Resection margins and local recurrences in breast cancer: Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic breast conserving surgery

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes after oncoplastic vs conventional breast-conserving surgery-a longitudinal, multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is becoming increasingly popular to avoid mastectomy or optimize cosmetic outcomes of breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Few studies have compared clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of OP-BCS to conventional BCS (C-BCS). This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and short- and long-term PROs after OP-BCS and C-BCS in a large prospective breast cancer cohort.

METHODS

Women in the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA (Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion) breast cancer cohort who underwent OP-BCS or C-BCS were included. Clinical outcomes and PROs (measured by EORTC QLQ-C30/BR23) up to 24 months postoperatively were evaluated. Mixed-model analysis was performed to assess differences in PROs over time between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1628 (84.9%) patients received C-BCS and 290 (15.1%) received OP-BCS. After C-BCS and OP-BCS, free resection margins were obtained in 84.2% (n = 1370) and 86.2% (n = 250), respectively, reoperation for re-excision of margins within 3 months occurred in 5.3% (n = 86) and 4.8% (n = 14), and the median time interval from surgery until adjuvant systemic therapy was 66 and 63 days, and 36 and 41 days until radiotherapy. Shortly postoperative, OP-BCS was associated with statistically significant lower mean scores for physical functioning (83.6 vs 87.2) and body image (82.8 vs 89.4) and more pain (19.8 vs 26.5) and breast symptoms (22.7 vs 30.3) than C-BCS. Body image scores remained statistically significantly less favorable after OP-BSC than C-BCS up to 24 months postoperatively (87.8 vs 92.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncoplastic surgery safely enables BCS but may lead to less favorable long-term body image compared to C-BCS. These findings are important for patient education and shared decision-making.

Enhancing breast cancer surgery outcomes: A comprehensive review of oncoplastic techniques, surgical planning, and aesthetic considerations

Breast cancer is one of the most common types of cancer among women in Western countries. Historically treated with radical and modified radical surgeries, breast cancer is now primarily managed with breast-conserving surgery combined with postsurgical radiotherapy. Oncoplastic breast surgery, a technique that integrates aesthetic breast reduction methods with cancer surgery, has been developed as a tumor-specific approach to facilitate breast conservation while removing the tumor. This method allows for higher excision volumes with minimal aesthetic compromise. The main components of oncoplastic surgery are volume displacement and volume replacement techniques. This review discusses the essential role of oncoplastic techniques in breast-conserving surgery (BCS), which has evolved into the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer. Understanding these techniques is critical for all breast surgeons to optimize both aesthetic and oncologic outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: An updated meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women. The surgical treatment of breast cancer has transitioned progressively from radical mastectomy to breast-conserving surgery. In this meta-analysis, we are aiming to compare oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OS) with conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrial.gov, and CNKI until April 30, 2024. Data from cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcomes included primary outcomes (re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, mastectomy), secondary outcomes and safety outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of outcomes.

RESULTS

Our study included 52 studies containing 46,835 patients. Primary outcomes comprise re-excision, local recurrence, positive surgical margin, and mastectomy, there were significant differences favoring OS over BCS (RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82], RR 0.62 [0.47, 0.82], RR 0.76 [0.59, 0.98], RR 0.66 [0.44, 0.98] respectively), indicating superior efficacy of OS. Additionally, OS demonstrated significant aesthetic benefits (RR 1.17 [1.03, 1.33] and RR 1.34 [1.18, 1.52]). While total complications were significantly fewer in the OS group (RR 0.70 [0.53, 0.94]), the differences in specific complications were not significant. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on nationality, sample size, quality, and type.

CONCLUSION

OS demonstrates either superior or at least comparable outcomes across various aspects when compared to BCS.

Impact of Oncoplastic Surgery on Oncologic Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer

Background

For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery (OPS) serves as a valuable technique that allows for immediate reconstruction at the time of resection. While the aim of OPS is to improve breast cosmesis, it is critical to ensure OPS does not negatively impact appropriate cancer treatment.

