Local Relapse After Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Mastectomy for Extensive Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ≥4 cm

Long-term follow-up of complex oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery, standard breast conservation and skin-sparing mastectomy in DCIS - a register-based study

BACKGROUND

Few studies evaluate oncological safety in complex oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery(C-OBCS) for DCIS. It still needs to be defined whether it is equivalent to standard breast conservation(S-BCS) or an alternative to skin-sparing mastectomy(SSM). This study compares local recurrence rates(LR), disease-free survival(DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the three surgical techniques.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective register-based study on LR, DFS and OS of patients operated with S-BCS(n=1388), C-OBCS (n=106) or skin-sparing mastectomy (n=218) for DCIS diagnosed 2007-2020. Data was extracted from the Norwegian Breast Cancer Registry.

RESULTS

In the S-BCS, C-OBCS and SSM groups, median age was 60, 58 and 51 years (p<0.001), median size 15, 25, and 40 mm (p<0.001) and median follow-up 55, 48 and 76 months. At ten years, the overall LR was 12.7%, 14.3% for S-BCS, 11.2% for C-OBCS and 6.8% for SSM. Overall DFS at ten years was 82.3%, 80.5% for S-BCS, 82.4% for C-OBCS and 90.4% for SSM. At ten years, the OS was 93.8%, 93.0% in S-BCS, 93.3% in C-OBCS and 96.6% in the SSM group. Weighted Kaplan Meier plots showed that SSM had a significantly higher DFS than S-BCS (p=0.003) and C-OBCS (p=0.029). DFS in C-OBCS versus S-BCS and the difference in OS was not significant (p=0.264).

CONCLUSION

SSM had a significantly higher DFS than S-BCS and C-OBCS. The difference in DFS between S-BCS and C-OBCS, and OS between the three groups was not statistically significant. Our study suggests that C-OBCS is a safe alternative to S-BCS and SSM.

Long-term outcomes of women with large DCIS lesions treated with breast-conserving therapy

PURPOSE

The paucity of data on women with large (≥ 40 mm) DCIS tumors lead to uncertainty on the safety of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for these patients. We evaluated the impact of large tumor size on local recurrence (LR) among women with DCIS treated with BCS ± radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

Treatment and outcomes were ascertained through administrative databases for all women with DCIS in Ontario from 1994 to 2003 treated with BCS ± RT with negative margins; 82% had pathology review. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the impact of tumor size on LR. 10- and 15-year LR-free survival (LRFS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The cohort includes 2049 women treated by BCS (N = 1073 with RT). Median follow-up is 14 years (IQR 9-17 years). Referenced to tumors ≤ 10 mm, the risk of LR following BCS was significantly higher for larger tumors: HR ≥ 40 mm = 3.67 (95% CI 2.13, 6.33; p < 0.001), HR 26-39 mm = 2.27 (95% CI 1.47, 3.50, p < 0.001), and HR 11-25 mm = 1.42 (95% CI 1.06, 1.92, p = 0.02). However, for individuals with BCS + RT, large tumor size was not associated with a significantly increased risk of LR (HR ≥ 40 mm = 1.92 (95% CI 0.97, 3.79); HR 26-39 mm = 1.81 (95% CI 1.09-2.99)). For women with tumors ≥ 40 mm, 10-year LRFS risk for those treated by BCS alone, BCS + RT without boost, and BCS + RT with boost was 58.9%, 82.8%, and 83.9%.

CONCLUSION

Large DCIS lesions ≥ 40 mm are associated with higher risks of LR following BCS, but high long-term LRFS rates can be achieved with the addition of breast RT.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of ZrC Nanoparticle in Combined Photothermal and Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Because of the difficulty in treating triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the search for treatments has never stopped. Treatment opinions remain limited for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The current treatment approach of using photothermal therapy (PTT) is often imprecise and has limited penetration below the surface of the skin. On the other hand, radiation therapy (RT) has its unavoidable disadvantages, such as side effects or ineffectiveness against hypoxic tumor microenvironment (TME). In this study, we proposed the use of ZrC nanoparticles in conjunction with RT/PTT to enhance antitumor and antimetastatic effect. We modified the ZrC nanoparticle with bovine serum albumin (BSA) and folic acid (FA), sizing desirable about 100nm. The photothermal conversion efficiency was calculated to be 40.51% and sensitizer enhancement ration (SER) was 1.8. With addition of ZrC NPs, more DNA were damaged in γ-H2AX and more ROS were detected with immunofluorescence. In vitro and vivo, the combined therapy with ZrC NPS showed the best effect of tumor cell inhibition and safety. Our results provide evidence that the combination of ZrC NPs, PT, and RT is effective in of TNBC, making it a great potential application for cancer therapy in clinic.

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.

Measurements using mammography and ultrasonography underestimate the size of high-volume ductal carcinoma in situ

BACKGROUND

Surgical decisions for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are based on lesion sizes. This study aims to determine the accuracy of pre-operative imaging in estimating the size of DCIS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of clinicopathologic data of patients treated for DCIS with breast conserving surgery (BCS) between 2012 and 2018. Mammographic and sonographic lesion sizes were compared with final pathology sizes.

RESULTS

For the 152 lesions visible on mammography, mean size on imaging was significantly smaller when compared to final pathology (2.3 vs. 3.6 cm, p < 0.001). The mean difference of 1.3 cm was a significant underestimation with a correlation coefficient of 0.367 (p < 0.001). For 48 sonographically visible lesions, the radiologic size was significantly smaller than pathologic size (1.7 vs. 4.1 cm, p < 0.001), but the degree of underestimation was not significantly correlated (p = 0.379).

CONCLUSION

DCIS size was significantly underestimated by imaging. This must be taken into consideration during surgical planning.

[Overall survival and survival without local recurrence in case of radiotherapy of the tumor bed of ductal carcinomas in situ of the breast: Review of the literature]

INTRODUCTION

Carcinomas in situ represent more than 15 to 20% of breast cancers. Radiotherapy of whole breast is part of the therapeutic standard and follows surgery. However, the indication of tumor bed irradiation is still controversial and heterogeneous according to international practice even though it is a very frequent clinical situation. The aim of this study is to define the indications of tumor bed irradiation in the context of ductal carcinomas in situ and to discuss accelerated partial irradiation of the breast.

METHOD

The selected papers were published between 2015 and 2020 and included as MeSH terms "ductal carcinoma in situ" and "boost" for the analysis of tumor bed irradiation, and "ductal carcinoma in situ" and "accelerated partial breast irradiation" for the analysis of accelerated partial irradiation.

RESULTS

Boost was more often performed when risk factors for local recurrence were present, such as age less than 40 or 50 years old, clinical mode of detection, tumor size greater than 15 to 20mm, high nuclear grade, presence of necrosis, positive or insufficient surgical margins, associated atypical hyperplastic lesions, and lobular carcinoma in situ. Accelerated partial irradiation is an option for favorable or intermediate prognosis CCIS, further studies involving more patients are required.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy of the mammary gland in the context of DCIS has shown its effectiveness in terms of local and locoregional control of the disease, thus reducing in situ and infiltrating recurrences. However, the indication of operating bed irradiation is still debated, and the practice is very heterogeneous depending on the country. Another possible alternative for patients with a favorable prognosis and a small tumor bed volume would be IPA.