Surgical management of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence

Do we need reshape rTNM staging system for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence of breast cancer? A population-based, propensity score matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to explore the role of recurrent TNM (rTNM) staging in predicting prognosis for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and determine the optimal treatment strategy for IBTR.

METHOD

IBTR cases were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database spanning the years 2000-2018. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to examine factors associated with overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to match IBTR with primary early breast cancer (EBC) based on clinicopathological characteristics. Investigations into the impact of different therapies were also included.

RESULTS

Of the 4375 IBTR cases included in the study, the 5-year OS was 87.1%, 71.6% and 58.7% in rTNM stages I, II and III, respectively. After PSM, while IBTR patients had worse survival to primary EBC patients, prognosis of IBTR for different rTNM stage always closely aligned with the corresponding stage of primary EBC. Repeat breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radiation therapy was equivalent to mastectomy with respect to OS and BCSS. Chemotherapy was favorable for OS and BCSS in estrogen receptor (ER)-negative IBTR or IBTR occurring within a 60-month interval.

CONCLUSIONS

rTNM staging system has an outstanding prognostic value for survival outcome of patients with IBTR, and IBTR and primary EBC may have potentially analogous features in the context of TNM staging. BCS plus radiation therapy may be an alternative. IBTR cases who have experienced recurrence with short intervals and with ER-negative tumors might benefit from chemotherapy.

Is repeat breast conservation possible for small ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence?

BACKGROUND

Most cases of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) involve small tumors. Although a few guidelines recommend mastectomy, several patients prefer repeat BCS (re-BCS). This study aimed to compare re-BCS and mastectomy in terms of prognosis in patients with IBTR and to identify candidates for re-BCS.

METHODS

The data of patients with small IBTR between 1999 and 2015 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models and propensity score matching were applied.

RESULTS

Of the 3648 patients with IBTR, 2831 (77.6%) underwent mastectomy and 817 (22.4%) underwent re-BCS. The multivariate Cox model showed that re-BCS was associated with a worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.342; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.084-1.663) and BCSS (HR, 1.454; 95% CI, 1.004-2.105) compared with mastectomy. The omission of radiation after re-BCS was associated with worse survival overall and especially in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative IBTR (HR, 1.384; 95% CI, 1.110-1.724; and HR, 1.577; 95% CI, 1.075-2.314, respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed in the OS and BCSS between re-BCS with radiation and mastectomy. Subgroup analysis indicated that the surgical approach was not an independent factor for survival in the ER-positive patients with IBTR.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-BCS should be considered with caution in patients with small IBTR. However, a positive ER status can be an important factor for choosing re-BCS, and radiation therapy may improve oncological safety after re-BCS.

LAY SUMMARY

Repeat breast-conserving surgery (re-BCS) was investigated to determine if it is safe for patients with small ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). This population-based cohort study included 2831 patients with small IBTR. Re-BCS was associated with a worse overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival compared with mastectomy. Further analysis found that the IBTR estrogen receptor status was an important basis for choosing re-BCS, and radiation may improve oncological safety after re-BCS.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Role of Repeat Breast-Conserving Surgery for the Management of Ipsilateral Breast Cancer Recurrence

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.

Long-term Survival Comparison of Repeated Breast-conserving Surgery Versus Mastectomy for Patients with DCIS with Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence: A Real-world Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND

Although patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) harbor excellent overall survival (OS) after breast-conserving therapy, the evidence regarding to surgical management for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) is scarce. This study aimed to assess the prognosis of repeated breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy for IBTR in DCIS survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Herein, 5344 DCIS cases with IBTR were identified during 702,748 person-years of follow-up, 3532 (66.09%) received mastectomy, and 1812 (33.91%) received repeated BCS. Cox regression and competing risk regression were employed to estimate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), which was respectively calculated within spontaneous and matched cohorts.

RESULTS

After adjustment for confounders, no statistically significant survival difference was observed between the repeated BCS and mastectomy for patients with DCIS with IBTR. The stratified analyses further revealed that patients with DCIS with IBTR receiving repeated BCS combined with radiation therapy were associated with both superior OS (HR, 0.79; CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .04) and BCSS (HR, 0.54; CI, 0.33-0.90; P = .02) compared with counterparts undergoing mastectomy. Furthermore, patients with DCIS who were age older than 60 years at IBTR diagnosis benefit from repeated BCS with radiotherapy (HR, 0.44; CI, 0.24-0.84; P = .01) than mastectomy.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that repeated BCS with radiation therapy deserves consideration when DCIS survivors suffered IBTR. The choice of surgical management should be tailored based on patients' age at IBTR diagnosis and size of recurrent disease.

