Objectives: To examine the influence factors on axillary evaluation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients, and the prognosis of different choices of axillary evaluation in a single-center retrospective study. Methods: Totally 1 557 DCIS patients admitted in Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from January 2006 to November 2016 were retrospectively enrolled. All patients were female. The median age was 49 years (range: 21 to 85 years). Surgical methods included modified radical mastectomy, simple mastectomy (with or without axillary evaluation) and breast conservation surgery (with or without axillary evaluation). Axillary evaluation included axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). T tests, χ² test and Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze influence factors on axillary evaluation, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curve and Log-rank analysis were used to evaluate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) in patients with different surgical methods. Results: Among the 1 557 DCIS patients, there were 1 226 cases received axillary evaluation, while 331 cases not received axillary evaluation. Patients were separated into 3 groups by different axillary evaluation choices: SLNB group (957 cases, 61.46%), ALND group (197 cases, 12.65%) and no evaluation group (403 cases, 25.88%). The patients in SLNB group increased significantly (P=0.000), from 3.85% (60/1 557) in 2006 to 75.19% (1 170/1 557) in 2016. The independent influence factors of receiving axillary evaluation were high nuclear grade (OR=3.191, 95%CI: 1.722 to 5.912, P=0.001) and tumor size>15 mm (OR=1.698, 95%CI: 1.120 to 2.573, P=0.012). Also, patients received breast conservation surgery were more likely to refuse axillary evaluation (OR=0.155, 95%CI: 0.103 to 0.233, P=0.000). There were no significant differences in RFS and LRRFS in patients with different axillary evaluation choices. Conclusions The investigation in trends and influence factors of different axillary evaluation choices provided basis on surgical precision medicine in DCIS patients. Patients received SLNB increased significantly. The independent influence factors of axillary evaluation were nuclear grade, tumor size and surgical methods. There was no significant differences in prognosis among the groups receiving different axillary evaluations.

Objective To evaluate the influence factors on surgical methods in DCIS (Ductal carcinoma in situ) patients,and the prognosis of different surgical methods in a 10-year single-center retrospective study.Methods We retrospectively included 1557 DCIS patients who received treatments in our center from Jan.2006 to Nov.2016.T tests,Chi-square analysis and logistic regression analysis were used to analyze influence factors on surgical methods.Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank analysis were used to evaluate recurrence-free survival(RFS) and loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) in patients with different surgical methods.Results Of the enrolled 1557 DCIS patients,surgical methods included modified radical mastectomy,simple mastectomy (with or without axillary evaluation) and breast conservation surgery (with or without axillary evaluation).The number of DCIS cases in our center increased (P＜0.001),so did the percentage of DCIS in annual malignant surgery cases (P=-0.026).Significant decrease was found in modified radical mastectomy (P=0.012).More than half of the patients received simple mastectomy after 2010,and more than one fifth of the patients received breast conservation surgery after 2008.About 13.99％ patients who received mastectomy had breast reconstruction.The independent influence factors of refusing breast conservation surgery were age ≥ 50(P＜0.001),medium nuclear grade (P=0.044),tumor size ＞ 15mm (P＜0.001) and spontaneous discharge (P＜0.001).Patients with smaller tumor size (≤ 15mm) and no spontaneous discharge had 4.18-fold and 7.04-fold greater preference for breast conservation surgery,respectively(OR=0.232,P＜0.001;OR=0.144,P＜0.001).There were no significant differences in RFS and LRRFS in patients with different surgical methods.Conclusion The evaluation in trends and influence factors of different surgical methods provides basis on surgical precision medicine in DCIS patients.

Objectives To examine the influence factors on axillary evaluation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients, and the prognosis of different choices of axillary evaluation in a single?center retrospective study. Methods Totally 1 557 DCIS patients admitted in Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from January 2006 to November 2016 were retrospectively enrolled. All patients were female. The median age was 49 years (range: 21 to 85 years). Surgical methods included modified radical mastectomy, simple mastectomy (with or without axillary evaluation) and breast conservation surgery (with or without axillary evaluation). Axillary evaluation included axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). T tests, χ2 test and Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze influence factors on axillary evaluation, respectively. Kaplan?Meier curve and Log?rank analysis were used to evaluate recurrence?free survival (RFS) and loco?regional recurrence?free survival (LRRFS) in patients with different surgical methods. Results Among the 1 557 DCIS patients, there were 1 226 cases received axillary evaluation, while 331 cases not received axillary evaluation. Patients were separated into 3 groups by different axillary evaluation choices: SLNB group (957 cases, 61.46%), ALND group (197 cases, 12.65%) and no evaluation group (403 cases, 25.88%). The patients in SLNB group increased significantly (P=0.000), from 3.85% (60/1 557) in 2006 to 75.19% (1 170/1 557) in 2016. The independent influence factors of receiving axillary evaluation were high nuclear grade ( OR=3.191, 95%CI : 1.722 to 5.912, P=0.001) and tumor size>15 mm ( OR=1.698, 95 %CI : 1.120 to 2.573, P=0.012). Also, patients received breast conservation surgery were more likely to refuse axillary evaluation ( OR=0.155, 95%CI : 0.103 to 0.233, P=0.000). There were no significant differences in RFS and LRRFS in patients with different axillary evaluation choices. Conclusions The investigation in trends and influence factors of different axillary evaluation choices provided basis on surgical precision medicine in DCIS patients. Patients received SLNB increased significantly. The independent influence factors of axillary evaluation were nuclear grade, tumor size and surgical methods. There was no significant differences in prognosis among the groups receiving different axillary evaluations.

