Evaluating Surgical Outcomes Between Estrogen Receptor Positive Invasive Lobular and Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast-A Propensity Matched Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) contributes significantly to the global cancer burden and is the most common of the histological "special types" of breast cancer. ILC has unique features setting it apart from the more common invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Despite differences, treatment algorithms do not consider histological differences.

AIM

To determine the differences in treatment and outcomes of ILC relative to IDC in a strict case-matched cohort study at a tertiary referral, specialist, breast cancer center.

METHODS

All Estrogen receptor positive (ER+) ILCs from 1999 to 2015 were matched for; age, tumor size, grade, PR/HER2 status, nodal stage and metastases with ER+ IDCs from the same period. Surgical and systemic treatments were assessed along with overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

762 cases in total were analyzed (1:1 matching; ILC:IDC). ILC cases were more often treated with mastectomy (37.5% vs. 28.6%, P .009) and those who received breast conserving surgery (BCS) more often had an incomplete resection (30.2% vs. 19.6%, P .01). IDC were more often treated with NACT (5.5% vs. 14.4%, P < .001). Mean DFS were similar between ILC and IDC; 148.3 vs. 141.4 months (P .112) but OS was significantly longer in the ILC group; 165.7 vs. 134 months (P .002). This trend was consistent among the subset of patients undergoing BCS. For ILC undergoing BCS, mean DFS was 129.8 vs. 128.3 months for IDC (P .418) and OS was 155.4 and 110.7 months respectively (P < .001). Incomplete resection at the time of index surgery did not alter the disease free or overall survival in either the ILC or IDC patients to a level that reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort study, the strict matching of ILC and IDCs for a number of prognostic indicators, demonstrates the impact of lobular histology with a clarity not previously observed. ILCs have comparable survival outcomes to patients with IDC but at the expense of more extensive index and revisional surgery. There is a need for awareness of these facts among surgeons and patients for optimal treatment prioritization and provision.

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus X-ray of the breast specimen for intraoperative margin assessment: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Involved resection margins after breast conserving surgery (BCS) often require a re-operation with increased patient anxiety and risk of impaired cosmesis. We investigated the number of re-operations due to involved resection margins after BCS comparing digital breast tomosynthesis(DBT) with X-ray for intraoperative margin evaluation. Furthermore, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of these methods to predict histopathological margin status. Finally, we evaluated risk factors for re-operation.

METHODS

In this randomized, non-blinded study, 250 invasive breast cancer patients were randomized (1:1), whereof 241 were analyzed intraoperatively with either DBT (intervention, n = 119) or X-ray (standard, n = 122). Pearson's chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, t-test, logistic and ordinal regression analysis was used as appropriate.

RESULTS

No difference was found in the number of re-operations between the DBT and X-ray group (16.8 % vs 19.7 %, p = 0.57), or in diagnostic accuracy to predict histopathological margin status (77.5 %, CI: 68.6-84.9 %) and (67.3 %, CI: 57.7-75.9 %), respectively. We evaluated 5 potential risk factors for re-operation: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) outside tumor, OR = 9.4 (CI: 4.3-20.6, p < 0.001); high mammographic breast density, OR = 6.1 (CI: 1.0-38.1, p = 0.047); non-evaluable margins on imaging, OR = 3.8 (CI: 1.3-10.8, p = 0.016); neoadjuvant chemotherapy, OR = 3.0 (CI: 1.0-8.8, p = 0.048); and T2 tumor-size, OR = 2.6 (CI: 1.0-6.4, p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in the number of re-operations or in diagnostic accuracy to predict histopathological margin status between DBT and X-ray groups. DCIS outside the tumor showed the highest risk of re-operation. Intraoperative methods with improved visualization of DCIS are needed to obtain tumor free margins in BCS.

Immediate or delayed oncoplastic surgery after breast conserving surgery at the Netherlands Cancer Institute: a cohort study of 251 cases

PURPOSE

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) after breast conserving surgery is preferably performed during the same operation. Offering delayed OPS instead of mastectomy to patients with a high risk of tumor-positive margins allows breast conservation with the option of margin re-excision during OPS, without having to dismantle the reconstruction. We aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes after immediate and delayed OPS.