Ipsilateral Breast Cancer Recurrence: Characteristics, Treatment, and Long-Term Oncologic Results at a High-Volume Center

INTRODUCTION

Salvage mastectomy is considered the treatment of choice for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence (IBCR), even if a second breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is feasible. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of IBCR patients, to compare the 2 therapeutic options in terms of long-term outcomes, and to identify independent factors that may predict the type of treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 309 IBCR patients who underwent either repeat BCS or mastectomy were identified. All the analyzed patients with IBCR had true recurrence.

RESULTS

Repeat BCS and salvage mastectomy were performed in 143 and 166 patients, respectively. Age < 65 years (59.6% vs 37.1% if age ≥ 65 years; odds ratio, 2.374; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-5.24; P = .018) and disease-free interval < 24 months (15.7% vs 10.5% if disease-free interval ≥ 24 months; odds ratio, 2.705; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-5.97; P = .007) were found to significantly increase the probability of receipt of mastectomy. Disease-free survival rates at 3, 5, and 10 years were 79.2%, 68.2%, and 36.9%; and 77.2%, 65.9%, and 55.3% in patients receiving repeat BCS or mastectomy, respectively (P = .842). Overall survival rates at 3, 5, and 10 years were 95.4%, 91.4%, and 68.5%; and 87.3%, 69.3%, and 57.9%, respectively, in patients receiving repeat BCS or mastectomy (P = .018).

CONCLUSION

Salvage mastectomy should not be considered the only treatment option for IBCR. A second BCS can still be evaluated and proposed to IBCR patients, with acceptable locoregional control and survival. The risk of poor long-term prognosis after mastectomy should be shared with the patient.

Prognosis of Surgical Treatment After Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence

BACKGROUND

Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) was determined to be a powerful independent risk factor of distant disease and increased mortality. Although mastectomy is the standard salvage treatment for IBTR after breast conserving treatment, there is evidence that repeat breast conserving surgery (rBCS) might be a feasible alternative treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of patients who were diagnosed with IBTR between 1998 and 2013 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis, and propensity score matching analysis was applied to compensate for the differences in some baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 475 patients (22.9%) who underwent rBCS and 1600 (77.1%) who underwent mastectomy after IBTR were included in the study. During a median follow-up of 130 mo, no significant differences were observed in BCSS and OS between the rBCS and mastectomy groups of patients before and after propensity score matching. Multivariate analysis revealed that race, the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of the recurrent tumor, and reirradiation were independent prognostic factors for both BCSS and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study indicate that rBCS can be a feasible alternative treatment option for patients with IBTR. Nevertheless, further studies should be conducted to identify the prognosis of patients after rBCS as well as the best candidates for a second breast conserving surgery.

Long-term survival outcomes of repeat lumpectomy for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare long-term survival outcomes of repeat lumpectomy with total mastectomy after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with IBTR who had undergone initial breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer at our institution between January 1990 and December 2013. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare survival rates between the two groups. PSM was performed using the following covariates: age at initial operation, initial T stage, N stage, hormone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and IBTR tumor size.

RESULTS

We enrolled 335 IBTR patients with a median follow-up of 126.6 months. No significant differences were observed in the 5-year overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), OS after IBTR, and BCSS after IBTR and 10-year survival probability between the two groups in a multivariate analysis. After PSM, patients who had undergone repeat lumpectomy and total mastectomy (n = 90 in both groups) were included. No significant differences were observed in the 10-year OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-2.39), BCSS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.35-1.95), OS after IBTR (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38-1.83), and BCSS after IBTR (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28-1.47) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were observed in survival outcomes between patients with IBTR who underwent repeat lumpectomy or total mastectomy. Our results can be helpful in selecting the appropriate surgical method for IBTR.

Local staging of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: mammography, ultrasound, or MRI?

