Systematic review of the impact of breast-conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers

Oncologic safety of breast conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer: A retrospective multi-institutional cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The recent ACOSOG Z11102 trial demonstrated low recurrence rates with breast conserving surgery (BCS) in women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBC). Questions remain regarding the oncologic safety of BCS in women with MIBC receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent BCS following NAC for stage I-III breast cancer from 2012 to 2021 at two academic centers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to provide estimates for recurrence and survival outcomes. MIBC was defined as ≥2 foci of malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 544 patients were included; 29.4% (n = 160) ER+/HER2-, 17.7% (n = 96) ER+/HER2+, 18.2% (n = 99) ER-/HER2+, and 34.7% (n = 189) with ER-/HER2-disease. Overall, 80.5% (n = 438) had unifocal breast cancer while 19.5% (n = 106) had MIBC. Of patients with MIBC, 90.6% (n = 96) had multifocal and 9.4% (n = 10) had multicentric disease. Pathologic complete response was achieved in 41.1% of patients with MIBC versus 41.5% of patients with unifocal disease (p = 0.94). At a median follow-up of 55 months (IQR 32-83); 4.8% of patients in the unifocal group and 4.7% of patients in the MIBC group had had a local recurrence (p = 0.97). There was no difference in 5-year local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.92), recurrence-free survival (p = 0.06), or overall survival (p = 0.07) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort of women undergoing BCS post-NAC, there was no significant difference in in breast tumor recurrence or survival outcomes between patients with unifocal disease and those with MIBC.

Pushing the envelope in breast conserving surgery - is multiple-wire localization (3 or more wires) associated with increased risk of compromised margins and long-term recurrence?

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades there has been a paradigm shift with breast conserving surgery (BCS) being applied to larger and more extensive breast malignancies. The aim of this study is to examine the success of BCS being performed in patients with extensive breast malignancies requiring at least 3 wires for localization, and to assess possible risk factors for failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective single center review of 232 patients who underwent BCS between 2010 and 2020 requiring at least 3 wires for localization, thus comprising the multi-wire group (MWG). The cohort included a control group of 232 single-wire BCS patients (SWG) chronologically matched with the MWG. Patients with either invasive malignancy or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were included in the study. Clinical, radiological, and pathological data was collected. Proportions of positive surgical margins, re-lumpectomies and conversion to mastectomy were calculated. Survival analysis for locoregional and distant recurrence was performed.

RESULTS

Women in the MWG were younger (mean age 57 vs. 63.1, P < 0.001), had larger tumor size (mean size 5.1 cm vs. 1.3 cm, p < 0.001), a higher prevalence of calcifications on mammograms (72 % vs. 17 %, P < 0.001), a higher proportion of positive lymph nodes (75 % vs. 45 %, P = 0.019), and an elevated incidence of a ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) component (72 % vs. 38 %, P < 0.001). Positive surgical margins were higher in the MWG (13 % vs 7 %, P = 0.03), which lead to higher proportions of re-lumpectomies or conversion to mastectomies (7 % vs 4 %, P = 0.17). On multivariate analysis of the entire cohort, patients with positive margins were more likely to have a DCIS component (77 % vs 53 %, P = 0.001), an infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC) component (15 % vs 9 %, P = 0.013), and positive ER hormonal status (94 % vs 85 %, p = 0.05). The number of wires was not an independent predictor of positive margins. On long-term analysis, the locoregional disease-free survival was similar between the SWG and MWG (P = 0.1). However, the MWG showed higher rates of distant metastasis (12 % vs 4 %, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

BCS requiring 3 or more wires is associated with a slightly higher proportion of positive margins. The increased risk of positive margins appears to be related to the type of tumor (DCIS component, ILC component and ER status) rather than to the number of wires. The number of wires does not significantly impact locoregional disease-free survival.

Local Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Therapy in Patients With Multiple Ipsilateral Breast Cancer: Results From ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance)

PURPOSE

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is the preferred treatment for unifocal breast cancer (BC). The oncologic safety of BCT for multiple ipsilateral breast cancer (MIBC) has not been demonstrated in a prospective study. ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance) is a phase II, single-arm, prospective trial designed to evaluate oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing BCT for MIBC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women age 40 years and older with two to three foci of biopsy-proven cN0-1 BC were eligible. Patients underwent lumpectomies with negative margins followed by whole breast radiation with boost to all lumpectomy beds. The primary end point was cumulative incidence of local recurrence (LR) at 5 years with an a priori rate of clinical acceptability of <8%.

