Noninferior Outcome After Breast-Conserving Treatment Compared to Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients With Four or More Positive Lymph Nodes

Breast-conserving surgery versus modified radical mastectomy in T1-2N3M0 stage breast cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy and mastectomy exhibit highly comparable prognoses for early-stage breast cancer; however, the safety of BCS for T1-2N3M0 breast cancer remains unclear. This study compared long-term survival for BCS versus (vs.) modified radical mastectomy (MRM) among patients with T1-2N3M0 breast cancer.

METHODS

Data of patients with T1-2N3M0 breast cancer were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Eligible patients were divided into 2 groups, BCS and MRM; Pearson's chi-squared test was used to estimate differences in clinicopathological features. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the effects of surgical methods and other factors on breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

In total, 2124 patients were included; after PSM, 596 patients were allocated to each group. BCS exhibited the same 5-year BCSS (77.9% vs. 77.7%; P = 0.814) and OS (76.1% vs. 74.6%; P = 0.862) as MRM in the matched cohorts. Multivariate survival analysis revealed that BCS had the same BCSS and OS as MRM (hazard ratios [HR] 0.899 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.697-1.160], P = 0.413 and HR 0.858 [95% CI 0.675-1.089], P = 0.208, respectively); this was also seen in most subgroups. BCS demonstrated better BCSS (HR 0.558 [95% CI 0.335-0.929]; P = 0.025) and OS (HR 0.605 [95% CI 0.377-0.972]; P = 0.038) than MRM in those with the triple-negative subtype.

CONCLUSIONS

BCS has the same long-term survival as MRM in T1-2N3M0 breast cancer and may be a better choice for triple-negative breast cancer.

Breast conserving surgery combined with radiation therapy offers improved survival over mastectomy in early-stage breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Landmark trials established equivalent survival regardless of extent of breast surgery in early-stage breast cancer. However, recent studies suggest a survival advantage for breast conserving surgery (BCS) with radiotherapy (BCT). This study assesses the impact of type of surgery on overall survival (OS), breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and local recurrence (LR) in a modern population-based cohort.

METHODS

Female patients aged ≥18, pT1-2pN0, who had surgery between 2006 and 2016 were identified from Breast Cancer Outcome Unit prospective database. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients were excluded. Multivariable Cox regression was used to assess the effect of surgical procedure on OS, BCSS, and LR on cohort with complete data.

RESULTS

BCT was performed in 8422 patients and TM in 4034 patients. The baseline characteristics differed between the groups. Mean follow up was 8.3 years. BCT was associated with increased OS HR 1.37, p < 0.001, BCSS survival HR 1.49, p < 0.001, and similar LR HR 1.00, p > 0.90.

CONCLUSION

This study supports that in early-stage breast cancer, BCT has improved BCSS compared to TM without an increased risk of LR.

Efficacy of the Radiofrequency Identification Technique in Breast Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Retrospective Study

Objective

Breast conserving surgery is an excellent option in the treatment of breast cancer. To achieve a good result with this modality, a surgeon needs to identify and excise the tumor with adequate margins. The radiofrequency identification (RFID) technique is a wireless localization technique used for intraoperative breast lesion identification. We assessed the efficacy and outcomes of the RFID technique in breast cancer patients at our institution.

Materials and Methods

This is a single institution, retrospective study (BSMH 22-02X-MWH) of 73 patients. We analyzed the medical records of women with biopsy-proven breast cancer from June 2020 to August 2022; participants received surgical care at Mercy Health West Hospital. Data collected included demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, and surgical procedure. The primary objective was to determine the safety and efficacy of RFID. The secondary objective was to assess the impact of obesity and breast density on the RFID outcomes.

Results

A total of 73 female patients met the eligibility criteria with stage I (59%) and grade 1 (51%) breast cancer with mean age of at diagnosis of 66.8 years and mean body mass index of 31.4 kg/m2. Patients had invasive ductal carcinoma (61%), hormonal positive (56%), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (68%) disease. All RFID tags were placed under image guidance with 100% accuracy of placement with no evidence of migration or procedure revision. Ninety percent of patients had free surgical margins and only seven patients needed margin re-excision with successful removal of the lesion and the tag.