BACKGROUND

Despite increasingly effective curative breast-conserving treatment (BCT) regimens for primary breast cancer, patients remain at risk for an ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). With increasing interest for repeat BCT in selected patients with IBTR, a reliable assessment of the size of IBTR is important for surgical planning.

AIM

The primary aim of this study is to establish the performance in size estimation of XMG, US, and breast MRI in patients with IBTR. The secondary aim is to compare the detection of multifocality and contralateral lesions between XMG and MRI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The sizes of IBTR on mammography (XMG), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 159 patients were compared to the sizes at final histopathology. The accuracy of the size estimates was addressed using Pearson's coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. Secondary outcomes were the detection of multifocality and contralateral lesions between XMG and MRI.

RESULTS

Both XMG and US significantly underestimated the tumor size by 3.5 and 4.8 mm, respectively, while MRI provided accurate tumor size estimation with a mean underestimation of 1.1 mm. The sensitivity for the detection of multifocality was significantly higher for MRI compared to XMG (25.5% vs. 5.5%). A contralateral malignancy was found in 4.4% of patients, and in 1.9%, it was detected by MRI only.

CONCLUSION

The addition of breast MRI to XMG and US in the preoperative workup of IBTR allows for more accurate size estimation. MRI provides a higher sensitivity for the detection of multifocality compared to XMG.

Breast-conserving surgery with intraoperative radiotherapy in recurrent breast cancer: the patient's perspective

Purpose

When ipsilateral breast-tumor recurrence (IBTR) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) occurs, the cure of a potentially life-threatening disease is the main goal. If, however, this is diagnosed early, prognosis is still good and patient-reported outcomes become more important. Despite the fact that many patients would prefer a further BCS, international breast cancer guidelines still recommend mastectomy, mainly because previous radiation implies limited options. Our comparative study evaluates the long-term quality-of-life and outcome in patients with IBTR who received BCS plus intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) versus mastectomy.

Methods

Patients with IBTR were retrospectively divided into three groups according to the local treatment: group 1 (n = 26) was treated with BCS + IORT; group 2 (n = 35) received a standard mastectomy; group 3 (n = 52) had a mastectomy with subsequent reconstruction. Outcomes were analyzed after a mean follow-up of 5 years after IBTR. Quality-of-life was evaluated by the validated questionnaire BREAST-Q in 50 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

Results

Quality-of-life scores varied within the groups, ranging from 51.4 to 91.3 (out of 100 points). We observed satisfactory scores in all items, with no statistical difference within the groups. Disease-free survival of all groups did not statistically differ, and overall mortality was very low (0.9%). The postinterventional complication rate was lower after BCS (19.2% versus 34.3% after mastectomy and 30.8% after mastectomy with reconstruction).

Conclusion

For patients with previous surgery and radiation who demand a second BCS in the recurrent situation, this surgical technique can be offered in combination with IORT. Our long-term results imply oncological safety, lower complication rate, and good patient satisfaction.

Multifocality in ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence - A study in ablative specimens

BACKGROUND

The incidence and clinical significance of multifocality in ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) are unclear. With growing interest in repeat BCT, this information has become of importance. This study aimed to gain insight in the incidence of multifocality in IBTR, to identify patient- and tumor-related predicting factors and to investigate the prognostic significance of multifocality.

METHODS

Two hundred and fifteen patients were included in this analysis. All had an IBTR after BCT and were treated by salvage mastectomy and appropriate adjuvant therapy. Predictive tumor- and patient-related factors for multifocality in IBTR were identified using X2 test and univariate logistic regression analyses. Prognostic outcomes were calculated using Kaplan Meier analysis and compared using the log rank test.

RESULTS

Multifocality was present in 50 (22.9%) of IBTR mastectomy specimens. Axillary positivity in IBTR was significantly associated with multifocality in IBTR. Chest wall re-recurrences occurred more often after multifocal IBTR (14% versus 7% after unifocal IBTR, p = 0.120). Regional re-recurrences did not differ significantly between unifocal and multifocal IBTR (8% vs. 6%, p = 0.773). Distant metastasis after salvage surgery occurred more frequently after multifocal IBTR (15% vs. 24%, p = 0.122). Overall survival was 132 months after unifocal IBTR and 112 months after multifocal IBTR (p = 0.197).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of multifocality in IBTR is higher than in primary breast cancer. Axillary positivity in IBTR was associated with a multifocal IBTR. Chest wall re-recurrences and distant metastasis were, although not statistically significant, more prevalent after multifocal IBTR.

