Literature DB >> 27624712

Reoperations after primary breast conserving surgery in women with invasive breast cancer in Catalonia, Spain: a retrospective study.

J M Escribà1,2, L Esteban3, J Gálvez3, M J Pla4, A Melià3, M Gil-Gil4, R Clèries3,5, L Pareja3, X Sanz3, M Bustins6, J M Borrás3,5, J Ribes3,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although complete tumor resection is accepted as the best means to reduce recurrence, reoperations after lumpectomy are a common problem in breast cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the reoperation rates after primary breast conserving surgery in invasive breast cancer cases diagnosed in Catalonia, Spain, between 2005 and 2011 and to identify variations based on patient and tumour characteristics.
METHODS: Women with invasive incident breast cancer identified from the Patient's Hospital Discharge Database [174.0-174.9 codes of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) as the primary diagnosis] and receiving primary breast conserving surgery were included in the study and were followed up to 3 and 12 months by collecting information about repeat breast cancer surgery.
RESULTS: Reoperation rates after primary breast conserving surgery decreased from 13.0 % in 2005 to 11.7 % in 2011 at 3 months and from 14.2 % in 2005 to 12.9 % in 2011 at 12 months' follow-up. While breast conservation reoperations saw a slight, non-significant increase in the same period (from 5.7 to 7.3 % at 3 months, and from 6.0 to 7.5 % at 12 months), there was a significant decrease in radical reoperation (from 7.3 to 4.4 % at 3 months and from 8.2 to 5.4 % at 12 months). Overall, additional breast surgeries decreased among younger women.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rise of breast conserving surgery, reoperation rates following initial lumpectomy in Catalonia decreased by 10 % at 3 and 12 months' follow-up, remaining low and almost unchanged. Ultimately, there was also a significant decrease in mastectomies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Invasive breast neoplasm; Local recurrence; Partial mastectomy; Re-excision; Surgical margins

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27624712     DOI: 10.1007/s12094-016-1546-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol        ISSN: 1699-048X            Impact factor:   3.405


  36 in total

1.  Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004-2010.

Authors:  Lee G Wilke; Tomasz Czechura; Chih Wang; Brittany Lapin; Erik Liederbach; David P Winchester; Katharine Yao
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 14.766

2.  The safety of multiple re-excisions after lumpectomy for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne Coopey; Barbara L Smith; Stephanie Hanson; Julliette Buckley; Kevin S Hughes; Michele Gadd; Michelle C Specht
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  An urgent need to reduce re-operation rates after breast conserving surgery.

Authors:  Oreste Gentilini; Jasdeep Gahir
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2012-11

4.  Reasons for re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery(SM) database.

Authors:  Jeffrey Landercasper; Eric Whitacre; Amy C Degnim; Mohammed Al-Hamadani
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012.

Authors:  J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy.

Authors:  M R Bani; M P Lux; K Heusinger; E Wenkel; A Magener; R Schulz-Wendtland; M W Beckmann; P A Fasching
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-06-09       Impact factor: 4.424

7.  Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program.

Authors:  Emil D Kurniawan; Matthew H Wong; Imogen Windle; Allison Rose; Arlene Mou; Malcolm Buchanan; John P Collins; Julie A Miller; Russell L Gruen; G Bruce Mann
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-07-10       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Rates of breast cancer surgery in Canada from 2007/08 to 2009/10: retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Geoff Porter; Brandon Wagar; Heather Bryant; Maria Hewitt; Elaine Wai; Kelly Dabbs; Anne McFarlane; Rami Rahal
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2014-06-17

9.  Re-resection rates and risk characteristics following breast conserving surgery for breast cancer and carcinoma in situ: A single-centre study of 1575 consecutive cases.

Authors:  C G Kryh; C A Pietersen; H B Rahr; R D Christensen; P Wamberg; M D Lautrup
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 4.380

10.  Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics.

Authors:  R Jeevan; D A Cromwell; M Trivella; G Lawrence; O Kearins; J Pereira; C Sheppard; C M Caddy; J H P van der Meulen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-07-12
View more
  3 in total

1.  The Value of Repeated Breast Surgery as a Quality Indicator in Breast Cancer Care.

Authors:  Francesca Tamburelli; Riccardo Ponzone
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Readmissions and complications in breast ductal carcinoma in situ: A retrospective study comparing screen- and non-screen-detected patients.

Authors:  Julieta Politi; María Sala; Laia Domingo; María Vernet-Tomas; Marta Román; Francesc Macià; Xavier Castells
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec

3.  Reoperation after breast-conserving surgery for cancer in Australia: statewide cohort study of linked hospital data.

Authors:  Marina T van Leeuwen; Michael O Falster; Claire M Vajdic; Philip J Crowe; Sanja Lujic; Elizabeth Klaes; Louisa Jorm; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 2.692

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.