Methods

Based on current literature, this study provides a broad overview on the potential oncologic advantages of OPS for patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

Results

OPS has been shown to be a safe and reliable approach with oncologic advantages. More specifically, OPS broadens the indications for breast conservation therapy (BCT); allows for a more generous margin of resection, thus decreasing rates of re-excision; and provides the opportunity to sample additional breast tissue, which may detect occult disease. Reduction mammaplasty may also decrease the risk for developing breast cancer. Importantly, in the era of multimodality therapy, long-term oncologic outcomes and postoperative surveillance algorithms appear to be similar when comparing patients who undergo OPS and BCT.

Conclusions

For patients with breast cancer, oncoplastic surgery has emerged as a valuable technique to improve breast cosmesis while achieving optimal oncologic outcomes. As the landscape of breast oncology continues to evolve, it is critical for a multidisciplinary team to be involved to guide management and reconstructive strategies.

Sometimes it is better to just make it simple. De-escalation of oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures

Simple breast conservation surgery (sBCS) has technically advanced onto oncoplastic breast procedures (OBP) to avoid mastectomy and improve breast cancer patients' psychosocial well-being and cosmetic outcome. Although OBP are time-consuming and expensive, we are witnessing an increase in their use, even for cases that could be managed with sBCS. The choice between keeping it simple or opting for more complex oncoplastic procedures is difficult. This review proposes a pragmatic approach in assisting this decision. Medical literature suggests that OBP and sBCS might be similar regarding local recurrence and overall survival, and patients seem to have higher satisfaction levels with the aesthetic outcome of OBP when compared to sBCS. However, the lack of comprehensive high-quality research assessing their safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes hinders these supposed conclusions. Postoperative complications after OBP may delay the initiation of adjuvant RT. In addition, precise displacement of the breast volume is not effectively recorded despite surgical clips placement, making accurate dose delivery tricky for radiation oncologists, and WBRT preferable to APBI in complex OBP cases. With a critical eye on financial toxicity, patient satisfaction, and oncological outcomes, OBP must be carefully integrated into clinical practice. The thoughtful provision of informed consent is essential for decision-making between sBCS and OBP. As we look into the future, machine learning and artificial intelligence can potentially help patients and doctors avoid postoperative regrets by setting realistic aesthetic expectations.

Oncoplastic versus conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 6941 female patients

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women. In the past few years, surgical interventions for breast cancer have experienced massive changes from radical excision to conserving approaches. In this study, we aim to compare the two breast surgery interventions, including conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS).

METHODS

We searched on PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane till 2 October 2021. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4).

RESULTS

The pooled meta-analysis of the included studies showed that OPBCS was significantly superior to CBCS in most of the outcomes. Re-excision significantly favoured CBCS (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.37, 0.63], P < 0.00001). However, local recurrence (RR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.27, 1.09], P = 0.09), close surgical margins (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.14, 1.00], P = 0.05) and end up to the risk of mastectomy (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.54, 97], P = 0.06) showed no significant difference between both techniques. Notably, while performing a sensitivity analysis, other outcomes as local recurrence, significantly showed favourable results towards OPBCS. In terms of safety outcomes, there was no significant difference between OPBCS and CBCS.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the oncoplastic approach rather than the conventional one in females with breast cancer. Re-excision rates showed better results following OPBCS.

Physicians' perception about the impact of breast reconstruction on patient prognosis: a survey in Japan

BACKGROUND

One barrier to the widespread use of breast reconstruction (BR) is physicians' perception that BR adversely affects breast cancer prognosis. However, there is limited information regarding physicians' understanding of the impact of BR on patient prognosis and which physicians have misunderstandings about BR.

METHODS

We conducted an e-mail survey regarding the impact of BR on the prognosis of patients with breast cancer among members of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society.

