06/2026
- Éditeur
- AME Publishing Company
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.