RESULTS

Among 270 women enrolled between November 2012 and August 2016, there were 204 eligible patients who underwent protocol-directed BCT. The median age was 61 years (range, 40-87 years). At a median follow-up of 66.4 months (range, 1.3-90.6 months), six patients developed LR for an estimated 5-year cumulative incidence of LR of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3 to 6.4). Patient age, number of sites of preoperative biopsy-proven BC, estrogen receptor status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, and pathologic T and N categories were not associated with LR risk. Exploratory analysis showed that the 5-year LR rate in patients without preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; n = 15) was 22.6% compared with 1.7% in patients with a preoperative MRI (n = 189; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

The Z11102 clinical trial demonstrates that breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiation that includes lumpectomy site boosts yields an acceptably low 5-year LR rate for MIBC. This evidence supports BCT as a reasonable surgical option for women with two to three ipsilateral foci, particularly among patients with disease evaluated with preoperative breast MRI.

A retrospective comparative cohort study of SEER database analysis of the prognostic value of breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy in patients with multifocal multicenter breast cancer

Background

The prognosis of multifocal multicentric breast cancer (MIBC) was related to many factors, and there are different recommendations for surgical approaches. We compare the effects of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy on the survival of multifocal multicenter breast cancer female patients.

Methods

A total of 38,164 female patients with pathologically confirmed multifocal multicenter invasive breast cancer from 2000 to 2018 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were extracted, and the effects of different factors on the survival of these patients were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into a BCS group and a mastectomy group, and the differences of breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

Of the 38,164 patients included in the analysis, 14,533 (38.08%) underwent BCS and 23,631 (61.92%) underwent mastectomy. Multivariate analysis showed that age, grading, staging, number of lesions, radiotherapy, and BCS would affect the independent factors of BCSS and OS in patients. The median follow-up time was 108 months [interquartile range (IQR): 64-162 months). Multifactorial Cox proportional model analysis of prognostic risk showed that BCS reduced BCSS in patients older than 70 years [hazard ratio (HR): 1.35; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-1.53; P<0.001], stage I and II, positive hormone receptor (HR), all 2-3 lesions, no radiotherapy (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.33-1.6; P<0.001) and no chemotherapy (HR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.28-1.57; P<0.001); BCS also reduced OS in patients over 40 years of age, stages I, II, and IIIC, all molecular subtypes, all HR-positive or negative, 2-3 lesions, and no radiotherapy (HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.31-1.46; P<0.001) and no chemotherapy (HR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.29-1.44; P<0.001) patients. Multivariate Cox regression showed that BCS is an adverse factor for BCSS [adjusted HR 1.2 (1.11-1.3), P<0.001] and OS [adjusted HR 1.24 (1.19-1.3), P<0.001].

Conclusions

In early, good prognosis, treatment-sensitive patients, there is no survival advantage for BCS and more BCSS and OS benefit for mastectomy patients.

The epidemiological and clinicopathological characteristics of multifocal/multicentric breast cancer in the Egyptian Delta and its impact on management strategies

BACKGROUND

Multifocal (MFBC)/multicentric (MCBC) breast cancer is being more recognized due to the improved imaging modalities and the greater orientation with this form of breast cancer, however, optimal surgical treatment, still poses a challenge. The standard surgical treatment is mastectomy, however, breast-conserving surgeries (BCS) may be appropriate in certain situations.

METHODS

A total of 464 cases of MF/MCBC out of 4798 cases of breast cancer were retrospectively analyzed from the database of the Oncology Center, Mansoura University (OCMU), between January 2008 and December 2019.

RESULTS

Radiologic involvement of multiple quadrants was reported in 27.9% by ultrasonography, 19% by mammography, and 59.1% by magnetic resonance imaging. BCS was performed in 32 cases (6.9%) while 432 cases underwent a mastectomy. Postoperative pathology revealed infiltration of other quadrants grossly in 23.5%, and under the microscope in 63.6% of the examined cases. Mean disease-free and overall survival were 95.5 and 164.6 months, respectively. When compared with MFBC, MCBC showed higher pathologic tumor size (p < 0.001), higher stages (p < 0.001), higher recurrence rates (p = 0.006), and lower DFS (P = 0.009) but with similar OS (P = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

Mastectomy is still the primary treatment option for MCBC with higher recurrence rates compared with MFBC. However, BCS for properly selected MFBC is considered oncologically safe, following the same rules of breast conservation for unifocal disease.