RESULTS

Of 369 respondents, 99 (27%) said that they believe BR affects patient prognosis. Female respondents and those who treat fewer new breast cancer patients per year were more likely to state that they believe BR affects patient prognosis (P = 0.006 and 0.007). Respondents who believed that BR affects patient prognosis underestimated 5-year overall survival rates in patients who receive BR and subsequently have local or regional recurrence in different sites.

CONCLUSION

Our survey demonstrated that a quarter of respondents believe that BR affects patient prognosis and underestimate survival rates in patients who receive BR and have subsequent local or regional recurrence. Because of the lack of evidence regarding the impact of BR on patient prognosis, educating physicians by providing accurate knowledge regarding BR and patient prognosis is highly recommended.

Outcomes of Margin Reexcision after Oncoplastic Breast Reduction

Tissue rearrangement after an oncoplastic breast reduction may complicate identification of margins during reexcision. Little is known about outcomes of reoperation in this setting.

The iTOP trial: Comparing immediate techniques of oncoplastic surgery with conventional breast surgery in women with breast cance - A prospective, controlled, single-center study

INTRODUCTION

Oncoplastic techniques allow resection of larger tumors, permitting breast conservation in cases otherwise requiring mastectomy. We sought to prospectively compare quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing oncoplastic surgery as compared to conventional breast conservation (CBC) or mastectomy is lacking.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with BIRADS IV-VI lesion were eligible if resection of ≥10% of the breast volume was planned. Patients were allowed to decide whether they wanted to undergo CBC or oncoplastic breast conservation (OBC). Patients who underwent mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) were also included for comparison. The primary endpoint was breast self-esteem using the Breast Image Scale (BIS) at 12 months, secondary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and QoL using the BREAST-Q questionnaire.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2016, 205 patients were included in the study. 116 patients (56.6%) received CBC, 46 (22.4%) OBC and 43 (21%) MIBR. Women in the OBC group were more likely to have tumors ≥ 2cm than those in the CBC group (34.7% vs. 17.5%, respectively). Women who underwent MIBR were more likely to have tumors > 5cm than those in the CBC and OBC groups (23% vs 1% and 10%, respectively). The BIS and BREAST-Q improved in each group after 12 months but did not differ significantly between groups at any time point. Surgical complications (seroma, bleeding, infection, necrosis) were numerically more likely in the OBC and MIBR groups.

CONCLUSION

OBC and the MIBR allow for resection of larger tumors with a similar quality of life as CBC.

The Tumor Plastic Surgery Technology versus Traditional Repair Technology on the Repair of Large-Area Skin Defects after Maxillofacial Tumor Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To explore the effect of tumor plastic surgery on the repair of large-area skin defects after maxillofacial tumor resection.

Methods

90 patients undergoing maxillofacial tumor resection in our hospital from March 2019 to March 2020 were selected and randomized 1 : 1 to receive either tumor plastic surgery (experimental group) or traditional repair (control group). The clinical efficacy and facial cosmetic improvement of the two groups were compared. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) was used to evaluate the surgical outcomes of the two groups, the Profile of Mood States (POMS) was used to evaluate the patients' psychological status, and the Generic Quality of Life Inventory-74 (GQOLI-74) was used to assess the quality of life of patients.

Results

Total clinical effective rate of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (p < 0.001). A higher excellent rate of facial cosmetic improvement was observed in the experimental group versus the control group (p < 0.001). Significantly lower POSAS scores of the experimental group than the control group were observed (p < 0.001). The POMS scores of the experimental group after treatment were lower than those of the control group (p < 0.001). Tumor plastic surgery resulted in a remarkably higher GQOLI-74 score in the patients versus traditional repair (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Tumor plastic surgery is a promising alternative for patients undergoing maxillofacial tumor resection. It can effectively promote the recovery of facial morphology and physiological function of patients, with high clinical efficacy, so it merits promotion and application.

Innovative Standards in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: From Radical Mastectomy to Extreme Oncoplasty

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS), which is the current procedure of choice for eligible BC patients, describes a philosophy that prioritizes oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. However, knowledge gaps regarding training, acceptance, and practice preclude standardization and make it difficult to design algorithmic guidelines to optimize individualized management in the era of precision medicine.