Objectives To examine the influence factors on axillary evaluation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients, and the prognosis of different choices of axillary evaluation in a single?center retrospective study. Methods Totally 1 557 DCIS patients admitted in Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from January 2006 to November 2016 were retrospectively enrolled. All patients were female. The median age was 49 years (range: 21 to 85 years). Surgical methods included modified radical mastectomy, simple mastectomy (with or without axillary evaluation) and breast conservation surgery (with or without axillary evaluation). Axillary evaluation included axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). T tests, χ2 test and Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze influence factors on axillary evaluation, respectively. Kaplan?Meier curve and Log?rank analysis were used to evaluate recurrence?free survival (RFS) and loco?regional recurrence?free survival (LRRFS) in patients with different surgical methods. Results Among the 1 557 DCIS patients, there were 1 226 cases received axillary evaluation, while 331 cases not received axillary evaluation. Patients were separated into 3 groups by different axillary evaluation choices: SLNB group (957 cases, 61.46%), ALND group (197 cases, 12.65%) and no evaluation group (403 cases, 25.88%). The patients in SLNB group increased significantly (P=0.000), from 3.85% (60/1 557) in 2006 to 75.19% (1 170/1 557) in 2016. The independent influence factors of receiving axillary evaluation were high nuclear grade ( OR=3.191, 95%CI : 1.722 to 5.912, P=0.001) and tumor size>15 mm ( OR=1.698, 95 %CI : 1.120 to 2.573, P=0.012). Also, patients received breast conservation surgery were more likely to refuse axillary evaluation ( OR=0.155, 95%CI : 0.103 to 0.233, P=0.000). There were no significant differences in RFS and LRRFS in patients with different axillary evaluation choices. Conclusions The investigation in trends and influence factors of different axillary evaluation choices provided basis on surgical precision medicine in DCIS patients. Patients received SLNB increased significantly. The independent influence factors of axillary evaluation were nuclear grade, tumor size and surgical methods. There was no significant differences in prognosis among the groups receiving different axillary evaluations.

Objective The aim of the current study is to determine the clinical value of incidental internal mammary lymph node biopsy in free abdominal flap breast reconstruction using internal mammary vessels as recipient vessels and to investigate the risk factors of internal mammary lymph nodes metastasis. Methods The clinical data of all patients who underwent free abdominal flap breast reconstruction using internal mammary vessels as recipient vessels from November 2006 to December 2015 in the Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center were reviewed in the study. The incidence of internal mammary lymph node biopsy and the rate of metastasis were analyzed. Statistical analysis was conducted to evaluate the risk factors of internal mammary lymph node metastasis. Results A total of 113 patients met the inclusion criteria, 53 (46.9%) of whom had internal mammary lymph nodes harvested. Four of these were positive for metastatic disease, all in immediate breast reconstructions. The incidence of metastasis was 7.5% in patients who had successful internal mammary lymph node biopsies.The multi?variate Logistic regression analysis showed that invasive tumor size, tumor location and axillary lymph node metastasis were not risk factors for internal mammary lymph node metastasis ( P>0. 05 ) . Conclusions Internal mammary lymph nodes found incidentally during recipient vessel exposure may provide important information about internal mammary lymph node metastasis in free flap breast reconstruction. This approach for internal mammary lymph node biopsy reveals an appreciable success rate and is convenient in clinical practice. The size of invasive tumor and the axillary lymph node metastasis are probably associated with internal mammary lymph node positivity.

Objective The aim of the current study is to determine the clinical value of incidental internal mammary lymph node biopsy in free abdominal flap breast reconstruction using internal mammary vessels as recipient vessels and to investigate the risk factors of internal mammary lymph nodes metastasis. Methods The clinical data of all patients who underwent free abdominal flap breast reconstruction using internal mammary vessels as recipient vessels from November 2006 to December 2015 in the Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center were reviewed in the study. The incidence of internal mammary lymph node biopsy and the rate of metastasis were analyzed. Statistical analysis was conducted to evaluate the risk factors of internal mammary lymph node metastasis. Results A total of 113 patients met the inclusion criteria, 53 (46.9%) of whom had internal mammary lymph nodes harvested. Four of these were positive for metastatic disease, all in immediate breast reconstructions. The incidence of metastasis was 7.5% in patients who had successful internal mammary lymph node biopsies.The multi?variate Logistic regression analysis showed that invasive tumor size, tumor location and axillary lymph node metastasis were not risk factors for internal mammary lymph node metastasis ( P>0. 05 ) . Conclusions Internal mammary lymph nodes found incidentally during recipient vessel exposure may provide important information about internal mammary lymph node metastasis in free flap breast reconstruction. This approach for internal mammary lymph node biopsy reveals an appreciable success rate and is convenient in clinical practice. The size of invasive tumor and the axillary lymph node metastasis are probably associated with internal mammary lymph node positivity.