Overall, patients with positive margins (16.5 vs. 10.0 mm, p = 0.04) and the pooled close/positive-margin (11.0 vs. 10.0 mm, p = 0.03) patients had larger median tumor sizes than the negative-margin cohort. Also, patients with close (13.6 vs. 9.2%, p = 0.01) or positive (15.4% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.03) margins were more likely to be estrogen receptor (ER)

negative than the margin-negative JAK inhibitor review cohort. Positive-margin patients were more likely to be node positive as well (15.4% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.01). With regards to the invasive-only patients, those with positive margins were more likely to be node positive (18.2% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.02) than margin-negative patients. No differences in patient characteristics by margin

status were noted Epigenetics inhibitor when evaluating patients with pure DCIS, albeit with smaller numbers of patients. Of note, no differences in the rates of systemic therapy usage were noted for all patients. Clinical outcomes by margin status and disease histology are presented in Table 4. Overall, no statistically significant difference in the 6-year rate of IBTR was noted for patients with close margins compared with that of negative-margin patients (8.7% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.10) despite a nearly twofold increase. Positive-margin patients had a nonsignificant increase in IBTR (14.3% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.41); however, when both groups were pooled, a trend toward higher rates of IBTR in patients with involved margins was noted (9.3% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.07). Statistically significant increases in EFs were noted for close (6.8% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.04) and close/positive-margin (7.7% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.02) patients compared with negative-margin patients; however, no differences in TR/MM were noted. No differences emerged

in the rates of regional nodal failure, distant metastases, disease-free survival (DFS), cause-specific survival, or overall survival by margin status in the entire cohort. When examining invasive-only patients, no significant differences in the rates of IBTR were noted for patients with positive margins (20.0% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.30), those with close margins Adenylyl cyclase (6.2% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.62), or those with pooled close/positive margins (7.5% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.43). Furthermore, no differences emerged in the rates of regional nodal failure, distant metastases, DFS, cause-specific survival, or overall survival by margin status for invasive-only patients. When evaluating patients with DCIS only, there was a statistically significant increase in IBTR when patients had close margins (17.6% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.004) and when close and positive margins were pooled (15.7% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.01). This significant increase in IBTR led to a nonsignificant reduction in DFS in patients with noninvasive disease who had close surgical margins (82.4% vs. 90.8%, p = 0.17). Statistically significant increases in EFs were noted for close-margin (17.6% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.