Literature DB >> 12569592

Positive surgical margins and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence predict disease-specific survival after breast-conserving therapy.

Funda Meric1, Nadeem Q Mirza, Georges Vlastos, Thomas A Buchholz, Henry M Kuerer, Gildy V Babiera, S Eva Singletary, Merrick I Ross, Frederick C Ames, Barry W Feig, Savitri Krishnamurthy, George H Perkins, Marsha D McNeese, Eric A Strom, Vicente Valero, Kelly K Hunt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The current study identified determinants of systemic recurrence and disease-specific survival (DSS) in patients with early-stage breast carcinoma treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy, or BCT).
METHODS: The study population consisted of 1,043 consecutive women with Stages I or II breast carcinoma who underwent BCT between 1970 and 1994. Clinical and pathologic characteristics evaluated included age, tumor size, tumor grade, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, surgical margins, axillary lymph node involvement, and use of adjuvant therapy.
RESULTS: At a median follow-up time of 8.4 years, 127 patients (12%) had developed an ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), and 184 patients (18%) had developed a systemic recurrence. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, tumor size greater than 2 cm, positive lymph nodes, lack of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy, and positive margins (odds ratio [OR], 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-12.3; P = 0.034) were predictors of systemic recurrence. When IBTR was added into the model, adjuvant therapy and surgical margins were not independent predictors; however, IBTR was an independent predictor of systemic recurrence (IBTR vs. no IBTR; OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.1-12.3; P < 0.001). The 10 year DSS rate after BCT was 87%. On multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analysis, the following factors were independent predictors of poor DSS: tumor size greater than 2 cm (vs. < or = 2 cm; relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.3; P = 0.010), negative progesterone receptor status (vs. positive; RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P = 0.003), positive margins (vs. negative; RR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.4-11.5; P = 0.011), and IBTR (vs. no IBTR; RR, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.8-11.0; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Positive surgical margins and IBTR are predictors of systemic recurrence and disease-specific survival after BCT. Aggressive local therapy is necessary to ensure adequate surgical margins and to minimize IBTR. Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12569592     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11222

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  60 in total

1.  Hand-held spectroscopic device for in vivo and intraoperative tumor detection: contrast enhancement, detection sensitivity, and tissue penetration.

Authors:  Aaron M Mohs; Michael C Mancini; Sunil Singhal; James M Provenzale; Brian Leyland-Jones; May D Wang; Shuming Nie
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 6.986

2.  Early stage breast cancer conserving treatment: high dose rate brachytherapy boost to the tumour bed.

Authors:  María Concepción López Carrizosa; Pilar María Samper Ots; Carmen Vallejo Ocaña; Aurora Rodríguez Pérez; Juan de Dios Sáez Garrido; José María Delgado Pérez
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.405

3.  Histopathological features of invasion of breast invasive ductal carcinoma and safety of breast-conserving surgery.

Authors:  Chunping Liu; Huaxiong Pan; Zhi Li; Lan Shi; Tao Huang
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2009-02-18

Review 4.  What is a clear margin in breast conserving cancer surgery?

Authors:  Helen Krontiras; Rachael B Lancaster; Marshall M Urist
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2014-03

Review 5.  Oncologic Procedures Amenable to Fluorescence-guided Surgery.

Authors:  Kiranya E Tipirneni; Jason M Warram; Lindsay S Moore; Andrew C Prince; Esther de Boer; Aditi H Jani; Irene L Wapnir; Joseph C Liao; Michael Bouvet; Nicole K Behnke; Mary T Hawn; George A Poultsides; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; William R Carroll; Kurt R Zinn; Eben Rosenthal
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Evaluation of surgical outcomes following oncoplastic breast surgery in early breast cancer and comparison with conventional breast conservation surgery.

Authors:  Ashutosh Chauhan; Mala Mathur Sharma
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2015-12-13

7.  Indocyanine green-loaded nanoparticles for image-guided tumor surgery.

Authors:  Tanner K Hill; Asem Abdulahad; Sneha S Kelkar; Frank C Marini; Timothy E Long; James M Provenzale; Aaron M Mohs
Journal:  Bioconjug Chem       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 4.774

8.  Matrix-metalloproteinases in head and neck carcinoma-cancer genome atlas analysis and fluorescence imaging in mice.

Authors:  Samantha J Hauff; Sharat C Raju; Ryan K Orosco; Andrew M Gross; Julio A Diaz-Perez; Elamprakash Savariar; Nadia Nashi; Jonathan Hasselman; Michael Whitney; Jeffrey N Myers; Scott M Lippman; Roger Y Tsien; Trey Ideker; Quyen T Nguyen
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2014-08-04       Impact factor: 3.497

9.  The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in assessing the ADC changes of tissues adjacent to breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Zhang Yili; Huang Xiaoyan; Du Hongwen; Zhang Yun; Chen Xin; Wang Peng; Guo Youmin
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 10.  Nanotechnology applications in surgical oncology.

Authors:  Sunil Singhal; Shuming Nie; May D Wang
Journal:  Annu Rev Med       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 13.739

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.