Analysis of local and regional recurrences in breast cancer after conservative surgery

Current operative management of breast cancer: an age of smaller resections and bigger cures

Surgical resection was the first effective treatment for breast cancer and remains the most important treatment modality for curative intent. Refinements in operative techniques along with the use of adjuvant radiotherapy and advanced chemotherapeutic agents have facilitated increasingly focused breast cancer operations. Surgical management of breast cancer has shifted from extensive and highly morbid procedures, to the modern concept obtaining the best possible cosmetic result in tandem with the appropriate oncological resection. An ever-growing comprehension of breast cancer biology has led to substantial advances in molecular diagnosis and targeted therapies. An emerging frontier involves the breast cancer microenvironment, as a thorough understanding, while currently lacking, represents a critical opportunity for diagnosis and treatment. Collectively, these improvements will continue to push all therapeutic interventions, including operative, toward the goal of becoming more focused, targeted, and less morbid.

The oncologic outcome and immediate surgical complications of lipofilling in breast cancer patients: a multicenter study--Milan-Paris-Lyon experience of 646 lipofilling procedures

BACKGROUND

Lipofilling is now performed to improve the breast contour, after both breast-conserving surgery and breast reconstruction. However, injection of fat into a previous tumor site may create a new environment for cancer and adjacent cells. There is also no international agreement regarding lipofilling after breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

The authors included three institutions specializing in both breast cancer treatment and breast reconstruction (European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Paris Breast Center, Paris, France; and Leon Berard Centre, Lyon, France) for a multicenter study. A collective chart review of all lipofilling procedures after breast cancer treatment was performed.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2010, the authors reviewed 646 lipofilling procedures from 513 patients. There were 370 mastectomy patients and 143 breast-conserving surgery patients. There were 405 patients (78.9 percent) with invasive carcinoma and 108 (21.1 percent) with carcinoma in situ. The average interval between oncologic surgical interventions and lipofilling was 39.7 months. Average follow-up after lipofilling was 19.2 months. The authors observed a complication rate of 2.8 percent (liponecrosis, 2.0 percent). Twelve radiologic images appeared after lipofilling in 119 breast-conserving surgery cases (10.1 percent). The overall oncologic event rate was 5.6 percent (3.6 percent per year). The locoregional event rate was 2.4 percent (1.5 percent per year).

CONCLUSIONS

Lipofilling after breast cancer treatment leads to a low complication rate and does not affect radiologic follow-up after breast-conserving surgery. A prospective clinical registry including high-volume multicenter data with a long follow-up is warranted to demonstrate the oncologic safety. Until then, lipofilling should be performed in experienced hands, and a cautious oncologic follow-up protocol is advised.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV [corrected].

Local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery: multivariable analysis of risk factors and the impact of young age

BACKGROUND

Local recurrence (LR) after breast conservation surgery (BCS) varies with risk factors. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of young age on LR.

METHODS

All patients (excluding those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy) who underwent BCS from 1988-2001 at our institution were identified and evaluated for risk factors of LR.

RESULTS

A total of 3,064 patients underwent 3,131 BCS. Mean age at surgery was 61 (range, 21-98) years: 175 (5.6%) patients were aged<40 years; 492 (15.7%) were 40-49 years; 761 (24.3%) were 50-59 years; 801 (25.6%) were 60-69 years; and 902 (28.8%) were age 70+years. A total of 212 patients (6.8%) developed LR at a mean of 4.5 (range, 0.1-14.4) years after BCS. Mean follow-up was 8.9 (range, 0-20.2) years. The 5-year LR-free survival rate was 94.9%. The frequencies of LR by age group were: <40 years--11.4%; 40-49 years--5.7%; 50-59 years--6.2%; 60-69 years--7.6%; 70 years and older--6.2%. The 5-year LR-free survival rates for these age groups were 90.5%, 95.4%, 95.5%, 95.4%, and 94.7%, respectively (P=0.09, log-rank test). On univariable analysis, patients aged<40 years were nearly twice as likely to experience LR (hazards ratio (HR), 1.81; P=0.012). Multivariable analysis of patients with complete data (n=2,122) demonstrated that age<40 years and node positivity were associated with increased risk of LR, whereas ER positivity and radiation therapy were associated with decreased risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors for LR after BCS include age<40 years, node positivity, ER negativity, and absence of adjuvant radiation therapy. Patients younger than age 40 years are at increased risk of LR after BCS.

Young age is associated with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy in patients with HER2-positive/ER-negative subtype

Young breast cancer patients are more likely than old patients to experience ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS). However, the pathological processes underlying this relationship have not been elucidated. We investigated the effect of young age on IBTR in a Korean cohort of women with different molecular subtypes of breast cancer. We analyzed data of 2,102 consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent BCS and post-surgical radiation therapy (RT) at two Korean institutions between 2000 and 2005. Patients were classified as young (≤ 40 years; N = 513) or old (> 40 years; N = 1,589). Breast cancer subtype was determined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2. Median follow-up duration was 61 months. The 5-year IBTR rate was 3.4% in young patients and 1.1% in old patients (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis indicated that IBTR rate in young patients with luminal A and HER2 subtypes was significantly greater than in old patients with these subtypes (P = 0.015 and P < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis, which used luminal A subtype in old patients as reference, indicated that HER2 subtype in young patients was associated with increased risk of IBTR (hazard ratio, HR = 12.24; 95% CI: 2.54-57.96). Among old patients, HER2 subtype was not associated with increased IBTR. In conclusion, young women had a higher rate of IBTR after BCS and RT than old women. This difference is mainly among women with HER2 subtype. Aggressive local control and adjuvant therapy should be considered for young women with HER2 subtype breast cancer.

