| Literature DB >> 25692037 |
Mona P Tan1, Nadya Y Sitoh2, Yih Y Sitoh3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent data shows that the use of breast conservation treatment (BCT) for breast cancer may result in superior outcomes when compared with mastectomy. However, reported rates of BCT in predominantly Chinese populations are significantly lower than those reported in Western countries. Low BCT rates may now be a concern as they may translate into suboptimal outcomes. A study was undertaken to evaluate BCT rates in a cohort of predominantly Chinese women.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25692037 PMCID: PMC4321667 DOI: 10.1155/2015/684021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Surg Oncol ISSN: 2090-1402
Comparison of published data for BCT rates.
| Author | Centre/country/study period |
| Characteristics | % BCT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predominantly Chinese populations | ||||
| Sim et al. [ | National Cancer Centre, Singapore (2001–2010) | 5130 | Stages 0–IV | 29.2% |
| Wang et al. [ | Changi General Hospital, Singapore (2002–2008) | 761 | Stages 0–IV | 23.3% |
| Chang et al. [ | National University Hospital, Singapore (1990–2007) | 2449 | Stages 0–IV | 29.2% |
| Yip et al. [ | University of Malaya Medical Centre (2001–2005) | 953 | T1, T2 | 29.7% |
| Yau et al. [ | Pamela Y. Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong (1994–2007) | 2375 | T1, T2 | 30% |
|
| ||||
| International/Western | ||||
| Agarwal et al. [ | SEER database (1998–2008) | 132 149 | Tumour ≤4 cm, ≤3 lymph node + | 70% |
| McGuire et al. [ | Moffitt Cancer Centre, FL, USA (1994–2007) | 5865 | Stages 0–IV | 63.7% |
| Lee et al. [ | University of Michigan Medical Centre, Michigan, USA (2003–2005) | 993 | Tis-T4 | 63% |
| Garcia-Etienne et al. [ | EUSOMA (2003–2010) | 15 369 | Stages 0, I, and II (stage III, T3/T4 excluded) | 73.3% |
| Current study | MammoCare, Singapore (2008–2011) | 125 | Symptomatic | 82.4% |
| 46 | Screen detected | 95.6% | ||
| 171 | Tis-T4 | 85.9% | ||
BCT: breast conservation treatment.
SEER: surveillance, epidemiology, and end-result.
FL: Florida, USA: United States of America.
EUSOMA: European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists.
Summary of demographic, clinicopathologic, and outcome data for study population.
| Clinicopathologic characteristic | All patients ( | BCT ( | Mastectomy ( |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (%) | By need (15) | (%) | By choice (9) | (%) | ||||
| Age in years | |||||||||
| Median (range) | 48 (28–78) | ||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 48.6 (10) | 47.9 (10) | 50.1 (8.8) | 0.40 | |||||
| Mean (SD) | 47.9 (10) | 58.0 (6.9) |
| ||||||
| Ethnicity | 0.88 | ||||||||
| Chinese | 114 | (66.7) | 98/114 | (86.0) | 8/114 | (7.0) | 8/114 | (7.0) | |
| Malay/Indonesian | 12 | (7.0) | 10/12 | (83.3) | 2/12 | (16.7) | 0/12 | ||
| Indian | 11 | (6.4) | 10/11 | (91.0) | 1/11 | (9.0) | 0/12 | ||
| Other Asian | 14 | (8.2) | 13/14 | (92.9) | 1/14 | (7.1) | 0/14 | ||
| Caucasian | 20 | (11.7) | 16/20 | (80.0) | 3/20 | (15.0) | 1/20 | (5.0) | |
| Mode of presentation | 0.07 | ||||||||
| Symptomatic tumours | 125 | (73.1) | 103/125 | (82.4) | 13/125 | (10.4) | 9/125 | (7.2) | |
| Screen detected lesions | 46 | (26.9) | 44/46 | (95.6) | 2/46 | (4.3) | 0 | ||
| All patients | 171 | 147/171 | (85.9) | 15/171 | (8.8) | 9/171 | (5.3) | ||
| Tumour size in mm (range) | |||||||||
| Median (range) | 19.0 (3–97) | 18.0 (3–72) | 35.0 (4–97) | 15.9 (3–35) | |||||
| Mean (SD) | 21.1 (15.4) | 19.2 (12.1) | 40.5 (28.0) |
| |||||
| (DCIS included) | 19.2 (12.1) | 18.3 (12.9) | 0.83 | ||||||
| ≤20 mm | 108 | (63.2) | 100/108 | (92.6) | 4/108 | (3.7) | 4/108 | (3.7) | |
| 21–50 mm | 51 | (29.8) | 39/51 | (76.5) | 7/510020 | (13.7) | 4/51 | (7.8) | |
| >50 mm | 9 | (5.3) | 6/9 | (66.7) | 3/9 | (33.3) | 0 | ||
| T4 | 3 | (1.8) | 2/3 | (66.7) | 1/3 | (33.3) | |||
| Pathologic stage |
| ||||||||
| 0 | 22 | (12.9) | 20/22 | (90.1) | 1/22 | (4.5) | 1/22 | (4.5) | |
| I | 70 | (41.0) | 69/70 | (98.6) | 1 | (1.4) | 0 | ||
| II | 55 | (32.2) | 46/55 | (83.6) | 4/55 | (7.3) | 5/55 | (9.1) | |
| III | 21 | (12.3) | 11/221 | (52.4) | 8/21 | (38.1) | 2/21 | (9.5) | |
| IV | 1 | (0.6) | 0 | 1 | |||||
| Unknown | 2 | (1.2) | 1/2 | 1/2 | |||||
| Histological type | 0.34 | ||||||||
| DCIS | 22 | (12.9) | 20/22 | (91.0) | 1/22 | (4.5) | 1/22 | (4.5) | |
| Invasive ductal | 132 | (77.2) | 114/132 | (86.4) | 11/132 | (8.3) | 7/125 | (5.6) | |
