Clare Josephine Tollan1, Eirini Pantiora2, Antonios Valachis3, Andreas Karakatsanis2, Marios Konstantinos Tasoulis4,5. 1. Breast Surgery Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Road, London, UK. 2. Department of Surgery, Uppsala University Hospital - Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 3. Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 4. Breast Surgery Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Road, London, UK. marios.tasoulis@rmh.nhs.uk. 5. Division of Breast Cancer Research, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. marios.tasoulis@rmh.nhs.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The standard surgical management of ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence (IBCR) in patients previously treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) is mastectomy. Recent international guidelines provide conflicting recommendations. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the oncological outcomes in patients with IBCR treated with repeat BCS (rBCS). METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant English-language publications, with no date restrictions. All relevant studies providing sufficient data to assess oncological outcomes (second local recurrence [LR] and overall survival [OS]) of rBCS for the management of IBCR after previous BCS and RT were included (PROSPERO registration CRD42021286123). RESULTS: Forty-two observational studies met the criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled second LR rate after rBCS was 15.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.1-19.7), and 10.3% (95% CI 6.9-14.3) after salvage mastectomy. On meta-analysis of comparative studies (n = 17), the risk ratio (RR) for second LR following rBCS compared with mastectomy was 2.103 (95% CI 1.535-2.883; p < 0.001, I2 = 55.1%). Repeat RT had a protective effect (coefficient: - 0.317, 95% CI - 0.596 to - 0.038; p = 0.026, I2 = 40.4%) for second LR. Pooled 5-year OS was 86.8% (95% CI 83.4-90.0) and 79.8% (95% CI 74.7-84.5) for rBCS and salvage mastectomy, respectively. Meta-analysis of comparative studies (n = 20) showed a small OS benefit in favor of rBCS (RR 1.040, 95% CI 1.003-1.079; p = 0.032, I2 = 70.8%). Overall evidence certainty was very low. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests rBCS could be considered as an option for the management of IBCR in patients previously treated with BCS and RT. Shared decision making, appropriate patient selection, and individualized approach are important for optimal outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: The standard surgical management of ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence (IBCR) in patients previously treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) is mastectomy. Recent international guidelines provide conflicting recommendations. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the oncological outcomes in patients with IBCR treated with repeat BCS (rBCS). METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant English-language publications, with no date restrictions. All relevant studies providing sufficient data to assess oncological outcomes (second local recurrence [LR] and overall survival [OS]) of rBCS for the management of IBCR after previous BCS and RT were included (PROSPERO registration CRD42021286123). RESULTS: Forty-two observational studies met the criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled second LR rate after rBCS was 15.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.1-19.7), and 10.3% (95% CI 6.9-14.3) after salvage mastectomy. On meta-analysis of comparative studies (n = 17), the risk ratio (RR) for second LR following rBCS compared with mastectomy was 2.103 (95% CI 1.535-2.883; p < 0.001, I2 = 55.1%). Repeat RT had a protective effect (coefficient: - 0.317, 95% CI - 0.596 to - 0.038; p = 0.026, I2 = 40.4%) for second LR. Pooled 5-year OS was 86.8% (95% CI 83.4-90.0) and 79.8% (95% CI 74.7-84.5) for rBCS and salvage mastectomy, respectively. Meta-analysis of comparative studies (n = 20) showed a small OS benefit in favor of rBCS (RR 1.040, 95% CI 1.003-1.079; p = 0.032, I2 = 70.8%). Overall evidence certainty was very low. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests rBCS could be considered as an option for the management of IBCR in patients previously treated with BCS and RT. Shared decision making, appropriate patient selection, and individualized approach are important for optimal outcomes.
Authors: B Salvadori; E Marubini; R Miceli; A R Conti; F Cusumano; S Andreola; R Zucali; U Veronesi Journal: Br J Surg Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Irene L Wapnir; Stewart J Anderson; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Charles E Geyer; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Elizabeth Tan-Chiu; Bernard Fisher; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tracy E Alpert; Henry M Kuerer; Douglas W Arthur; Donald R Lannin; Bruce G Haffty Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Soo Yeon Baek; Jisun Kim; Il Yong Chung; Beom Seok Ko; Hee Jeong Kim; Jong Won Lee; Byung Ho Son; Sei-Hyun Ahn; Sae Byul Lee Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 4.872
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: S C J Bosma; F van der Leij; E van Werkhoven; H Bartelink; J Wesseling; S Linn; E J Rutgers; M J van de Vijver; P H M Elkhuizen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 4.872