METHODS

We included early-stage breast cancer patients who underwent OPS at the Netherlands Cancer Institute between 2016 and 2019. Patients were selected for delayed OPS after multidisciplinary consultation if the risk of tumor-positive margins with immediate OPS was considered significant (> 30%). Groups were compared on baseline characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 242 patients with 251 OPS, 130 (52%) OPS had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Immediate OPS was performed in 176 (70%) cases and delayed OPS in 76 (30%). Selection for delayed OPS was associated with tumor size (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04), ILC (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.10-6.20), DCIS (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.42-8.34) and bra size (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.94). Delayed and immediate OPS differed in tissue weight (54 vs. 67 g, p = 0.034), tissue replacement (51% vs. 26%, p < .001) and tumor-positive margins (66% vs. 18%, p < .001). Re-excision was performed in 48 (63%) delayed OPS and in 11 (6%) immediate OPS. Groups did not differ in complications (21% vs. 18%, p = 0.333). Breast conservation after immediate and delayed OPS was 98% and 93%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Performing delayed OPS in selected cases facilitated simultaneous margin re-excision without increasing complications, and resulted in an excellent breast conservation rate.

Specimen mammography for intraoperative margin assessment in breast conserving surgery: a meta-analysis

In breast conserving surgery (BCS), specimen mammography is one of the most widely used intraoperative methods of assessing margin status. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of specimen mammography. Literature databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched prior to Jun 2022. A total of 1967 patients were included from 20 studies. A pooled analysis, heterogeneity testing, threshold effect testing, publication bias analysis, and subgroup analyses were performed from extracted data. The pooled weighted values were a sensitivity of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.63), a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90), a diagnostic odds ratio of 7 (95% CI, 4-12), and a pooled positive likelihood ratio of 3.7 (95% CI 2.6-5.5). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.75 (95% CI 0.71-0.78). In the subgroup analysis, the pooled specificity in the positive margin defined as tumor at margin subgroup was lower than the other positive margin definition subgroup (0.82 [95% CI: 0.71, 0.92] vs. 0.87 [95% CI: 0.80, 0.94], p = 0.01). Our findings indicated that specimen mammography was an accurate intraoperative imaging technique for margin assessment in BCS.

Diagnostic accuracy of radiography, digital breast tomosynthesis, micro-CT and ultrasound for margin assessment during breast surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Achieving adequate resection margins in breast conserving surgery is challenging and often demands more than one surgical procedure. We evaluated pooled diagnostic sensitivity, and specificity of radiological methods for intraoperative margin assessment and their impact on repeat surgery rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included studies using radiography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), micro-CT, and ultrasound for intraoperative margin assessment with the histological assessment as the reference method. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the studies for eligibility criteria and extracted data of the included studies independently. The quality assessment on diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS)-2 tool was used. A bivariate random effect model was used to obtained pooled sensitivity and specificity of the index tests in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The systematic search resulted in screening of 798 unique records. Twenty-two articles with 29 radiological imaging methods were selected for meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity and area under the curve were calculated for each of the 4 subgroups in the meta-analysis respectively: Radiography; 52%, 77%, 60%, DBT; 67%, 76%, 76%, micro-CT; 68%, 69%, 72%, and ultrasound; 72%, 78%, 80%. The repeat surgery rate was poorly reported in the included studies.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound showed the highest and radiography the lowest diagnostic performance for intraoperative margin assessment. However, the heterogeneity between studies was high and the subgroups small. The radiological methods for margin assessment need further improvement to provide reliable guidance in the clinical workflow and to prevent repeat surgeries.

Multi-class classification of breast tissue using optical coherence tomography and attenuation imaging combined via deep learning

We demonstrate a convolutional neural network (CNN) for multi-class breast tissue classification as adipose tissue, benign dense tissue, or malignant tissue, using multi-channel optical coherence tomography (OCT) and attenuation images, and a novel Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC)-based loss function that correlates more strongly with performance metrics than the commonly used cross-entropy loss. We hypothesized that using multi-channel images would increase tumor detection performance compared to using OCT alone. 5,804 images from 29 patients were used to fine-tune a pre-trained ResNet-18 network. Adding attenuation images to OCT images yields statistically significant improvements in several performance metrics, including benign dense tissue sensitivity (68.0% versus 59.6%), malignant tissue positive predictive value (PPV) (79.4% versus 75.5%), and total accuracy (85.4% versus 83.3%), indicating that the additional contrast from attenuation imaging is most beneficial for distinguishing between benign dense tissue and malignant tissue.