Predictive factors for relapse in triple-negative breast cancer patients without pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients who do not obtain pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) present higher rate of relapse and worse overall survival. Risk factors for relapse in this subset of patients are poorly characterized. This study aimed to identify the predictive factors for relapse in TNBC patients without pCR after NACT.

Methods

Women with TNBC treated with NACT from January 2008 to May 2020 at the Modena Cancer Center were included in the analysis. In patients without pCR, univariate and multivariable Cox analyses were used to determine factors predictive of relapse.

Results

We identified 142 patients with a median follow-up of 55 months. After NACT, 62 patients obtained pCR (43.9%). Young age at diagnosis (&lt;50 years) and high Ki-67 (20%) were signi!cantly associated with pCR. Lack of pCR after NACT resulted in worse 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Factors independently predicting EFS in patients without pCR were the presence of multifocal disease [hazard ratio (HR), 3.77; 95% CI, 1.45–9.61; p=0.005] and residual cancer burden (RCB) III (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.09–9.9; p=0.04). Neither germline BRCA status nor HER2-low expression were associated with relapse.

Discussion

These data can be used to stratify patients and potentially guide treatment decision-making, identifying appropriate candidates for treatment intensi!cation especially in neo-/adjuvant setting.

The challenge of equipoise: qualitative interviews exploring the views of health professionals and women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer on recruitment to a surgical randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background

A multicentre feasibility trial (MIAMI), comparing outcomes and quality of life of women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer randomised to therapeutic mammoplasty or mastectomy, was conducted from September 2018 to March 2020. The MIAMI surgical trial aimed to investigate recruitment of sufficient numbers of women. Multidisciplinary teams at 10 breast care centres in the UK identified 190 with MIBC diagnosis; 20 were eligible for trial participation but after being approached only four patients were recruited. A nested qualitative study sought to understand the reasons for this lack of recruitment.

Methods

Interviews were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020 with 17 staff from eight hospital-based breast care centres that recruited and attempted to recruit to MIAMI; and seven patients from four centres, comprising all patients who were recruited to the trial and some who declined to take part. Interviews were audio-recorded, anonymised and analysed using thematic methods of building codes into themes and sub-themes using the process of constant comparison.

Results

Overarching themes of (1) influences on equipoise and recruitment and (2) effects of a lack of equipoise were generated. Within these themes, health professional themes described the barriers to recruitment as ‘the treatment landscape has changed’, ‘staff preferences and beliefs’ which influenced equipoise and patient advice; and how different the treatments were for patients. Patient themes of ‘altruism and timing of trial approach’, ‘influences from consultants and others’ and ‘diagnostic journey doubts’ all played a part in whether patients agreed to take part in the trial.

Conclusions

Barriers to recruiting to breast cancer surgical trials can be significant, especially where there are substantial differences between the treatments being offered and a lack of equipoise communicated by healthcare professionals to patients. Patients can become overwhelmed by numerous requests for participation in research trials and inappropriate timing of trial discussions. Alternative study designs to the gold standard randomised control trial for surgical interventions may be required to provide the high-quality evidence on which to base practice.

Trial registration

ISRCTN (ISRCTN17987569) registered on April 20, 2018, and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03514654).

Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery for Synchronous Multicentric and Multifocal Tumors: Is It Oncologically Safe? A Retrospective Matched-Cohort Analysis

Background

Oncoplastic surgery is a well-established approach that combines breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer and plastic surgery techniques. Although this approach already has been described for multicentric and multifocal tumors, no long-term oncologic follow-up evaluation and no comparison with patients undergoing mastectomy have been published. This study aimed to evaluate whether oncoplastic surgery is a safe and reliable treatment for managing invasive primary multicentric and multifocal breast cancer.

Methods

The study compared a consecutive series of 100 patients with multicentric or multifocal tumors who had undergone oncoplastic surgery (study group) with 100 patients who had multicentric or multifocal tumors and had undergone mastectomy (control group) during a prolonged period. The end points evaluated were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), cumulative incidence of local recurrence (CI-L), regional recurrence (CI-R), and distant recurrence (CI-D), all measured from the date of surgery.

