Yu-Fei Shen1, Juan Huang1,2,3,4, Wei-Bing Zhou1, Jian-Huang Li1, Zhi Xiao1,2,3,4, A-Ji Huang1,2,3,4, Xiang-Yan Liu1,2,3,4, Yuan-Ping Hu1,2,3,4, Ting-Xuan Li1,2,3,4, Miao Yang1,2,3,4, A-Yong Cao5. 1. Department of General Surgery Breast Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 2. National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders (Xiangya Hospital), Central South University, Changsha, China. 3. Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer in Hunan Province, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 4. Multidisciplinary Breast Cancer Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 5. Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer in Shanghai, Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the lack of high-level data, there is still controversy over the oncological safety of breast conservation in patients with centrally located breast cancer. This study aimed to assess the safety of breast-conserving surgery in patients with centrally located breast cancer based on the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. METHODS: We collected data for all cases diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery from 2012-2014 in the SEER database. The primary outcome of our study was disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). The PSM was used to eliminate the effects of non-random statistics. Chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression model on univariate and multivariate analysis were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Data from 79,214 patients who had undergone breast-conserving surgery were analyzed in this study, including those with breast cancer in the central region (n=3,128) and outside the central region (n=76,086). The DSS of central breast cancer patients and outside the central breast cancer patients was 58.1 months versus 58.0 months (P>0.05), respectively, while the OS of the 2 groups was 58.0 months versus 58.0 months (P>0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer in the central region should not be contraindicated for breast conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery can benefit a wider range of patients. 2022 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Due to the lack of high-level data, there is still controversy over the oncological safety of breast conservation in patients with centrally located breast cancer. This study aimed to assess the safety of breast-conserving surgery in patients with centrally located breast cancer based on the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. METHODS: We collected data for all cases diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery from 2012-2014 in the SEER database. The primary outcome of our study was disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). The PSM was used to eliminate the effects of non-random statistics. Chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression model on univariate and multivariate analysis were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Data from 79,214 patients who had undergone breast-conserving surgery were analyzed in this study, including those with breast cancer in the central region (n=3,128) and outside the central region (n=76,086). The DSS of central breast cancer patients and outside the central breast cancer patients was 58.1 months versus 58.0 months (P>0.05), respectively, while the OS of the 2 groups was 58.0 months versus 58.0 months (P>0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer in the central region should not be contraindicated for breast conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery can benefit a wider range of patients. 2022 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER); breast-conserving; central region
Authors: Margaret M Eberl; Chester H Fox; Stephen B Edge; Cathleen A Carter; Martin C Mahoney Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Saskia Litière; Gustavo Werutsky; Ian S Fentiman; Emiel Rutgers; Marie-Rose Christiaens; Erik Van Limbergen; Margreet H A Baaijens; Jan Bogaerts; Harry Bartelink Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mahul B Amin; Frederick L Greene; Stephen B Edge; Carolyn C Compton; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Robert K Brookland; Laura Meyer; Donna M Gress; David R Byrd; David P Winchester Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: B G Haffty; L D Wilson; R Smith; D Fischer; M Beinfield; B Ward; C McKhann Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-08-30 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Mogens Blichert-Toft; Maja Nielsen; Maria Düring; Susanne Møller; Fritz Rank; Marie Overgaard; Henning T Mouridsen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.089