Factors predicting residual disease on re-excision after breast conserving surgery

INTRODUCTION

Breast conserving surgery is the standard of care for early breast cancer, however in a quarter of patients, satisfactory margins are not achieved, usually leading to re-excision. Residual disease is found in less than half of these re-excisions, leading to increased morbidity, poorer cosmesis and increased cost, possibly with no oncological benefit. Our study aimed to identify a group of patients with unsatisfactory margins but a low risk of residual disease, who may be able to avoid re-excision.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All patients from our unit undergoing re-excision for unsatisfactory margins after breast conserving surgery between January 2013 and October 2019 were identified. Pathological factors predicting residual disease were investigated using univariable and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

220 patients were included. 90 (41 %) had residual disease. Residual disease was more likely in those having mastectomy than cavity shaves (61 % vs 32 %, p < 0.0001). Residual disease increased in a linear fashion with number of involved margins and with increasing tumour size. Tumour size <20 mm (p = 0.045), a pathological to radiological tumour size ratio less than 1.5 (p < 0.0001) and disease-free cavity shaves taken at initial surgery (p = 0.041) were all independent predictors of a low chance of residual disease on multivariable analysis. Patients with all three factors had a 14 % chance of residual disease.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of patients undergo potentially unnecessary re-excision, and patients with small, radiologically obvious tumours are less likely to have residual disease. The decision on re-excision should include these factors in addition to the margin status.

Breast conserving surgery versus salvage mastectomy for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: a propensity score matching analysis

Salvage mastectomy is regarded as the treatment of first choice for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence (IBCR), even if a second breast conserving surgery (BCS) is feasible. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of IBCR patients who had undergone either mastectomy or second BCS, performing a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to reduce the selection bias. All the consecutive patients with IBCR were retrospectively reviewed and divided into two different groups of treatment: repeat BCS versus salvage mastectomy. The propensity score predicting the probability of surgical treatment was determined for each patient and a 1:1 matching was performed. Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), overall survival (OS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. A total of 309 patients underwent surgical treatment for IBCR. After PSM, 108 patients treated with repeat BCS and 108 patients treated with salvage mastectomy were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in terms of DFS between patients with IBCR receiving repeat BCS or salvage mastectomy (p = 0.167). However, patients with IBCR undergoing second BCS had significantly better DDFS, OS, and BCSS compared to salvage mastectomy (p < 0.001). Salvage mastectomy should not be considered the optimal treatment for IBCR and it does not seem to improve prognosis compared to repeat conserving surgery. Second BCS for IBCR is a safe option with encouraging long-term oncological outcomes and should be proposed to all patients, when technically feasible.

Oncoplastic breast surgery versus conventional breast conserving surgery - a prospective follow-up study of subjective loco-regional late morbidity

Background and aim: Few studies have focused on the symptoms of loco-regional morbidity in shoulders, arms, and breasts related to oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS). This study aimed to determine if a difference exists in the prevalence or variety of subjective symptoms of shoulder, arm, and breast morbidity in patients undergoing OPS compared with patients receiving conventional breast conserving surgery (C-BCS). Cosmetic result and body image were included as secondary endpoints.Methods: This prospective follow-up study with 18 months of questionnaire-based follow-up included women with breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ. They were divided into two groups - C-BCS or OPS - depending on type of surgery performed. Furthermore, patient, disease, and treatment characteristics were recorded.Results: Among 334 completers, 229 (69%) received C-BCS and 105 (31%) received OPS. Participants were comparable regarding age, comorbidity, BMI, re-excision rate (15-16%), and axillary surgery. As for tumor characteristics, a more advanced disease stage was shown in the OPS than in the C-BCS group with larger tumor and lumpectomy size, more multifocality, and the corresponding following systemic adjuvant therapy.The questionnaire revealed that the two groups were comparable with no significant differences in frequency or variety of symptoms of shoulder and arm morbidity. Overall, participants were highly satisfied with the cosmetic results in both groups and no significant inter-group differences were observed.Conclusion: In patients with larger tumors, breast conserving surgery utilizing oncoplastic techniques yields results regarding subjective shoulder, arm, and breast morbidity as well as cosmetic outcome comparable with those of C-BCS performed on smaller tumors.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number: NCT02159274 (2014).HIGHLIGHTSSubjective symptoms of shoulder, arm, and breast morbidity are comparable when oncoplastic breast surgery is compared to conventional breast conserving surgery.The variety of symptoms of shoulder and arm morbidity following oncoplastic surgery does not differ from symptoms following conventional breast conserving surgery.The cosmetic outcome following oncoplastic breast surgery is comparable to breast conserving surgery without oncoplastic techniques.

