Mary Mrdutt1,2, Alexandra Heerdt1,2, Varadan Sevilimedu1,2, Anita Mamtani1,2, Andrea Barrio1,2, Monica Morrow3,4. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. morrowm@mskcc.org. 4. Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. morrowm@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A margin of "no ink on tumor" has been established for primary breast conservation therapy (BCT), but the appropriate margin following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains controversial. We examined the impact of margin width on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in the NAC-BCT population. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving NAC-BCT were identified from a prospective database. The associations between clinicopathologic characteristics, margin width, and isolated IBTR were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2019 we identified 582 patients with 586 tumors who received NAC-BCT. The median age of the cohort was 54 years (IQR 45, 62); 84% of patients had cT1/T2 tumors and 61% were clinically node positive. The majority of tumors were HER2+ (38%) or triple negative (TN) (31%). Pathologic complete response was observed in 29%. Margin width was > 2 mm in 517 tumors (88%) and ≤ 2 mm in 69 (12%). At a median follow-up of 39 months, 14 patients had IBTR as a first event, with 64% occurring within 24 months of surgery. The 4-year IBTR rate was 2% (95% CI 1-4%), and there was no difference based on margin width (3% ≤ 2 mm vs 2% > 2 mm; p = not significant). On univariate analysis, clinical and pathologic T stage and receptor subtype, but not margin width, were associated with IBTR (p < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, TN subtype and higher pathologic T stage were associated with isolated IBTR (both p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Pathologic features and tumor biology, not margin width, were associated with IBTR in NAC-BCT patients.
BACKGROUND: A margin of "no ink on tumor" has been established for primary breast conservation therapy (BCT), but the appropriate margin following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains controversial. We examined the impact of margin width on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in the NAC-BCT population. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving NAC-BCT were identified from a prospective database. The associations between clinicopathologic characteristics, margin width, and isolated IBTR were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2019 we identified 582 patients with 586 tumors who received NAC-BCT. The median age of the cohort was 54 years (IQR 45, 62); 84% of patients had cT1/T2 tumors and 61% were clinically node positive. The majority of tumors were HER2+ (38%) or triple negative (TN) (31%). Pathologic complete response was observed in 29%. Margin width was > 2 mm in 517 tumors (88%) and ≤ 2 mm in 69 (12%). At a median follow-up of 39 months, 14 patients had IBTR as a first event, with 64% occurring within 24 months of surgery. The 4-year IBTR rate was 2% (95% CI 1-4%), and there was no difference based on margin width (3% ≤ 2 mm vs 2% > 2 mm; p = not significant). On univariate analysis, clinical and pathologic T stage and receptor subtype, but not margin width, were associated with IBTR (p < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, TN subtype and higher pathologic T stage were associated with isolated IBTR (both p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Pathologic features and tumor biology, not margin width, were associated with IBTR in NAC-BCT patients.
Authors: Anita Mamtani; Andrea V Barrio; Tari A King; Kimberly J Van Zee; George Plitas; Melissa Pilewskie; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Mary L Gemignani; Alexandra S Heerdt; Lisa M Sclafani; Virgilio Sacchini; Hiram S Cody; Sujata Patil; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mehra Golshan; Constance T Cirrincione; William M Sikov; Lisa A Carey; Donald A Berry; Beth Overmoyer; Nora L Henry; George Somlo; Elisa Port; Harold J Burstein; Clifford Hudis; Eric Winer; David W Ollila Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Stefan Aebi; Shari Gelber; Stewart J Anderson; István Láng; André Robidoux; Miguel Martín; Johan W R Nortier; Alexander H G Paterson; Mothaffar F Rimawi; José Manuel Baena Cañada; Beat Thürlimann; Elizabeth Murray; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Charles E Geyer; Karen N Price; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Priya Rastogi; Norman Wolmark; Irene L Wapnir Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 41.316
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: Chafika Mazouni; Florentia Peintinger; Shu Wan-Kau; Fabrice Andre; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; W Fraser Symmans; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Vicente Valero; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Wimmer; M Bolliger; Z Bago-Horvath; G Steger; D Kauer-Dorner; R Helfgott; C Gruber; F Moinfar; M Mittlböck; F Fitzal Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 5.344