Conclusion

RFID localization technique is a safe, effective and reliable procedure that results in favorable patient outcomes and quality of life.

Breast-Conserving Therapy is Associated with Improved Survival Without an Increased Risk of Locoregional Recurrence Compared with Mastectomy in Both Clinically Node-Positive and Node-Negative Breast Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Randomized trials demonstrated equivalent survival between breast-conserving surgery combined with radiotherapy (BCT) and mastectomy alone. Contemporary retrospective studies using pathological stage have reported improved survival with BCT. However, pathological information is unknown before surgery. To mimic real-world surgical decision-making, this study assesses oncological outcomes by using clinical nodal status.

METHODS

Female patients aged 18-69 years who were treated with upfront BCT or mastectomy between 2006 and 2016 for T1-3N0-3 breast cancer were identified by using prospective, provincial database. The patients were divided into clinically node-positive (cN+) and node-negative (cN0) strata. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of local treatment type on overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and locoregional recurrence (LRR).

RESULTS

Of 13,914 patients, 8228 had BCT and 5686 had mastectomy. Mastectomy patients had higher-risk clinicopathological factors: pathologically positive axillary staging was 21% in BCT and 38% in mastectomy groups. Most patients received adjuvant systemic therapy. For cN0 patients, 7743 had BCT and 4794 had mastectomy. On multivariable analysis, BCT was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, p < 0.001) and BCSS (HR 1.32, p < 0.001), whereas LRR was not different between the groups (HR 0.84, p = 0.1). For cN+ patients, 485 had BCT and 892 had mastectomy. On multivariable analysis, BCT was associated with improved OS (HR 1.46, p = 0.002) and BCSS (HR 1.44, p = 0.008), whereas LRR was not different between the groups (HR 0.89, p = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of contemporary systemic therapy, BCT was associated with better survival than mastectomy, without an increased risk of locoregional recurrence for both cN0 and cN+ presentations.

Cost-Efficacy Analysis of Use of Frozen Section Histology for Margin Assessment During Breast Conservation Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Margin assessment is an essential component of breast conservation surgery (BCS). Re-excision of infiltrated margin(s) detected on paraffin section histology (PSH) needs reoperation, adding time, inconvenience and cost. Intra-operative assessment of margins using frozen section histology (IFSH) can potentially obviate need for re-operation, thus facilitating one-step oncologically complete BCS.

METHODS

IFSH and PSH reports of consecutive patients undergoing BCS (2010-2020) were reviewed. Accuracy and cost-efficacy of IFSH were assessed, considering PSH as gold standard. Cost of achieving oncologically complete BCS in whole cohort with IFSH (Scenario-A) was calculated and compared using appropriate statistical tests, with hospital costs for the cohort in a hypothetical Scenario-B, where IFSH was presumed not to have been used and all patients with infiltrated margin(s) on PSH would have been re-operated.

RESULTS

Of the 367 patients screened, 39 were excluded due to incomplete IFSH data. Of 328 patients analyzed, 59 (18%) had one or more margins were reported infiltrated on IFSH, managed by re-excision or mastectomy in the same sitting, thus avoiding a reoperation. Additional 8 (2.4%) had involved margins on PSH (False negative IFSH). Significantly higher number of reoperations (p < 0.001) would have been needed in scenario-B. Average cost of the first operation with use of IFSH was Indian Rupees (INR) 25791 which included INR660 as IFSH cost. The average cost of reoperation was INR23724 which could be avoided in 59 (18%) by use of IFSH. The average cost per patient to achieve oncologically complete surgery in scenario A utilizing IFSH was significantly lower (p = 0.001) by INR3101 (11.7%), c.w. that in scenario B. Significant cost-saving with IFSH was maintained in cost-efficacy analysis undertaken with various higher and lower costs assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of IFSH facilitates one-step oncologically complete BCS in majority of patients and results in considerable cost saving, resulting in avoidance of reoperations, besides preventing patient anxiety and delay in adjuvant treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2021/08/035896).