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.

The relationship between post-surgery infection and breast cancer recurrence

Breast cancer is the second most prevalent form of cancer in women worldwide, with surgery remaining the standard treatment. The adverse impact of the surgery remains controversial. It has been suggested that systemic factors during the postoperative period may increase the risk of recurrence, specifically surgical site infection (SSI). The aim of this review was to critically appraise current published literature regarding the influence of SSIs, after primary breast cancer surgery, on breast cancer recurrence, and to delve into potential links between these. This systematic review adopted two approaches: to identify the incidence rates and risk factors related to SSI after primary breast cancer surgery; and, secondly, to examine breast cancer recurrence following SSI occurrence. Ninety-nine studies with 484,605 patients were eligible in the SSI-focused searches, and 53 studies with 17,569 patients for recurrence-focused. There was a 13.07% mean incidence of SSI. Six-hundred and thirty-eight Gram-positive and 442 Gram-negative isolates were identified, with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli most commonly identified. There were 2077 cases of recurrence (11.8%), with 563 cases of local recurrence, 1186 cases of distant and 25 cases which recurred both locally and distantly. Five studies investigated the association between SSI and breast cancer recurrence with three concluding that an association did exist. In conclusion, there is association between SSI and adverse cancer outcomes, but the cellular link between them remains elusive. Confounding factors of retrospective study design, surgery type and SSI definition make results challenging to compare and interpret. A standardized prospective study with appropriate statistical power is justified.

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.

The Value of Repeated Breast Surgery as a Quality Indicator in Breast Cancer Care

Breast-conserving surgery, a major achievement in surgical oncology, has allowed an increasing number of breast cancer patients to avoid the mutilation of mastectomy. However, mastectomy still is performed in certain circumstances although breast-conserving surgery would be equally safe. Many reasons, including patients' and surgeons' personal motivations, influence the decision-making process before the final choice between breast preservation and mastectomy. The importance of quality measurement and reporting in medicine is increasingly recognized, and breast surgery is no exception. The substantial variability of re-excision rates for positive surgical margins after a first attempt at breast-conserving surgery suggests that improvement is possible. Therefore, the re-excision rate has been proposed as a quality metric for assessing and comparing the performance of different institutions. Indeed, re-excision rates can be reduced by actionable factors such as accurate preoperative local staging, localization of occult lesions, and intraoperative assessment of the oriented specimen. However, equally important non-actionable risk factors pertaining the biology, detectability, and resectability of the tumor also should be taken into account. Therefore, if the re-excision rate has to be used as a performance indicator of breast surgical care, critical interpretation of results with accurate case-mix adjustment are mandatory, and reasonable targets must be appropriately set so that surgeons treating patients at higher risk of positive margins are not unduly penalized.

The role of Micro-CT in imaging breast cancer specimens

PURPOSE

The goal of breast cancer surgery is to remove all of the cancer with a minimum of normal tissue, but absence of full 3-dimensional information on the specimen makes this difficult to achieve.

METHOD

Micro-CT is a high resolution, X-ray, 3D imaging method, widely used in industry but rarely in medicine.

