Follow-up and salvage therapy for the conservatively treated breast cancer patient

Prognostic indicators following ipsilateral tumor recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy

BACKGROUND

We attempt to determine significant predictors of systemic recurrence following ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR).

METHODS

A retrospective single-institution chart review of all newly diagnosed breast cancer patients was conducted to identify women treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) who developed IBTR. Charts were reviewed for demographics, clinical presentation, method of detection, stage, type of therapy, histopathology, and margin status for both the primary and recurrent tumors.

RESULTS

Of 1,733 patients who were treated with BCT, 157 experienced IBTR. Multivariate Cox regression showed that time to recurrence and method of detection of local recurrence remained significant predictors of distant metastases-free survival (DMFS). Median DMFS times for clinically and radiographically detected IBTRs were 54 months and 231 months, respectively. Adjusted relative risk for clinically detected IBTRs was 2.2.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the prognostic significance of post-treatment mammography in our study, combined with median time to recurrence of 44 months, we believe that routine long-term mammographic surveillance is indicated following BCT.

A cosmetic evaluation of breast cancer treatment: A randomized study of radiotherapy boost technique

PURPOSE

To compare cosmetic results of two different radiotherapy (RT) boost techniques used in the treatment of breast cancer after whole breast radiotherapy and to identify factors affecting cosmetic outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 1996 and 1998, 142 patients with Stage I and II breast cancer were treated with breast conservative surgery and adjuvant RT. Patients were then randomly assigned to receive a boost dose of 15 Gy delivered to the tumor bed either by iridium 192, or a combination of photons and electrons. Cosmetic evaluations were done on a 6-month basis, with a final evaluation at 36 months after RT. The evaluations were done using a panel of global and specific subjective scores, a digitized scoring system using the breast retraction assessment (BRA) measurement, and a patient's self-assessment evaluation. As cosmetic results were graded according to severity, the comparison of boost techniques was done using the ordinal logistic regression model. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) are presented.

RESULTS

At 36 months of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the global subjective cosmetic outcome (OR = 1.40; 95%CI = 0.69-2.85, p = 0.35). Good to excellent scores were observed in 65% of implant patients and 62% of photon/electron patients. At 24 months and beyond, telangiectasia was more severe in the implant group with an OR of 9.64 (95%CI = 4.05-22.92, p < 0.0001) at 36 months. The only variable associated with a worse global cosmetic outcome was the presence of concomitant chemotherapy (OR = 3.87; 95%CI = 1.74-8.62). The BRA value once adjusted for age, concomitant chemotherapy, and boost volume showed a positive association with the boost technique. The BRA value was significantly greater in the implant group (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the patient's final self-assessment score between the two groups. Three variables were statistically associated with an adverse self-evaluation: an inferior quadrant tumor localization, postoperative hematoma, and concomitant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this trial showed that at 36 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences in the overall global cosmetic scores between the implant boost group and the photon/electron boost group, telangiectasia was more severe and the BRA value was greater in the implant group.