Local recurrence after breast cancer affects specific survival differently according to patient age

PURPOSE

Young age is known to be an independent factor for developing local recurrence (LR) in breast cancer patients. It has also been shown that the occurrence of LR negatively affects patient outcome, especially if LR occurs within 3 years after treatment of the primary tumour. The question whether the impact of LR on patient outcome differs according to the patient's age has not been addressed before. The purpose of the present study is to investigate cancer-specific survival (CSS) as well as overall survival after LR in young patients (<50 years old) and to compare it to older patients. The age cut-off level was taken as 50 to avoid strong imbalance in patient numbers between the 2 groups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1974 and 2003, 2,130 breast cancer patients were treated with conservative surgery and axillary dissection. All of them received post-operative radiotherapy. Adjuvant chemo- and/or hormonal therapy was given according to the prognostic factors and the treatment policy at the time of diagnosis. Only biopsy-confirmed ipsilateral LRs were taken into account. Early LRs were those observed within 36 months after surgery, and late LRs were those which occurred thereafter. The median follow-up was 100 months. Survival analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The median age was 59 years. There were 472 patients aged <50 years versus 1,658 older patients. Pathological tumour size, hormone receptor status and lymph node involvement were evenly distributed in the 2 groups. The 5- and 10-year CSS was 92.3 and 83.9% in young patients, and 94.4 and 87.6% in older patients (p = 0.061), respectively. Overall, 200 LRs were observed; 52 of them (26%) were early LRs. The rate of LR was significantly higher in young patients: at 5 years, it was 10.5 versus 3.7% in patients ≥50 years; the respective rates at 10 years were 17.8 and 8.8% (p < 0.0001). The 5- and 10-year CSS in patients who developed LR was 86.8 and 76.0%, versus 94.7 and 88.2% in patients who did not develop LR (p < 0.0001). The 5-year CSS after LR in young and older patients was 77.6 and 65.7%, respectively (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Although young patients experience more LR than older ones, once LR occurs, young patients have a better outcome than the others. Possible hypotheses are: (1) more aggressive treatment in young patients after LR; (2) the treatment is better sustained in young patients; (3) biological differences in the characteristics of LR.

Ipsilateral breast recurrence after breast conserving surgery in patients with small (≤ 2cm) breast cancer treated with modern adjuvant therapies

BACKGROUND

Modern multimodality treatment greatly influences the rate and the predictive factors for ipsilateral cancer recurrence (IBR) after breast conserving surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study is based on 1297 patients with pT1 breast cancer and treated with breast conserving surgery in February 2001-August 2005. The median duration of follow-up was 57 months.

RESULTS

IBR occurred in 27 (2.1%) patients. It was located in the quadrant of prior breast resection in 17 (63%) cases. The median time to an IBR was 41 months (range, 6-78) regardless of whether the recurrence was located in the same or in another quadrant. Omission of radiotherapy was associated with a higher IBR incidence, HR 10,344 (95% CI 1904-56,184; p=0.007). The IBRs occurred particularly often, in 27% of the 11 patients who refused radiotherapy. Patients diagnosed with ER+ cancer had a lower risk of IBR when compared with those with ER-/HER2+ cancer, HR 0.215 (95% CI 0.049-0.935; p=0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of IBR was low during the first 5 years after breast resection among patients with pT1 breast cancer and treated with modern surgical and adjuvant therapies. The majority IBRs still occur at or close to the prior resection site underlining the importance of local therapies. Omission of radiotherapy was the most significant risk factor for IBR.

[Surgery for invasive breast cancer]

As most solid tumors, surgery is often the first step of the multidisciplinary management for breast cancers. Although mastectomy and axillar lymphadenectomy still have indications, conservative treatment and sentinel node detection are commonly used. Thanks to induction chemotherapy and oncoplastic techniques, surgery is conservative in most cases, even for important tumors without overall survival prejudice. There is no consensus about resection margins status but a limit of 2 to 3 mm seems to be reasonable while oncoplastic surgery allows large resection and good cosmetic outcomes. In this overview, we present the state of the art for breast cancer surgery including conservative and radical treatments, axillar lymphadenectomy and sentinel lymph node detection, margins status, oncoplastic techniques.

Case mix at the European Institute of Oncology: first report of the Tumour Registry, 2000-2002

Introduction:

An institutional and centralized hospital-based tumour registry (TR) is the ideal supporting tool for the organization and management of clinical data in a comprehensive cancer centre. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of the TR at the European Institute of Oncology (IEO), Milan, Italy, from its origin to its current applications.

Material and methods:

After a series of meetings with members of administrative, clinical, research and informatics departments, the TR was activated in March 2006 with the aim of collecting data on all the individuals referred to the institute, with or at risk of developing a tumour. It was implemented on an Oracle™-based interface. A minimum dataset of variables was defined and data collection was divided into four forms, which together gather all the relevant data on patients, tumours, treatments and subsequent events.

Results:

After a six-month pilot period, which involved the training of the tumour registrars, adjustments to the structure of the registry, development of a data quality control procedure and finalization of the operative protocol, since September 2006 the data collection has been fully operative. Five registrars have been chronologically entering data of all individuals who visited the IEO for the first time since 1 January 2000. As of March 2009, data on 69,637 individuals and 43,567 tumours has been reviewed, recoded and registered in the TR. Twenty-two per cent of the tumours (n=9578) were first invasive primaries, diagnosed and treated in the IEO; the most common sites were breast (n=4972), lung (n=627), intestines (n=479) and prostate (n=376).

Conclusion:

The IEO TR has been proven functional and reliable in monitoring the activity of the hospital, allowing extraction of data from any subpopulation with characteristics of interest. The structured and centralized TR represents an important tool for our research-oriented institution.