RESULTS

We imaged and analyzed 173 partial mastectomies (129 ductal carcinomas, 14 lobular carcinomas, 28 DCIS). Imaging was simple and rapid. The size and shape of the cancers seen on Micro-CT closely matched the size and shape of the cancers seen at specimen dissection. Micro-CT images of multicentric/multifocal cancers revealed multiple non-contiguous masses. Micro-CT revealed cancer touching the specimen edge for 93% of the 114 cases judged margin positive by the pathologist, and 28 of the cases not seen as margin positive on pathological analysis; cancer occupied 1.55% of surface area when both the pathologist and Micro-CT suggested cancer at the edge, but only 0.45% of surface area for the "Micro-CT-Only-Positive Cases". Thus, Micro-CT detects cancers that touch a very small region of the specimen surface, which is likely to be missed on sectioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Micro-CT provides full 3D images of breast cancer specimens, allowing one to identify, in minutes rather than hours, while the patient is in OR, margin-positive cancers together with information on where the cancer touches the edge, in a fashion more accurate than possible from the histology slides alone.

Involved margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer: Always to be re-excised?

BACKGROUND

The oncologic benefit of upfront re-excision of involved margins after breast-conserving surgery in the context of current multimodal clinical management of breast cancer is unclear. The aim of the present study was to assess the 5-years locoregional recurrence (LRR)-free and distant metastases (DM)-free survival probabilities in patients not undergoing re-excision of positive margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer.

METHODS

A cohort of 104 patients with positive margins not undergoing re-excision was matched by propensity score with a cohort of 2006 control patients with clear margins after breast-conserving surgery, treated between 2008 and 2018. A multivariate survival analysis was performed accounting for all variables related to LRR and DM, including adjuvant treatments.

RESULTS

After adjusting for potential confounders, avoiding to re-excise a positive margin after lumpectomy had no effect on 5-years LRR-free survival probability (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.36-2.67, p = 0.96) or 5-years DM-free survival probability (HR 0.37, 95%CI 0.08-1.61, p = 0.18). No correlation was found between occurrence of LRR and number of involved margins (HR 1.28, 95%CI 0.10-12.4, Log-rank p = 0.83), or extension of infiltrating disease (HR 1.21, 95%CI 0.20-7.40, Log-rank p = 0.83), but a trend toward higher LRR probability was found for invasive ductal (HR 6.92, 95%CI 0.7-68.8, Log-rank p = 0.10) and invasive lobular cancer (HR 12.95, 95%CI 0.79-213.6, Log-rank p = 0.07) on positive margins.

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of multimodal treatment of breast cancer and accurate strategies to reduce the probability of residual disease in the post-lumpectomy cavity, re-excision of positive margins might be omitted in selected patients with low-risk breast cancers.

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.

Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) for intraoperative surgical margin assessment of breast cancer: A feasibility study in breast conserving surgery

PURPOSE

Around 15%-30% of patients receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) need a reoperation due to tumor-positive margins at final histopathology. Currently available intraoperative surgical margin assessment modalities all have specific limitations. Therefore, we aimed to assess the feasibility and accuracy of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) as a novel method for intraoperative margin assessment in BCS.

METHODS

Lumpectomy specimens from 30 consecutive patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer or DCIS were imaged using a micro-CT. Margin status was assessed on micro-CT images by two investigators who were blinded to the final histopathological margin status. The micro-CT margin status was compared with the histopathological margin status.

RESULTS

The margin status could be assessed by micro-CT in 29 out of 30 patients. Of these, nine patients had a positive tumor margin and 20 a negative tumor margin at final histopathology. Margin status evaluation by micro-CT took always less than 15 min. The margin status in 25 patients was correctly predicted by micro-CT. There were four false-negative predictions. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of micro-CT in margin status prediction were 86%, 56%, 100%, 100% and 83%, respectively. With micro-CT, the positive margin rate could potentially have been reduced from 31% to 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

Whole lumpectomy specimen micro-CT scanning is a promising technique for intraoperative margin assessment in BCS. Intraoperative quick feedback on the margin status could potentially lead to a reduction in the number of reoperations.

Prognostic impact of residual disease in simultaneous additional excision specimens after one-step breast conserving therapy with negative final margin status in primary breast cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was the evaluation of risk factors for local recurrence after breast conserving surgery (BCS) with special focus on the impact of residual disease in specimens of simultaneous additional excisions (AE) from the tumor cavity on patients' outcome in patients with negative final margin status after one-step BCS.

