Gaurav Agarwal1, Chaitra Sonthineni2, Sabaretnam Mayilvaganan2, Anjali Mishra2, Punita Lal3, Vinita Agrawal4. 1. Department of Endocrine and Breast Surgery, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli Road, Lucknow, 226014, India. gauravbsi@gmail.com. 2. Department of Endocrine and Breast Surgery, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli Road, Lucknow, 226014, India. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India. 4. Department of Pathology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In India and other developing countries, breast conservation surgery (BCS) rates in breast cancer patients are low due to advanced disease at presentation and misconceptions about BCS outcomes. Many patients presenting with large or locally advanced breast cancers (LABC) can be offered post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) BCS, safety of which is not as well established as that of primary BCS. This retrospective study compared pathological and surgical outcome parameters in patients undergoing primary and post-NACT BCS. METHODS: All non-metastatic breast cancer patients undergoing BCS during 2011-2015 with 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters in form of margin infiltration, ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rates and IBTR-free survival were compared between primary and post-NACT BCS patients groups. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine patients underwent BCS; 95 underwent primary and 34 post-NACT BCS. Patients in both groups underwent similar multimodality treatment as per institutional protocols. Post-NACT patients more frequently required oncoplastic volume displacement or replacement surgery (p = 0.002). Re-excision of infiltrated margins was needed more frequently in primary BCS compared with post-NACT BCS group (14.4 vs. 8.8%; p = 0.40). IBTR (Mean follow-up = 30.7 months) was seen in 8.8% post-NACT patients compared with 2.1% primary BCS (p = 0.114). IBTR-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups in stage-wise comparison. CONCLUSION: Post-NACT BCS is safe even in large tumors and LABC, though many require oncoplastic procedures for satisfactory cosmesis. In a developing country where many patients present with large breast cancers or LABC, the benefits of BCS can be offered to a majority with the help of NACT, without compromising the chances of cure.
INTRODUCTION: In India and other developing countries, breast conservation surgery (BCS) rates in breast cancerpatients are low due to advanced disease at presentation and misconceptions about BCS outcomes. Many patients presenting with large or locally advanced breast cancers (LABC) can be offered post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) BCS, safety of which is not as well established as that of primary BCS. This retrospective study compared pathological and surgical outcome parameters in patients undergoing primary and post-NACT BCS. METHODS: All non-metastatic breast cancerpatients undergoing BCS during 2011-2015 with 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters in form of margin infiltration, ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rates and IBTR-free survival were compared between primary and post-NACT BCS patients groups. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine patients underwent BCS; 95 underwent primary and 34 post-NACT BCS. Patients in both groups underwent similar multimodality treatment as per institutional protocols. Post-NACTpatients more frequently required oncoplastic volume displacement or replacement surgery (p = 0.002). Re-excision of infiltrated margins was needed more frequently in primary BCS compared with post-NACT BCS group (14.4 vs. 8.8%; p = 0.40). IBTR (Mean follow-up = 30.7 months) was seen in 8.8% post-NACTpatients compared with 2.1% primary BCS (p = 0.114). IBTR-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups in stage-wise comparison. CONCLUSION: Post-NACT BCS is safe even in large tumors and LABC, though many require oncoplastic procedures for satisfactory cosmesis. In a developing country where many patients present with large breast cancers or LABC, the benefits of BCS can be offered to a majority with the help of NACT, without compromising the chances of cure.
Authors: S V S Deo; A Samaiya; N K Shukla; B K Mohanti; V Raina; J Purkayastha; M Bhutani; M Kar; S Hazarika; G K Rath Journal: Natl Med J India Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 0.537
Authors: R Rouzier; J M Extra; M Carton; M C Falcou; A Vincent-Salomon; A Fourquet; P Pouillart; E Bourstyn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Florentia Peintinger; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Allison C Perry; Kelly K Hunt; Gildy V Babiera; S E Singletary; Isabelle Bedrosian; Anthony Lucci; Aman U Buzdar; Lajos Pusztai; Henry M Kuerer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Allen M Chen; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Kelly K Hunt; Howard D Thames; Mary Jane Oswald; Elesyia D Outlaw; Eric A Strom; Marsha D McNeese; Henry M Kuerer; Merrick I Ross; S Eva Singletary; Fredrick C Ames; Barry W Feig; Aysegul A Sahin; George H Perkins; Naomi R Schechter; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gaurav Agarwal; Pooja Ramakant; Ernesto R Sánchez Forgach; Jorge Carrasco Rendón; Juan Manuel Chaparro; Carlos Sánchez Basurto; Marko Margaritoni Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Stanley P L Leong; Zhen-Zhou Shen; Tse-Jia Liu; Gaurav Agarwal; Tomoo Tajima; Nam-Sun Paik; Kerstin Sandelin; Anna Derossis; Hiram Cody; William D Foulkes Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.352