SUMMARY

The harmony between patient expectations and oncologic goals creates the state of the art of OBCS. Nevertheless, to achieve these goals, multidisciplinary approach is a must. Surgical decisions require a comprehensive evaluation including patient factors, tumor biology, genetics, technical considerations, and adjunct therapies. Moreover, the quality-of-life (QOL) issues should be considered as the highest level of priority with a shared decision making instituted on realistic discussions with the patient.

KEY MESSAGES

The standardization in OBCS should be initiated via defining a breast surgeon who should gain theorical and practical competence on techniques via national or international educational programs. The algorithmic patient assessment with appropriate documentation before and after surgery should be established. A simple and safe global lexicon should be designed regarding techniques to be proposed and quality metrics to be considered. Additionally, international multicenter prospective trials should be instituted to overcome knowledge gaps. It is evident that OBCS is the perfect union of science with art. Nevertheless, at the very end, the question is not the nature of the surgeon/artist who would be the extremist, the innovator, or the conservative, but the patient's satisfaction, prognosis, and QOL that conclude the cascade of state of the art of OBCS.

Comparing Outcomes after Oncoplastic Breast Reduction and Breast Reduction for Benign Macromastia

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that oncoplastic breast reconstruction following partial mastectomy with concurrent symmetrizing breast reduction improves cosmetic outcomes when compared to standard breast conservation therapy alone. The authors studied whether tailoring a breast reduction to a cancer resection has an effect on complication rates by comparing (1) outcomes between oncoplastic breast reduction patients and breast reduction for benign macromastia patients and (2) complication rates between the cancer side and the symmetrizing side of an oncoplastic reduction.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on female patients who underwent either oncoplastic breast reduction or bilateral breast reduction for benign macromastia between January of 2010 and October of 2018 performed by a single surgeon. Patient demographics, intraoperative data including operative approach, and postoperative outcomes were gathered from the electronic medical record and coded into a database. Specific outcomes tracked included surgical-site infection, hematoma, seroma, prolonged wound healing, nipple loss, loss of nipple sensation, fat necrosis, and revision. Chi-square and t tests were performed when appropriate to determine significance.

RESULTS

Of the 211 patients included in the study, 62 (29.4 percent) underwent oncoplastic breast reduction and 149 (70.6 percent) underwent breast reduction for benign macromastia. Mean age was significantly greater in the oncoplastic group (51.9 years versus 39.8 years; p = 0.00), as were the rate of diabetes (16.4 percent versus 6.1 percent; p = 0.02) and length of anesthesia (265 minutes versus 216 minutes; p = 0.00). Total resection weight was greater in the benign group (1623 g versus 1096 g; p = 0.00). There was a higher rate of loss of nipple sensation in the oncoplastic group (chi-square, 10.6; p = 0.005) but no differences in reoperation/readmission rate, revision surgery, hematoma, seroma, surgical-site infection, or fat necrosis. There was a significantly higher complication rate in the oncologic breast when compared to the symmetrizing breast within the oncoplastic cohort (19.4 percent versus 6.5 percent; p = 0.039), but no significant differences in the rates of individual complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the loss of nipple sensation was increased in patients undergoing oncoplastic breast reduction, all other outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. The authors' findings indicate that oncoplastic breast reduction can be performed with a safety profile similar to that of a standard breast reduction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Tumor margins that lead to reoperation in breast cancer: A retrospective register study of 4,489 patients

Background and Objectives

Optimal margins for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remain controversial in breast‐conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy. We examine the association of positive margins, reoperations, DCIS and age.

Methods

A retrospective study of histopathological reports (4489 patients). Margin positivity was defined as ink on tumor for invasive carcinoma. For DCIS, we applied 2 mm anterior and side margin thresholds, and ink on tumor in the posterior margin.