Biological Characteristics and Long-term Outcomes in Node-negative Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Because the risk of relapse of node-negative breast cancer (BC) is varying, we evaluated the prognosis of patients with this disease and the factors associated with increased risk of relapse.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical charts of patients with BC with evidence of negative nodes and with a potential ≥ 5-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1276 patients. Over a median follow-up of 71.6 months (range, 1-227.2 months), we observed 159 events of relapse or death. The median RFS was 170 months. The median overall survival (OS) was 192 months. At univariate analysis, older age, negative hormonal receptors, larger tumor size and higher proliferation index (Ki67) were associated with worse recurrence-free survival (RFS) and OS (P < .05); higher grading was associated with worse RFS (P = .01). At multivariate analysis for RFS, age, Ki67 and tumor size confirmed their independent prognostic role. At multivariate analysis for OS, age and positive hormonal receptors showed an independent prognostic role. We observed no differences in prognosis between human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive and triple-negative (TN) BC, but TNBC showed a worse OS compared with luminal-like BC.

CONCLUSIONS

In node-negative BC, age, hormone receptor status, tumor size and Ki67 were prognostic factors. The TNBC subtype was not associated with poorer prognosis compared with the HER2-positive subtype, but showed a worse OS compared with luminal-like BC.

Repeat breast-conserving therapy for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: A systematic review

The standard of care for patients with an ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is a salvage mastectomy. However, there is growing interest in the feasibility of repeat BCT for these patients. This systematic review contains the latest insights on BCT options for patients with an IBTR after initial BCT. A PubMed literature search was performed for articles on BCT options for IBTR after primary lumpectomy followed by radiotherapy. Weighted estimates were calculated for 5- and 10-year local control, distant metastasis-free and overall survival rates. Secondary outcomes were toxicity, cosmesis and quality of life. In total, 34 studies were eligible for analysis, of which 5 reported on repeat breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone, 10 with mixed populations (BCS ± RT and/or mastectomy), 18 on repeat BCS followed by re-irradiation (whole-breast or partial) and one on quality of life. The weighted estimates for 5-year overall survival for repeat BCS and repeat BCS followed by reirradiation were 77% and 87%, respectively. Five-year local control was 76% for repeat BCS alone and 89% for repeat BCS followed by re-irradiation. Grade III-IV toxicity rates after re-irradiation varied from 0 to 21%, whereas the cosmesis was excellent-good in 29-100% of patients and unacceptable in 0-18%. Repeat BCS followed by re-irradiation, with either whole breast or partial breast re-irradiation, seems a feasible alternative to mastectomy in case of IBTR, in selected patients. Toxicity rates are low and the cosmetic outcome is good, but the size and follow-up of the published patient series is limited.

Factors predicting local relapse and survival in patients treated with surgery for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Assessment of local relapse in patients treated with surgery for breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational study included 673 patients treated with surgery for breast cancer between 2005 and 2010, who were monitored for a 7-year minimum follow-up period. The study was concluded on 2017 and yielded a total of 31 cases of local relapse.

RESULTS

4.6% of patients presented local relapse, most of them during the first 3 years of follow-up; 45% of patients with local relapse subsequently presented the disease at distant points. The association between the occurrence of local relapse and later onset of the disease at distant points was significant. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that negative results for the presence of progesterone receptors, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the presence of the disease at distant points were factors that significantly influenced patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of the patients suffering relapse subsequently present the disease at distant points. Certain factors increase the aggressiveness of the disease, predict higher risk of relapse and determine its prognosis.

Is Mastectomy Oncologically Safer than Breast-Conserving Treatment in Early Breast Cancer?

AIM

To describe and discuss the evidence for oncological safety of different procedures in oncological breast surgery, i.e. breast-conserving treatment versus mastectomy.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion.

RESULTS

Oncological safety in breast cancer surgery has many dimensions. Breast-conserving treatment has been established as the standard surgical procedure for primary breast cancer and fits to the preferences of most breast cancer patients concerning oncological safety and aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast-conserving treatment is safe. Nonetheless, the preferences of the individual patients in their consideration of breast conservation versus mastectomy should be integrated into routine treatment decisions.