Furthermore, an analysis by the University of Wurzburg found a 9.3% rate of local recurrence in patients with uncertain or positive margins treated with BCT (17). These findings suggest that if women with close or positive margins wish to proceed with BCT without reexcision, similar increased rates of IBTR would be expected regardless of whether they are treated with WBI or APBI. It is important, however, to emphasize that no direct comparison has

been made between WBI and APBI in PTC124 supplier our series and that we should wait for data from prospective randomized Phase III trials comparing WBI and APBI to make more informed decisions regarding the risks associated with close or positive margins in the setting of partial breast irradiation. With 6-year follow-up, the rate of IBTR was 8.7% for

close, 14.3% for positive, and 9.3% when pooled close and positive margins were combined. With these numbers at 6 years, as follow-up is extended beyond 10 years, local recurrences may exceed 20%. This suggests that in patients with close/positive margins, reexcision should be attempted initially if feasible. This represents one of the benefits of intracavitary brachytherapy over intraoperative radiation; target margins can be assessed before the treatment and the therapeutic plan adjusted based on these margin findings. Should patients be found www.selleckchem.com/PARP.html to have a close/positive margin and unable to undergo reexcision, the APBI course can be switched to a WBI course with boost therapy. Finally, when examining the IBTR in patients with close/positive margins, close to 80% of the failures were EFs, likely secondary to the high rate of EFs in DCIS patients with close/positive margins. These data are not consistent with the previous reports from Yale University and the British

Columbia Cancer Agency, which found the rate of EFs to be approximately 50% in patients undergoing BCT with WBI [18] and [19]. The etiology of this discrepancy may be that in patients with DCIS, positive/close margins may portend a risk of subclinical disease with potential multifocality/multicentricity. Also, the subjective nature of the TR/MM vs. elsewhere classification may play a role in the discrepancy. There are limitations to our analysis. Montelukast Sodium Although data were collected prospectively through the ASBrS Registry, this represents an unplanned retrospective analysis. Furthermore, owing to the small numbers of close/positive margin and limited number of failures, the power to detect differences was limited. This is likely the reason that the large differences seen in IBTR in this analysis were nonsignificant. Also, margin status is predicated on the extent of positive margins; however, the ASBrS Registry does not collect the extent of close or positive margins (number of positive margins, invasive vs. both invasive/noninvasive involvement, linear extent, attempts at reexcision, etc), which limits definitive conclusions on this information.