Options of locoregional therapy for primary foci of breast cancer influence the rate of nonregional lymph node metastasis in N2-N3 status patients: a SEER database analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aim to use the SEER database to discuss the effect of various surgical methods of primary foci and other influencing factors on the nonregional lymph node (NRLN) metastasis in invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) patients.

METHODS

Clinical information of IDC patients used in this study was obtained from the SEER database. The statistical analyses used included a multivariate logistic regression model, the chi-squared test, log-rank test and propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

243,533 patients were included in the analysis. 94.3% of NRLN patients had a high N positivity (N3) but an equal distribution in T status. The proportion of operation type, especially BCM and MRM, differed significantly between the N0-N1 and N2-N3 groups in the NRLN metastasis group and nonmetastasis group. Age > 80 years, positive PR, modified radical mastectomy (MRM)/radical mastectomy (RM) and radiotherapy for primary tumor were shown to be protective factors for NRLN metastasis, and higher N positivity was the most significant risk factors. N2-N3 patients receiving MRM had a lower metastasis to NRLN than those receiving BCM (1.4% vs 3.7%, P < 0.001), while this relevance was not discovered in N0-N1 patients. In N2-N3 patients, a better OS was observed in MRM group than BCM group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MRM exerted a protective effect on NRLN metastasis compared to BCM in N2-N3 patients but not N0-N1 patients. This implies the need for more consideration when choosing the operation methods of primary foci in patients with high N positivity.

Consistency Between State's Cancer Registry and All-Payer Claims Database in Documented Radiation Therapy Among Patients Who Received Breast Conservative Surgery

PURPOSE

Arkansas is one of only four known states that have linked All-Payer Claims Database (APCD) to state's cancer registry (Arkansas Cancer Registry [ACR]). We evaluated the reporting consistency of radiation therapy (RT) between the two sources.

METHODS

Women age ≥ 18 years diagnosed in 2013-2017 with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who received breast-conserving surgery were identified. Patients must have continuous insurance coverage (any private plans, Medicaid, and Medicare) in the 13 months (month of diagnosis and 12 months after). Receipt of RT was identified independently from ACR and APCD. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for receipt of RT coded by the registry compared with APCD billing claims as the gold standard. We assessed the degree of concordance between the data sources by Cohen's kappa statistics.

RESULTS

The final sample included 2,695 patients who were in both databases and satisfied our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Using APCD as the gold standard, there were high sensitivity (88.1%) and positive predictive value (87.7%) and moderate specificity (71.1%) and negative predictive value (71.8%). The overall agreement between the two sources was 83.0%, with a kappa statistic of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.63). Consistency measures varied by age, stage, and insurance type with Medicare fee-for-service coverage only having the best and private insurance only the worse consistency.

CONCLUSION

In patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who received breast-conserving surgery, recording of RT receipt was moderately consistent between Arkansas APCD and ACR. Future studies are needed to identify factors affecting reporting consistency to better use this unique resource in addressing population health problems.

[The Significance of Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction After Tumorectomy in Surgical Breast Cancer Therapy]

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), meaning tumorectomy in combination with systemic therapy and locoregional radiation therapy has become the preferred method to treat early-stage breast cancer. With excellent long-term recurrence-free and overall survival rates, breast surgeons today must deliver du- rable and aesthetically appealing results that guarantee a good quality of life to meet the high patient expectations. Oncoplas- tic breast surgery (OPBS) is an innovative approach to improve the overall results of BCT. Often carried out by a team of a plastic surgeon and an oncologic breast surgeon, OPBS can actively prevent breast deformities without compromising oncological safety. In the following, an overview of the principles and techniques of oncoplastic breast surgery will be given due to its ever-increasing significance and its advantages and dis- advantages will be discussed in the context of reconstructive breast surgery.