METHODS

This study was designed as a single center retrospective cohort study. Patients with primary non-metastatic breast cancer treated by one-step BCS with pathologically confirmed negative resection status between 1990 and 2006 were included. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier-estimates. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify potential independent prognostic factors associated with the risk of IBTR.

RESULTS

A total of 1081 patients were included in this analysis. Simultaneous additional excisions were performed in 79.4% of patients (tumor positive: 12.2%). Median follow-up after primary diagnosis was 124 months. The IBTR rate after 15 years was significantly higher in the group with tumor positive AE (no AE (10.2%) vs. AE tumor positive (27.5%) p = 0.002; AE tumor negative (14.0%) vs. AE tumor positive (27.5%) p = 0.008). The OS rate did not differ significantly between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed residual cancer in AE being associated with a significantly increased relative risk of IBTR of 2.0 (p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

In the current analysis residual disease in simultaneous additional excisions was associated with an increased risk for IBTR despite negative final margin status. This should be considered in the overall therapeutic concept.

Do All Positive Margins in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing a Partial Mastectomy Need to Be Resected?

BACKGROUND

Positive margins have been reported in 20% to 40% of patients undergoing a partial mastectomy, often resulting in re-excision. How often the re-excision yields additional cancer and whether there are predictors of residual disease remain unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients who had a positive margin (defined as tumor at ink for patients with invasive disease or within 1 mm for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ) in the SHAVE (A Randomized Controlled Trial of Routine Shave Margins Versus Standard Partial Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients) trial before randomization were evaluated to determine the rate of additional disease either in cavity shave margins or at re-excision. Details of the SHAVE trial can be found elsewhere.

RESULTS

Of the 235 patients in the trial, 82 (34.9%) had a positive margin before randomization; 58 of these patients underwent either cavity shave margins excision or a re-excision of the positive margin(s). Twenty-one (36.2%) patients had residual disease. On bivariate analysis, residual disease was associated with younger patient age (median 51 vs 62 years; p = 0.007), and the presence of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (57.1% vs 31.3% for grade 2 and 0% for grade 1; p = 0.025). The following factors were not associated with further disease: patient race; ethnicity; BMI; volume of resection; number of positive margins; extent of ductal carcinoma in situ; and extent, grade, and histologic subtype of invasive cancer. On multivariate analysis, only patient age younger than 60 years remained a significant predictor of residual disease (odds ratio 3.920; 95% CI 1.081 to 14.220; p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Positive margins are associated with further disease in more than one-third of patients and, aside from young age, there are no predictors of this. These findings support continued re-excision of positive margins, particularly in patients younger than 60 years of age.

Re-excision and survival following breast conserving surgery in early stage breast cancer patients: a population-based study

Background

Increasing population-based evidence suggests that patients who receive breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy have superior survival than those who receive mastectomy. It is unclear, however, how BCS followed by re-excision is associated with all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality, and whether the BCS survival advantage is maintained if re-excision is needed. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical, patient, provider and geographic variation associated with receipt of re-excision surgery, and to examine the relationship between re-excision and all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality.

Methods

All women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in Alberta, Canada from 2002 to 2009 were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry, of which 11,626 were eligible for study inclusion. Type of first breast cancer surgery after diagnosis, subsequent re-excisions within 1 year, surgeon (anonymized), and hospital were obtained from provincial physician claims data. Multilevel logistic regression with surgeons and hospitals as crossed random effects was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios of re-excision by the factors of interest. Poisson regression models were fitted to compare all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality by surgical pattern.

Results

Re-excision surgery was received by 19% (N = 5659) of patients who initially received BCS. The adjusted odds of re-excision varied significantly by geography of surgery, and by individual surgeon among stage I and II patients beyond the variation explained by the factors investigated (Stage I OR standard deviation (SD) = 0.43; stage II OR SD = 0.39). Patients who were treated with BCS plus re-excision surgery with either mastectomy or further BCS had similar all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality as those treated with BCS without re-excision.

Conclusion

These results suggest that breast cancer patients who are treated with BCS plus re-excision surgery by either mastectomy or further BCS have similar survival as those treated with BCS without re-excision. The significant variation in the likelihood of re-excision by geography and by individual surgeon is concerning, especially given the costs to the patient associated with additional surgery and the financial costs to the health system.

Breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy: overall and relative survival-a population based study by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG)

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have pointed at a better survival after breast conserving surgery (BCS) compared with mastectomy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether this remains true when more extensive tumor characteristics and treatment data were included.

METHODS

The cohort included patients registered after primary surgery for early invasive breast cancer in the database of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, in the period 1995-2012. The cohort was divided into three groups: (i) patients who primarily had a mastectomy, (ii) patients treated by BCS, and (iii) patients who primarily had BCS and then mastectomy [intention to treat (ITT) by BCS]. The association between overall mortality and standard mortality ratio (SMR) and risk factors was analyzed in univariate and multivariate Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 58,331 patients were included: 27,143 in the mastectomy group, 26,958 in the BCS group, and 4230 in the BCS-ITT group. After adjusting for patient and treatment characteristics, the relative risk (RR) was 1.20 (95% CI: 1.15-1.25) after mastectomy and 1.08 (95% CI: 1.01-1.15) after BCS first and then mastectomy, as compared to BCS. Statistically significant interactions were not observed for age, period of treatment, and nodal status, but patients with Charlson's Comorbidity Index (CCI) score 2+ had no increased mortality after mastectomy, as opposed to patients with CCI 0-1. Loco-regional radiation therapy (RT) in node positive patients did not reduce the increased risk associated with mastectomy [RR = 1.28 (95% CI 1.19-1.38)].

CONCLUSION

Patients assigned to BCS have a better survival than patients assigned to mastectomy. Residual confounding after adjustment for registered characteristics presumably explained the different outcomes, thus consistent with selection bias. Diversities in RT did not appear to explain the observed difference in survival after BCS and mastectomy.

Breast cancer recurrence after reoperation for surgical bleeding

BACKGROUND

Bleeding activates platelets that can bind tumour cells, potentially promoting metastatic growth in patients with cancer. This study investigated whether reoperation for postoperative bleeding is associated with breast cancer recurrence.

METHODS

Using the Danish Breast Cancer Group database and the Danish National Patient Register (DNPR), a cohort of women with incident stage I-III breast cancer, who underwent breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy during 1996-2008 was identified. Information on reoperation for bleeding within 14 days of the primary surgery was retrieved from the DNPR. Follow-up began 14 days after primary surgery and continued until breast cancer recurrence, death, emigration, 10 years of follow-up, or 1 January 2013. Incidence rates of breast cancer recurrence were calculated and Cox regression models were used to quantify the association between reoperation and recurrence, adjusting for potential confounders. Crude and adjusted hazard ratios according to site of recurrence were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 30 711 patients (205 926 person-years of follow-up), 767 patients had at least one reoperation within 14 days of primary surgery, and 4769 patients developed breast cancer recurrence. Median follow-up was 7·0 years. The incidence of recurrence was 24·0 (95 per cent c.i. 20·2 to 28·6) per 1000 person-years for reoperated patients and 23·1 (22·5 to 23·8) per 1000 person-years for non-reoperated patients. The overall adjusted hazard ratio was 1·06 (95 per cent c.i. 0·89 to 1·26). The estimates did not vary by site of breast cancer recurrence.

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort study, there was no evidence of an association between reoperation for bleeding and breast cancer recurrence.

Focally positive margins in breast conserving surgery: Predictors, residual disease, and local recurrence

BACKGROUND

Re-excision after breast conserving surgery (BCS) for invasive breast cancer (IBC) can be omitted for focally positive margins in the Netherlands, but this guideline is not routinely followed. Focally positive and extensively positive margins have rarely been studied separately and compared to negative margins regarding clinicopathological predictors, residual disease incidence, and local recurrence.

METHODS

All females with BCS for Tis-T3, without neo-adjuvant chemotherapy between 2005 and 2014 at one university hospital were included. Clinicopathological and follow-up information was collected from electronic patient records. Index tumor samples from all patients with re-excision were reviewed by one pathologist. Margins were classified as negative (≥2 mm width), close (<2 mm width), focally positive (≤4 mm length of tumor touching inked margin), or extensively positive (>4 mm length).

