PURPOSE: Young women with breast cancer have higher locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates than older patients. The goal of this study is to determine the impact of locoregional treatment strategy, breast-conserving therapy (BCT), mastectomy alone (M), or mastectomy with adjuvant radiation (MXRT), on LRR for patients 35 years or younger. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data for 668 breast cancers in 652 young patients with breast cancer were retrospectively reviewed; 197 patients were treated with BCT, 237 with M, and 234 with MXRT. RESULTS: Median follow-up for all living patients was 114 months. In the entire cohort, 10-year actuarial LRR rates varied by locoregional treatment: 19.8% for BCT, 24.1% for M, and 15.1% for MXRT (p = 0.05). In patients with Stage II disease, 10-year actuarial LRR rates by locoregional treatment strategy were 17.7% for BCT, 22.8% for M, and 5.7% for MXRT (p = 0.02). On multivariate analysis, M (hazard ratio, 4.45) and Grade III disease (hazard ratio, 2.24) predicted for increased LRR. In patients with Stage I disease, there was no difference in LRR rates based on locoregional treatment (18.0% for BCT, 19.8% for M; p = 0.56), but chemotherapy use had a statistically significant LRR benefit (13.5% for chemotherapy, 27.9% for none; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Young women have high rates of LRR after breast cancer treatment. For patients with Stage II disease, the best locoregional control rates were achieved with MXRT. For patients with Stage I disease, similar outcomes were achieved with BCT and mastectomy; however, chemotherapy provided a significant benefit to either approach.
PURPOSE: Young women with breast cancer have higher locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates than older patients. The goal of this study is to determine the impact of locoregional treatment strategy, breast-conserving therapy (BCT), mastectomy alone (M), or mastectomy with adjuvant radiation (MXRT), on LRR for patients 35 years or younger. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data for 668 breast cancers in 652 young patients with breast cancer were retrospectively reviewed; 197 patients were treated with BCT, 237 with M, and 234 with MXRT. RESULTS: Median follow-up for all living patients was 114 months. In the entire cohort, 10-year actuarial LRR rates varied by locoregional treatment: 19.8% for BCT, 24.1% for M, and 15.1% for MXRT (p = 0.05). In patients with Stage II disease, 10-year actuarial LRR rates by locoregional treatment strategy were 17.7% for BCT, 22.8% for M, and 5.7% for MXRT (p = 0.02). On multivariate analysis, M (hazard ratio, 4.45) and Grade III disease (hazard ratio, 2.24) predicted for increased LRR. In patients with Stage I disease, there was no difference in LRR rates based on locoregional treatment (18.0% for BCT, 19.8% for M; p = 0.56), but chemotherapy use had a statistically significant LRR benefit (13.5% for chemotherapy, 27.9% for none; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Young women have high rates of LRR after breast cancer treatment. For patients with Stage II disease, the best locoregional control rates were achieved with MXRT. For patients with Stage I disease, similar outcomes were achieved with BCT and mastectomy; however, chemotherapy provided a significant benefit to either approach.
Authors: J M Kurtz; J Jacquemier; R Amalric; H Brandone; Y Ayme; D Hans; C Bressac; J M Spitalier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1990-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Recht; J L Connolly; S J Schnitt; B Silver; M A Rose; S Love; J R Harris Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1988-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A C Voogd; M Nielsen; J L Peterse; M Blichert-Toft; H Bartelink; M Overgaard; G van Tienhoven; K W Andersen; R J Sylvester; J A van Dongen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A J Nixon; D Neuberg; D F Hayes; R Gelman; J L Connolly; S Schnitt; A Abner; A Recht; F Vicini; J R Harris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A de la Rochefordiere; B Asselain; F Campana; S M Scholl; J Fenton; J R Vilcoq; J C Durand; P Pouillart; H Magdelenat; A Fourquet Journal: Lancet Date: 1993-04-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marloes van der Leest; Lisette Evers; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Philip M Poortmans; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Ans J Vulto; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Stefan J Brenninkmeijer; Geert-Jan Creemers; Adri C Voogd Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J M Kurtz; J M Spitalier; R Amalric; H Brandone; Y Ayme; C Bressac; D Hans Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1988-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ranjna Sharma; Isabelle Bedrosian; Anthony Lucci; Rosa F Hwang; Loren L Rourke; Wei Qiao; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven J Kronowitz; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Gildy V Babiera; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Raeshell S Sweeting; Nancy Klauber-Demore; Michael O Meyers; Allison M Deal; Emily M Burrows; Amy A Drobish; Carey K Anders; Lisa A Carey Journal: Am Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Mustafa Emiroğlu; Cem Karaali; İsmail Sert; Semra Salimoğlu; Levent Uğurlu; Süleyman Aksoy; Cengiz Aydın Journal: J Breast Health Date: 2015-07-01
Authors: Beth M Beadle; Wendy A Woodward; Lavinia P Middleton; Welela Tereffe; Eric A Strom; Jennifer K Litton; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Richard L Theriault; Thomas A Buchholz; George H Perkins Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860