| Invasive lobular | 7 | (4.1) | 5/7 | (71.4) | 1/7 | (1.4) | 1/7 | (1.4) | |
| Other invasive | 10 | (5.8) | 8/10 | (80.0) | 2/10 | (20) | |||
| Grade | 0.48 | ||||||||
| DCIS | 22 | (12.9) | 20/22 | (91.0) | 1/22 | (4.5) | 1/22 | (4.5) | |
| 1 | 29 | (17.0) | 28/29 | (96.5) | 1/29 | (3.6) | 0 | ||
| 2 | 61 | (35.6) | 50/61 | (81.7) | 6/61 | (9.8) | 5/61 | (8.2) | |
| 3 | 54 | (31.6) | 44/54 | (81.5) | 7/54 | (13.0) | 3/54 | (5.6) | |
| Unknown | 5 | (2.9) | 4/4 | (100) | |||||
| Neoadjuvant medical therapy |
| ||||||||
| Yes | 25 | (14.6) | 16/25 | (64.0) | 8/25 | (32.0) | 1/25 | (4.0) | |
| No | 146 | (85.4) | 131/146 | (89.7) | 7/146 | (4.8) | 8/146 | (4.8) | |
| Disease extent | 0.97 | ||||||||
| Unifocal | 128 | (74.6) | 110/128 | (85.9) | 11/128 | (8.6) | 7/128 | (5.5) | |
| Multiple foci at diagnosis | 43 | (25.1) | 34/40 | (85) | 4/40 | (10) | 2/40 | (5) | |
BCT: breast conservation surgery; SD: standard deviation; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ.
List of patients with posttreatment events.
| Presentation | Treatment | Time to local recurrence | Time to distant recurrence | Treatment for recurrence | Comments/outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T3N1 | Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, BCT, RT | Four months | Nil | Mastectomy | Disease-free at 57 months |
|
| |||||
| T3N2 | Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mastectomy, RT | Nil | 35 months, visceral, bony | Chemotherapy | Succumbed at 42 months |
|
| |||||
| T2N2 | BCT, adjuvant chemotherapy, RT | 33 months | 33 months, visceral | Declined treatment | Lost to follow-up |
|
| |||||
| T3N3 | Disease progression during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mastectomy, RT | 8 months | 15 months, CNS | Declined further chemotherapy, VP shunt | Succumbed at 20 months |
|
| |||||
| T3N1 | Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, BCT, RT | Nil | 9 months, CNS | Declined further chemotherapy | Died 13 months after surgery |
|
| |||||
| T3N0 | Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, BCT, RT | Nil | 12 months, CNS | Chemotherapy | Died 19 months after surgery |
BCT: breast conservation treatment.
RT: radiotherapy.
CNS: recurrence in the central nervous system.
Figure 1((a)–(f)) Avoiding mastectomy in a patient with “multifocal tumour” on imaging. This 45-year-old patient was diagnosed with what was thought to be multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma at another facility following core biopsy. Mastectomy was originally recommended at the first centre due to the presence of multiple synchronous ipsilateral tumours and proximity of one lesion to the nipple. She sought a second opinion at the authors' facility and was agreeable to a “trial of breast conservation treatment.” Localisation of the impalpable periareolar lesion and of the suspicious axillary lymph node was performed. She underwent an en bloc wide excision of the two left breast lesions through a boomerang incision and axillary staging through a separate axillary incision. The sentinel node coincided with the localised node and was found to be positive for metastasis on frozen section analysis. She underwent axillary dissection at the same operation. Histology was reported as a 4 cm invasive ductal carcinoma, with no intervening normal tissue between the clinical lesions. Three of sixteen axillary lymph nodes were involved. She is currently disease-free after more than 5 years.
Figure 2((a)–(h)) Avoiding mastectomy in a patient with “multicentric tumour” on imaging. This patient was diagnosed to have high grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at an oncology centre and was offered mastectomy on the assumption that this was a multicentric lesion. She sought a second opinion with the authors and was agreeable to a “trial of breast conservation treatment.” Just prior to surgery, the lateral and medial extents of her dual-segment disease were localised under ultrasound guidance. Tissue resection was planned as indicated to balance the need for negative margins and retention of sufficient uninvolved parenchyma for defect repair. Through a radial incision and eccentric ellipse, an en bloc resection of the lesion using a multisegment resection pattern was performed. Sentinel node biopsy was performed through the same incision for this palpable high grade DCIS. Histology was reported as a unifocal 25 mm high grade DCIS. No multicentric component could be identified. She completed all adjuvant treatment and is now disease-free more than 5 years after surgery.