RESULTS

From 499 patients included, 212 (43%) had negative, 161 (32%) had close, 59 (12%) had focally positive, and 67 (13%) had extensively positive margins. Increasingly involved margins were associated with lobular type, tumor size, and adjacent DCIS in IBC patients and lesion size in purely DCIS patients. In IBC patients, 17%, 49%, and 77% had re-excision after close, focally positive, and extensively positive margins and residual disease incidence was 55%, 50%, and 70% respectively. In purely DCIS patients, 26 (65%), 13 (87%), and 16 (94%) had re-excision after close, focally positive, and extensively positive margins and residual disease incidence was 39%, 46%, and 90% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of residual disease after focally positive margins was not different from close margins, but was significantly higher after extensively positive margins. We recommend quantifying extent of margin involvement in all pathology reports.

Reoperation Rates in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ vs Invasive Breast Cancer After Wire-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery

Importance

New techniques for preoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions may decrease the reoperation rate in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) compared with rates after surgery with the standard wire-guided localization. However, a valid reoperation rate for this procedure needs to be established for comparison, as previous studies on this procedure include a variety of malignant and benign breast lesions.

Objectives

To determine the reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS in patients with histologically verified nonpalpable invasive breast cancer (IBC) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to examine whether the risk of reoperation is associated with DCIS or histologic type of the IBC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide study including women with histologically verified IBC or DCIS having wire-guided BCS performed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013, used data from the Danish National Patient Registry that were cross-checked with the Danish Breast Cancer Group database and the Danish Pathology Register.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS in patients with IBC or DCIS.

Results

Wire-guided BCS was performed in 4118 women (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [8.7] years). A total of 725 patients (17.6%) underwent a reoperation: 593 were reexcisions (14.4%) and 132 were mastectomies (3.2%). Significantly more patients with DCIS (271 of 727 [37.3%]) than with IBC (454 of 3391 [13.4%]) underwent a reoperation (adjusted odds ratio, 3.82; 95% CI, 3.19-4.58; P < .001). After the first reexcision, positive margins were still present in 97 patients (16.4%). The risk of repeated positive margins was significantly higher in patients with DCIS vs those with IBC (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.42-3.43; P < .001). The risk of reoperation was significantly increased in patients with lobular carcinoma vs those with ductal carcinoma (adjusted odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.95; P = .02). A total of 202 patients (4.9%) had a subsequent completion mastectomy, but no difference was found in the type of reoperation between patients with DCIS and those with IBC.

Conclusions and Relevance

A lower reoperation rate after wire-guided BCS was found in this study than those shown in previous studies. However, the risk of reoperation in patients with DCIS was 3 times higher than in those with IBC. The widespread use of mammographic screening will increase the number of patients diagnosed with DCIS, making a precise localization of nonpalpable DCIS lesions even more important.

Failure pattern and survival after breast conserving therapy. Long-term results of the Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) 89 TM cohort

Based on the results from the DBCG 82 trial, breast conserving therapy (BCT) has been implemented as standard in Denmark since 1989, and today constitutes more than 70% of the primary treatment. Our aim was to evaluate the implementation of BCT as a routine procedure in patients treated according to the DBCG 89 program and compare recurrence pattern and survival both overall and when separated in age groups, with the results from the randomized DBCG 82 TM trial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 1847 patients treated between 1989 and 1999 were included in a retrospective population-based cohort study. Data from the DBCG database were completed via search through the Danish Pathology Data Bank and medical records.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 17 years. At 20 years the cumulative incidences of local recurrence (LR) and disease-specific mortality (DSM) were 15.3% and 25.8%, respectively. Twenty-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival were 63.7% and 43.1%, respectively. Subdivided by age groups cumulative incidences at 20 years were LR: 18.9%, 10.5% and 12.4%, and DSM: 28.9%, 18.9% and 28.4% in young (≤45 years), middle-aged (46-55 years) and older (≥56 years) women, respectively. In an adjusted analysis age maintained a significant and independent effect on both LR and DSM.

CONCLUSION

The DBCG 82 TM program was successfully implemented. The women treated with BCT in the DBCG 89 program displayed equal failure pattern and improved survival in comparison with women from the DBCG 82 TM protocol. Occurrence of first failure and mortality varied with age; demonstrated by increased risk of LR, DM and DSM in the young patients and increased risk of DM and DSM in the older patients, compared to the middle-aged patients.