PURPOSE: The extended role of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in the neoadjuvant setting may raise concerns on the oncologic safety of BCS compared to mastectomy. This study compared long-term outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) between patients treated with BCS and mastectomy. METHODS: All breast cancer patients treated with NAC from 2008 until 2017 at the Amphia Hospital (the Netherlands) were included. Disease-free and overall survival were compared between BCS and mastectomy with survival functions. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to determine prognostic variables for disease-free survival. RESULTS: 561 of 612 patients treated with NAC were eligible: 362 (64.5%) with BCS and 199 (35.5%) with mastectomy. Median follow-up was 6.8 years (0.9-11.9). Mastectomy patients had larger tumours and more frequently node-positive or lobular cancer. Unadjusted five-year disease-free survival was 90.9% for BCS versus 82.9% for mastectomy (p = .004). Unadjusted five-year overall survival was 95.3% and 85.9% (p < .001), respectively. In multivariable analysis, clinical T4 (cT4) (HR 3.336, 95% CI 1.214-9.165, p = .019) and triple negative disease (HR 5.946, 95% CI 2.703-13.081, p < .001) were negative predictors and pathologic complete response of the breast (HR 0.467, 95% CI 0.238-0.918, p = .027) and axilla (HR 0.332, 95% CI 0.193-0.572, p = .001) were positive predictors for disease-free survival. Mastectomy versus BCS was not a significant predictor for disease-free survival when adjusted for the former variables (unadjusted HR 2.13 (95%CI: 1.4-3.24), adjusted HR 1.31 (95%CI: 0.81-2.13)). In the BCS group, disease-free and overall survival did not differ significantly between cT1, cT2 or cT3 tumours. CONCLUSION: BCS does not impair disease-free and overall survival in patients treated with NAC. Tumour biology and treatment response are significant prognostic indicators.
PURPOSE: The extended role of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in the neoadjuvant setting may raise concerns on the oncologic safety of BCS compared to mastectomy. This study compared long-term outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) between patients treated with BCS and mastectomy. METHODS: All breast cancerpatients treated with NAC from 2008 until 2017 at the Amphia Hospital (the Netherlands) were included. Disease-free and overall survival were compared between BCS and mastectomy with survival functions. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to determine prognostic variables for disease-free survival. RESULTS: 561 of 612 patients treated with NAC were eligible: 362 (64.5%) with BCS and 199 (35.5%) with mastectomy. Median follow-up was 6.8 years (0.9-11.9). Mastectomy patients had larger tumours and more frequently node-positive or lobular cancer. Unadjusted five-year disease-free survival was 90.9% for BCS versus 82.9% for mastectomy (p = .004). Unadjusted five-year overall survival was 95.3% and 85.9% (p < .001), respectively. In multivariable analysis, clinical T4 (cT4) (HR 3.336, 95% CI 1.214-9.165, p = .019) and triple negative disease (HR 5.946, 95% CI 2.703-13.081, p < .001) were negative predictors and pathologic complete response of the breast (HR 0.467, 95% CI 0.238-0.918, p = .027) and axilla (HR 0.332, 95% CI 0.193-0.572, p = .001) were positive predictors for disease-free survival. Mastectomy versus BCS was not a significant predictor for disease-free survival when adjusted for the former variables (unadjusted HR 2.13 (95%CI: 1.4-3.24), adjusted HR 1.31 (95%CI: 0.81-2.13)). In the BCS group, disease-free and overall survival did not differ significantly between cT1, cT2 or cT3tumours. CONCLUSION: BCS does not impair disease-free and overall survival in patients treated with NAC. Tumour biology and treatment response are significant prognostic indicators.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast-conserving surgery; Lumpectomy; Mastectomy; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Survival
Authors: Michael O Meyers; Nancy Klauber-Demore; David W Ollila; Keith D Amos; Dominic T Moore; Amy A Drobish; Emily M Burrows; E Claire Dees; Lisa A Carey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-03-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sarah S Mougalian; Mike Hernandez; Xiudong Lei; Siobhan Lynch; Henry M Kuerer; William F Symmans; Richard L Theriault; Bruno D Fornage; Limin Hsu; Thomas A Buchholz; Aysegul A Sahin; Kelly K Hunt; Wei Tse Yang; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Vicente Valero Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Henry M Kuerer; Gaiane M Rauch; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Beatriz E Adrada; Abigail S Caudle; Sarah M DeSnyder; Dalliah M Black; Lumarie Santiago; Brian P Hobbs; Anthony Lucci; Michael Gilcrease; Rosa F Hwang; Rosalind P Candelaria; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Benjamin D Smith; Elsa Arribas; Tanya Moseley; Mediget Teshome; Makesha V Miggins; Vicente Valero; Kelly K Hunt; Wei T Yang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M E Straver; J C van Adrichem; E J Th Rutgers; S Rodenhuis; S C Linn; C E Loo; K G Gilhuijs; H S A Oldenburg; J Wesseling; N S Russell; N Antonini; M T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd Date: 2008-11-15
Authors: Marissa C van Maaren; Linda de Munck; Geertruida H de Bock; Jan J Jobsen; Thijs van Dalen; Sabine C Linn; Philip Poortmans; Luc J A Strobbe; Sabine Siesling Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Guusje Vugts; Adriana J G Maaskant-Braat; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Rudi M H Roumen; Ernest J T Luiten; Adri C Voogd Journal: Breast J Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lisi M Dredze; Michael Friger; Samuel Ariad; Michael Koretz; Bertha Delgado; Ruthy Shaco-Levy; Margarita Tokar; Michael Bayme; Ravit Agassi; Maia Rosenthal; Victor Dyomin; Olga Belochitski; Shai Libson; Tamar Mizrahi; David B Geffen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 4.872