Results

The incidence of positive side margins was 20% in BCS and 5% in mastectomies (p < 0.001). Of these patients, 68% and 14% underwent a reoperation (p < 0.001). After a positive side margin in BCS, the reoperation rates according to age groups were 74% (<49), 69% (50–64), 68% (65–79), and 42% (80+) (p = 0.013). Of BCS patients with invasive carcinoma in the side margin, 73% were reoperated on. A reoperation was performed in 70% of patients with a close (≤1 mm) DCIS side margin, compared to 43% with a wider (1.1–2 mm) margin (p = 0.002). The reoperation rates were 55% in invasive carcinoma with close DCIS, 66% in close extensive intraductal component (EIC), and 83% in close pure DCIS (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Individual assessment as opposed to rigid adherence to guidelines was used in the decision on reoperation.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of published evidence on the safety and efficacy of O-BCS for the treatment of breast cancer compared to other surgical options for breast cancer is still debatable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rate is similar to standard breast-conserving surgery (S-BCS) and also mastectomy, but the aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes may be improved with oncoplastic techniques.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess oncological control outcomes following O-BCS compared with other surgical options for women with breast cancer. Our secondary objective was to assess surgical complications, recall rates, need for further surgery to achieve adequate oncological resection, patient satisfaction through patient-reported outcomes, and cosmetic outcomes through objective measures or clinician-reported outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 August 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated any O-BCS technique, including volume displacement techniques and partial breast volume replacement techniques compared to any other surgical treatment (partial resection or mastectomy) for the treatment of breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We used ROBINS-I to assess the risk of bias by outcome. We performed descriptive data analysis and meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. The outcomes included local recurrence, breast cancer-specific disease-free survival, re-excision rates, complications, recall rates, and patient-reported outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 non-randomised cohort studies evaluating 178,813 women. Overall, we assessed the risk of bias per outcome as being at serious risk of bias due to confounding; where studies adjusted for confounding, we deemed these at moderate risk. Comparison 1: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus standard-BCS (S-BCS) The evidence in the review found that O-BCS when compared to S-BCS, may make little or no difference to local recurrence; either when measured as local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.34; 4 studies, 7600 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or local recurrence rate (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.83; 4 studies, 2433 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain due to most studies not controlling for confounding clinicopathological factors. O-BCS compared to S-BCS may make little to no difference to disease-free survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26; 7 studies, 5532 participants; low-certainty evidence). O-BCS may reduce the rate of re-excisions needed for oncological resection (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; 38 studies, 13,341 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may increase the number of women who have at least one complication (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; 20 studies, 118,005 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and increase the recall to biopsy rate (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.42; 6 studies, 715 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing patient-reported outcomes or cosmetic evaluation; in general, O-BCS reported a similar or more favourable result, however, the evidence is very uncertain due to risk of bias in the measurement methods. Comparison 2: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy alone O-BCS may increase local recurrence-free survival compared to mastectomy but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; 2 studies, 4713 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of O-BCS on disease-free survival as there were only data from one study. O-BCS may reduce complications compared to mastectomy, but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias mainly resulting from confounding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 4 studies, 4839 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data on patient-reported outcome measures came from single studies; it was not possible to meta-analyse the data. Comparison 3: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction O-BCS may make little or no difference to local recurrence-free survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.62; 1 study, 3785 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or disease-free survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.22; 1 study, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to mastectomy with reconstruction, but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may reduce the complication rate compared to mastectomy with reconstruction (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; 5 studies, 4973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias from confounding and inconsistency of results. The evidence is very uncertain for patient-reported outcome measures and cosmetic evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain regarding oncological outcomes following O-BCS compared to S-BCS, though O-BCS has not been shown to be inferior. O-BCS may result in less need for a second re-excision surgery but may result in more complications and a greater recall rate than S-BCS. It seems that O-BCS may give better patient satisfaction and surgeon rating for the look of the breast, but the evidence for this is of poor quality, and due to lack of numerical data, it was not possible to pool the results of different studies. It seems O-BCS results in fewer complications compared with surgeries involving mastectomy. Based on this review, no certain conclusions can be made to help inform policymakers. The surgical decision for what operation to proceed with should be made jointly between clinician and patient after an appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of O-BCS personalised to the patient, taking into account clinicopathological factors. This review highlighted the deficiency of well-conducted studies to evaluate efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes following O-BCS.

Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis Comparing Conventional with Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Oncological and Surgical Outcomes in Women with High-Risk Breast Cancer from the OPBC-01/iTOP2 Study

Introduction

Recent data suggest that margins ≥2 mm after breast-conserving surgery may improve local control in invasive breast cancer (BC). By allowing large resection volumes, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCII; Clough level II/Tübingen 5-6) may achieve better local control than conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS; Tübingen 1-2) or oncoplastic breast conservation with low resection volumes (OBCI; Clough level I/Tübingen 3-4).

Methods

Data from consecutive high-risk BC patients treated in 15 centers from the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) network, between January 2010 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

A total of 3,177 women were included, 30% of whom were treated with OBC (OBCI n = 663; OBCII n = 297). The BCS/OBCI group had significantly smaller tumors and smaller resection margins compared with OBCII (pT1: 50% vs. 37%, p = 0.002; proportion with margin <1 mm: 17% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). There were significantly more re-excisions due to R1 (“ink on tumor”) in the BCS/OBCI compared with the OBCII group (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.049). Univariate and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for tumor biology, tumor size, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment demonstrated no differences in local, regional, or distant recurrence-free or overall survival between the two groups.

Conclusions

Large resection volumes in oncoplastic surgery increases the distance from cancer cells to the margin of the specimen and reduces reexcision rates significantly. With OBCII larger tumors are resected with similar local, regional and distant recurrence-free as well as overall survival rates as BCS/OBCI.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10809-1.

Recurrence and survival after standard versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer

Background

Oncoplastic techniques in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are used increasingly for larger tumours. This large cohort study aimed to assess oncological outcomes after oncoplastic BCS (OPS) versus standard BCS.

Methods

Data for all women who had BCS in three centres in Stockholm during 2010–2016 were extracted from the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register. All patients with T2–3 tumours, all those receiving neoadjuvant treatment, and an additional random sample of women with T1 tumours were selected. Medical charts were reviewed for local recurrences and surgical technique according to the Hoffman–Wallwiener classification. Date and cause of death were retrieved from the Swedish Cause of Death Register.

Results

The final cohort of 4178 breast cancers in 4135 patients was categorized into three groups according to surgical technique: 3720 for standard BCS, 243 simple OPS, and 215 complex OPS. Median duration of follow up was 64 (range 24–110) months. Node-positive and large tumours were more common in OPS than in standard BCS (P < 0.001). There were 61 local recurrences: 57 (1.5 per cent), 1 (0.4 per cent) and 3 (1.4 per cent) in the standard BCS, simple OPS and complex OPS groups respectively (P = 0.368). Overall, 297 patients died, with an unadjusted 5-year overall survival rate of 94.7, 93.1 and 92.6 per cent respectively (P = 0.350). Some 102 deaths were from breast cancer, with unadjusted 5-year cancer-specific survival rates of 97.9, 98.3 and 95.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.056).

Discussion

Oncoplastic BCS is a safe surgical option, even for larger node-positive tumours, with low recurrence and excellent survival rates.