Survival After Breast Conservation vs Mastectomy Adjusted for Comorbidity and Socioeconomic Status: A Swedish National 6-Year Follow-up of 48 986 Women

Question

Does breast conservation offer a survival benefit compared with mastectomy when results are adjusted for main confounders such as comorbidity and socioeconomic status?

Findings

In this large cohort study based on prospectively collected national data from 48 986 patients with breast cancer, overall and breast cancer–specific survival were significantly better after breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy than after mastectomy with or without radiotherapy despite stepwise adjustment for tumor characteristics, treatment, demographics, comorbidity, and socioeconomic background.

Meaning

Breast conservation seems to offer a survival benefit independent of measured confounders and should be given priority if both breast conservation and mastectomy are valid options.

Importance

Cohort studies show better survival after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with postoperative radiotherapy (RT) than after mastectomy (Mx) without RT. It remains unclear whether this is an independent effect or a consequence of selection bias.

Objective

To determine whether the reported survival benefit of breast conservation is eliminated by adjustment for 2 pivotal confounders, comorbidity and socioeconomic status.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cohort study using prospectively collected national data. Swedish public health care; nationwide clinical data from the National Breast Cancer Quality Register, comorbidity data from Patient Registers at the National Board of Health and Welfare, and individual-level education and income data from Statistics Sweden. The cohort included all women diagnosed as having primary invasive T1-2 N0-2 breast cancer and undergoing breast surgery in Sweden from 2008 to 2017. Data were analyzed between August 19, 2020, and November 12, 2020.

Exposures

Locoregional treatment comparing 3 groups: breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (BCS+RT), mastectomy without radiotherapy (Mx-RT), and mastectomy with radiotherapy (Mx+RT).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall survival (OS) and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS). Main outcomes were determined before initiation of data retrieval.

Results

Among 48 986 women, 29 367 (59.9%) had BCS+RT, 12413 (25.3%) had Mx-RT, and 7206 (14.7%) had Mx+RT. Median follow-up was 6.28 years (range, 0.01-11.70). All-cause death occurred in 6573 cases, with death caused by breast cancer in 2313 cases; 5-year OS was 91.1% (95% CI, 90.8-91.3) and BCSS was 96.3% (95% CI, 96.1-96.4). Apart from expected differences in clinical parameters, women receiving Mx-RT were older, had a lower level of education, and lower income. Both Mx groups had a higher comorbidity burden irrespective of RT. After stepwise adjustment for all covariates, OS and BCSS were significantly worse after Mx-RT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.66-1.92 and HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.45-1.90, respectively) and Mx+RT (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37 and HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.46, respectively) than after BCS+RT.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite adjustment for previously unmeasured confounders, BCS+RT yielded better survival than Mx irrespective of RT. If both interventions are valid options, mastectomy should not be regarded as equal to breast conservation.

Breast-Conserving Surgery is Oncologically Safe for Well-Selected, Centrally Located Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival outcomes of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in centrally located breast cancer (CLBC) compared with mastectomy in CLBC and BCS in non-CLBC, based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

METHODS

Female patients aged < 80 years with unilateral T1-T2 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer undergoing BCS or mastectomy were enrolled. The differences in clinical-pathological characteristics were evaluated using Chi square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to measure the relationship between predictive variables and performing BCS in CLBC. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox proportional hazards models. To overcome the effects of baseline differences on survival outcome in patients treated with BCS in the central and upper-outer locations, a 1:1 ratio propensity score matching method was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, among 16,522 CLBC patients, 7982 cases (48.3%) underwent BCS between 1998 and 2015. Factors such as older age, Black race, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), grade I, small tumor size, none or limited lymph node metastasis, positive progesterone receptor status, and receiving chemotherapy were independently correlated with BCS. BCS was an independent favorable prognostic factor among CLBC patients, based on multivariate Cox analysis. It was also shown that CLBC had similar survival outcomes compared with tumors in the upper-outer quadrant, and had a better breast cancer-specific survival compared with tumors in the lower quadrants, based on multivariate Cox analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

BCS should be an acceptable and preferable alternative to mastectomy for well-selected, early-stage T1 or T2 CLBC.