Results

The OS and DFS were similar between the two groups. The incidence of local events was higher in the oncoplastic group, whereas the incidence of regional events was slightly higher in the mastectomy group. These differences were not statistically significant. The cumulative incidence of distant events was similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

To the authors’ knowledge, the current study provides the best available evidence suggesting that the oncoplastic approach is a safe and reliable treatment for managing invasive multifocal and multicentric breast cancers.

Advanced breast conservation and partial breast reconstruction - a review of current available options for oncoplastic breast surgery

Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting one in three women with new cancer diagnosis in England. Breast-conserving surgery is the primary surgical option in a vast majority of these patients. Use of oncoplastic techniques in breast conservation surgery has significantly improved the aesthetic outcomes without compromising the oncological safety of cancer resections. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) has transformed the specialty with a paradigm shift in ideology and the recognition that aesthetic and oncological resections are synonymous when planning surgical intervention for patients with breast cancer. The two main options for OPBCS are therapeutic mammoplasty and partial beast reconstruction using pedicle-based flaps. This review aims to highlight key concepts in OPBCS demonstrating an overview of these surgical techniques, their safety, outcomes and the emergence of extreme oncoplastic breast surgery.

Extreme Oncoplasty: Breast Conservation in Patients with Large, Multifocal, and Multicentric Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Extreme Oncoplastic Breast Conservation Surgery (EOBCS) is offered in selected patients with multifocal or multicentric breast cancer (MFMC). Recent evidence has suggested that EOBCS may be a valuable resource for patients with MFMC who may avoid the risk associated with mastectomy in favour of the benefits of breast conservation without risking their oncological outcomes. Our study examined the practice of EOBCS in two regional breast units in Glasgow, United Kingdom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospectively collected database of 50 patients treated with EOBC in two breast units in Glasgow between 2007 and 2018 were evaluated, and clinical outcomes were observed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (median age 55) underwent EOBCS, of which 43 (86%) had invasive disease. Median tumour size was 55mm (50-90) and multifocal disease was identified in 22 (44%) patients. Nine patients (18%) were found to have positive margins and underwent a second procedure, with 6 (12%) proceeding to mastectomy. Five-year disease free survival rate was 91.5%, while cancer-specific survival was 95.7%.

CONCLUSION

EOBCS is oncologically safe in short-term follow-up. Large scale studies are required to confirm these preliminary results, in order to offer EOBCS as a valid option to patients with advanced or multifocal breast cancer.

Partial breast resection for multifocal lower quadrant breast tumour using virtual reality

Oncoplastic surgery allows an increase in the number of indications for conservative breast cancer treatments. However, uncertainty as to whether it can be performed still exists in certain situations such as with multicentric or multifocal lesions, even when the breast volume can accommodate it. With the aid of a virtual reality software, DIVA, allowing the precise visualisation of tumours and breast volumes based entirely on the patient's MRI, we report the ability to rapidly confirm and secure an indication for partial surgery of multiple lesions in a 31-year-old patient. With the described approach, the patient did not have to suffer significant disfigurement from cancerous breast surgery without compromising safety.

A Survey of Breast Pathologists' Practice in Staging Multiple Foci of Invasive Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system is the reference standard for describing the extent of neoplastic disease on the basis of the size of primary tumor (T), and the presence of regional lymph node (N) involvement and distant metastasis (M). Multiple foci of invasive breast carcinoma may pose staging challenges to the reporting pathologist. We set out to evaluate the practice of local breast pathologists with regard to staging of multiple foci of invasive carcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Breast pathologists were surveyed at a Community of Interest in Breast Pathology meeting. The live voting survey contained 6 case-based scenarios of multiple foci of invasive mammary carcinoma of the same or different histologic type and with unilateral or bilateral involvement. A supporting illustration was provided for each case.

RESULTS

There was poor interobserver agreement with no consensus reached among the respondents in any of the cases. Staging choices varied from staging tumors together irrespective of histology or procedure type to staging tumors of the same histologic type together, or staging each tumor focus separately. Confusion was particularly evident when tumor foci with different histologic types were present.

CONCLUSION

Inconsistencies exist in the reporting of AJCC pathologic TNM stage for multiple foci of invasive carcinoma. The results serve as a reminder that education and strict adherence to the AJCC guidelines is essential for establishing standard practice in order to provide accurate cancer staging and ensure optimal clinical management.