Folic Acid-Functionalized Composite Scaffolds of Gelatin and Gold Nanoparticles for Photothermal Ablation of Breast Cancer Cells

Photothermal therapy (PTT) has been developed as a useful therapeutic method for cancer treatment. Localization of PTT agents in cancer sites and targeting capacity are required to further increase therapeutic efficacy. In this study, gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and gelatin were functionalized with folic acid (FA) and hybridized to prepare FA-functionalized gelatin-AuNPs composite scaffolds. AuNPs with rod and star shapes of three sizes (40, 70, and 110 nm) were used for the hybridization to investigate the influence of AuNPs shape and size. The composite scaffolds showed porous structures with good interconnectivity. Modification with FA increased capture capacity of the composite scaffolds. Hybridization with AuNPs rendered the composite scaffold a good photothermal conversion property under near-infrared (NIR) laser irradiation. Temperature change during laser irradiation increased with the laser power intensity and irradiation time. The shape and size of AuNPs also affected their photothermal conversion property. The composite scaffold of gold nanorods 70 (FA-G/R70) had the highest photothermal conversion capacity. Breast cancer cells cultured in the FA-G/R70 composite scaffold were killed under NIR laser irradiation. Mouse subcutaneous implantation further demonstrated the excellent photothermal ablation capability of FA-G/R70 composite scaffold to breast cancer cells. The FA-functionalized composite scaffolds were demonstrated a high potential for local PPT of breast cancer.

Rates of re-excision and conversion to mastectomy after breast-conserving surgery with or without oncoplastic surgery: a nationwide population-based study

Background

There is no consensus regarding the impact of oncoplastic surgery (OPS) on rates of re‐excision and conversion to mastectomy following breast‐conserving surgery (BCS). Here these two outcomes after BCS and OPS were compared in a nationwide population‐based setting.

Methods

In Denmark, all OPS is registered and categorized into volume displacement, volume reduction or volume replacement. Patients who underwent BCS or OPS between 2012 and 2018 were selected from the Danish Breast Cancer Group database. Multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for confounders, and propensity score matching to limit potential confounding by indication bias.

Results

A total of 13 185 patients (72·5 per cent) underwent BCS and 5003 (27·5 per cent) OPS. Volume displacement was used in 4171 patients (83·4 per cent), volume reduction in 679 (13·6 per cent) and volume replacement in 153 (3·1 per cent). Re‐excision rates were 15·6 and 14·1 per cent after BCS and OPS respectively. After adjusting for confounders, patients were less likely to have a re‐excision following OPS than BCS (odds ratio (OR) 0·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·72 to 0·88), specifically after volume displacement and reduction. The rate of conversion to mastectomy was similar after OPS and BCS (3·2 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·105), but with a lower risk in adjusted analysis (OR 0·69, 0·58 to 0·84), specifically after volume displacement and reduction procedures. Findings were similar after propensity score matching.

Conclusion

A modest decrease in re‐excision rate and less frequent conversion to mastectomy were observed after OPS compared with BCS.

Factors influencing the time to surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

It is suspected that delayed surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) leads to a worse outcome in breast cancer patients. We therefore evaluated possible influencing factors of the time interval between the end of NACT and surgery.

METHODS

All patients receiving NACT due to newly diagnosed breast cancer from 2015 to 2017 at the Department of Gynecology, Saarland University Medical Center, were included. The time interval between end of NACT and surgery was defined as primary endpoint. Possible delaying factors were investigated: age, study participation, outpatient and inpatient presentations, implants/expander, MRI preoperatively, discontinuation of chemotherapy, and genetic mutations.

RESULTS

Data of 139 patients was analyzed. Median age was 53 years (22-78). The time interval between end of NACT and surgery was 28 days (9-57). Additional clinical presentations on outpatient basis added 2 days (p = 0.002) and on inpatient basis added 7 days to time to surgery (p < 0.001). Discontinuation of NACT due to chemotherapy side effects prolonged time to surgery by 8 days (p < 0.001), whereas discontinuation due to disease progress did not delay surgery (p = 0.6). In contrast, a proven genetic mutation shortened time to surgery by 7 days (p < 0.001). Patient's age, participation in clinical studies, oncoplastic surgery, and preoperative MRI scans did not delay surgery.

CONCLUSION

Breast care centers should emphasize a reduction of clinical presentations and a good control of chemotherapy side effects for breast cancer patients to avoid delays of surgery after NACT.