[A single-center retrospective study on axillary evaluation in 1 557 breast ductal carcinoma in situ patients between 2006 and 2016]

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, χ(2) 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.