Ipsilateral and Concurrent Breast Cancer and Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Does Atypia Also Need Surgical Excision?

BACKGROUND

Standard-of-care management of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is surgical excision. Multiple studies have identified features of ADH in patients at low risk for upgrade who may benefit from omission of surgical excision. Patients with an ipsilateral breast cancer have been excluded from studies investigating observation for the management of ADH.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of women with both a breast cancer and an ipsilateral separate site of ADH diagnosed on percutaneous biopsy, who underwent excision of both sites from 2008 to 2018. Radiographic and pathologic features of ADH and cancer were analyzed, including imaging size, biopsy modality, distance between sites, cancer subtype, grade, prognostic markers, ADH foci, and presence of necrosis or micropapillary features. Final pathology at the ADH site was used to determine upgrade. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify variables significantly associated with ADH upgrade to malignancy.

RESULTS

Among 62 women meeting the inclusion criteria, 11 (17.7%) upgraded to malignancy [9 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 2 invasive cancer] at the site of ADH. Upgrade was significantly higher with ipsilateral DCIS (p = 0.03), ultrasound biopsy at the ADH site (p = 0.01), and ADH with necrosis (p = 0.04). The group at lowest risk for upgrade had stereotactic biopsy and ADH without necrosis (0% upgrade).

CONCLUSION

The presence of breast cancer does not significantly increase the likelihood for upgrade at a separate site of ipsilateral concurrent ADH above contemporary reported upgrade rates of ADH alone (10-30%). When considering breast conservation for breast cancer, omitting excision of the site of ADH can be considered when low-risk features are present.

Mapping of multifocal breast cancer to achieve negative margins: A new step in the evolution of conservative breast surgery(A cohort study)

•

Conservative breast surgery is the standard technique in breast cancer.

•

Multifocal breast cancer is a risk factor for involved margins.

•

Positive margins are considered one of the predictors for local recurrence.

•

Preoperative wire mapping after breast marking by the surgeon increase the chance to have negative margins.

Synchronous Multiple Breast Cancers-Do We Need to Reshape Staging?

Background and Objectives: Current recommendations and treatment regimens in breast cancer are a reflection of its heterogeneity on multiple levels including histological subtypes, grading, molecular profiling, and numerous prognostic indices. Although based on extensive research, current guidelines are not explicit in the case of surgical specimens showing various degrees of mismatch between different parts of the same tumor and even more so between multicentric lesions. Synchronous breast cancer is the ideal prototype for studying inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity, therefore we envisaged that a study on patients with multicentric and multifocal lesions could contribute to the reshaping of the staging, prognosis, and treatment of breast malignancies. Material and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted between January 2013 and May 2017 on 235 patients diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) and surgically treated at Emergency University Hospital, Bucharest. Thirty-seven patients had multiple breast tumors and were eligible for assessment of the heterogeneity of their lesions. Results: 6 were multicentric and 31 multifocal. The number of foci varied from 2 to 11. We encountered numerous mismatches between the index and the secondary tumors, as follows: 3 cases (8.1%) with histopathological mismatch, 13 (35.1%) with different grades of differentiation, 11 (29.8%) with ER (Estrogen Receptors) status mismatch, 12 (32.4%) with PR (Progesterone Receptors) status mismatch, 8 (21.6%) with molecular phenotype mismatch, and 17 (45.9%) cases with variable Ki-67. After careful analysis of index and secondary tumors, apart from the mismatches reported above, we discovered that the secondary tumors were actually dominant in 5 cases (13.5%), and therefore at least those cases had to be reclassified/restaged, as the supplementary data commanded changes in the therapeutic decision. Conclusions: For synchronous breast tumors, the current Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging system ignores not only the histopathological and immunohistochemical characteristics of the secondary foci, but also their size. When secondary lesions are more aggressive or their cumulative mass is significantly bigger than that of the index tumor, the treatment plan should be adapted accordingly. We believe that information obtained from examining secondary foci in synchronous breast cancer and assessment of the cumulative tumoral mass should be reflected in the final staging and definitive treatment. The clinical benefit of staging the patients based on the most aggressive tumor and the cumulative tumoral burden rather than according to the biggest single tumor, will avoid under-treatment in cases with multifocal/multicentric BC displaying intertumoral mismatch.

Comparison of breast cancer patients who underwent partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (M + I) regarding quality of life (QOL), cosmetic outcome and survival rates

PURPOSE

The latissimus dorsi muscle has long been used in breast cancer (BC) patients for reconstruction. This study aimed to compare early stage BC patients who had partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (MI) with respect to quality of life (QoL), cosmetic outcome (CO), and survival rates.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data of patients who underwent PM + MLDF (Group 1) and M + I (Group 2) between January 2010 and January 2018 were evaluated. Both groups were compared in terms of demographics, clinical and pathological characteristics, surgical morbidity, survival, quality of life, and cosmetic results. The EORTC-QLQ C30 and EORTC-QLO BR23 questionnaires and the Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS) Cosmetic Evaluation Scale were used to assess the quality of life and the cosmetic outcome, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 317 patients were included in the study, 242 (76.3%) of them in group 1 and 75 (23.6%) of them in group 2. Median follow-up time was 56 (14-116) months. There were no differences identified between the groups in terms of tumor histology, hormonal receptors and HER-2 positivity, surgical morbidity, and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Group 2 patients were significantly younger than group 1 (p = 0.003). The multifocality/multicentricity rate was higher in group 2 (p ≤ 0.001), whereas tumor size (p = 0.009), body mass index (BMI, p = 0.006), histological grade (p ≤ 0.001), lymph node positivity (p = 0.002), axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) rate (p = 0.005), and presence of lympho-vascular invasion (LVI, p = 0.013) were significantly higher in group 1. When the quality of life was assessed by using the EORTC QLQ C30 and BR23 questionnaires, it was seen that the body image perception (p < 0.001) and nausea/vomiting score (p = 0.024) were significantly better in PM + MLDF group whereas physical function score was significantly better in M + I group (p = 0.012). When both groups were examined in terms of cosmesis with JBCS Cosmetic Evaluation Scale, good cosmetic evaluation score was significantly higher in patients in MLDF group (p = 0.01).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that in comparison to M + I procedure, the PM + MLDF procedure provides significantly superior results in terms of body image and cosmetic result with similar morbidity and oncologic outcomes. In selected patients with small breasts and a high tumor/breast ratio, PM + MLDF may be an alternative to subcutaneous mastectomy and implant.

Multifocal and multicentric breast cancer, is it time to think again?

Multifocal multicentric breast cancer has traditionally been considered a contraindication to breast conserving surgery because of concerns regarding locoregional control and risk of disease recurrence. However, the evidence supporting this practice is limited. Increasingly, many breast surgeons are advocating breast conservation in selected cases. This short narrative review summarises current evidence on the role of surgery in multifocal multicentric breast cancer and shows that when technically feasible the option of breast conservation is oncologically safe.

Evaluating the current evidence to support therapeutic mammoplasty or breast-conserving surgery as an alternative to mastectomy in the treatment of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers

The oncological safety of treating multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBCs) with types of breast conserving surgery (BCS) compared to mastectomy remains uncertain. This is predicated on the absence of any randomised controlled trials or high-quality protocol defined prospective cohort studies. A single recently published systematic review by the first author, reports its summarised results in this review. Fundamentally the important question is the evaluation of clinical safety following BCS compared to mastectomy for treating MIBC, which is reported in only six studies. Consequently, current evidence doesn't support the latest St Gallen consensus suggesting the possibility of using BCS to treat all MIBC. There is minimal comparative outcomes data on multicentric (MC) cancers compared to multifocal (MF) cancers comparing BCS or mastectomy. There is also poor evidence of clinical outcomes following therapeutic mammoplasty (TM) for MIBC compared to mastectomy. The potential recommendation of two potential radiotherapy boosts to separate lumpectomy sites following BCS for MC cancers remains a novel treatment concept whose feasibility will be evaluated in the forthcoming NIHR funded randomised feasibility trial called MIAMI. This is a world first attempt to assess the feasibility of a randomised trial design alongside the on-going Alliance registry study (ACOSOG, American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z11102) in the USA, in which there is no comparative evaluation of mastectomy outcomes. The MIAMI trial aims to assess the clinical safety of multiple lumpectomies combined with TM compared to the standard of mastectomy in MIBC stratified by MF or MC cancers. There is limited evidence on the impacts of inter-tumoral heterogeneity relating to breast cancer subtypes in relation to individualised treatments and recommendations for types of breast surgery. Recent studies have highlighted the potential contributions of stromal epigenetic changes that are currently poorly understood regarding their contributions to either clinical unifocal or MF cancers.