1
|
Hannoun-Levi JM, Gal J, Polgar C, Strnad V, Loessl K, Polat B, Kauer-Domer D, Schiappa R, Gutierrez C. Second Conservative Treatment for Local Recurrence Breast Cancer: A GEC-ESTRO Oncological Outcome and Prognostic Factor Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:1200-1210. [PMID: 37459998 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Revised: 06/14/2023] [Accepted: 06/17/2023] [Indexed: 08/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE For second ipsilateral breast tumor event (2nd IBTE), second conservative treatment (2nd CT) combining lumpectomy plus accelerated partial breast reirradiation (APBrI) represents a curative option. The aim of this study was to analyze oncological prognostic factors for patients with a 2nd IBTE treated with 2nd CT. METHODS AND MATERIALS An analysis of clinical practices was conducted across 7 academic hospitals/cancer centers in 6 European countries based on the GEC-ESTRO database. Patients presenting a 2nd IBTE occurring after conservative surgery (lumpectomy + axillary evaluation) and irradiation performed for the primary tumor underwent a 2nd CT with brachytherapy-based APBrI. The main outcome was 5-year cumulative incidence (CI) rate of second local relapse. All analyzed patients were classified according to risk groups for Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) and molecular classification and time interval between first and second breast surgery (TIS1S2). Finally, we combined GEC-ESTRO APBI, molecular, and TIS1S2 risk groups, leading to the definition of a new score (named TAM: score based on the combination of time interval [T] between first and second surgery and APBI [A] and molecular [M] classifications) specifically designed for 2nd IBTE oncological outcome analysis. RESULTS From July 1994 to January 2021, a total of 508 patients received a 2nd CT. At the time of 2nd IBTE, median age was 64.6 years (range, 56.2-72.6). With a median follow-up of 60.9 months (56.2-72.6), the 5-year second local relapse CI rate was 4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2%-6%). The 5-year distant metastasis disease CI rate was 7% (95% CI, 4%-10%). Five-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 89% (95% CI, 86%-93%) and 91% (95% CI, 88%-94%), respectively. In multivariate analysis, TAM score was an independent prognostic factor for all the oncological items (P < .001) except disease-specific survival (P = .07) and overall survival (P = .09). The grade ≥3 late toxicity rate was 12.1%. CONCLUSIONS This analysis of 2nd CT combining lumpectomy with APBrI for 2nd IBTE confirmed the excellent oncological results obtained after 2nd CT. Furthermore, the GEC-ESTRO TAM score appears to be an important prognostic factor, assisting patients and physicians in the decision-making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jean-Michel Hannoun-Levi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Centre, University Cote d'Azur, Nice, France.
| | - Jocelyn Gal
- Department of Epidemiology/Biostatistics, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Centre, University Cote d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Csaba Polgar
- Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary; Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Vratislav Strnad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Kristina Loessl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Bulent Polat
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wurzburg University, Wurzburg, Germany
| | - Daniela Kauer-Domer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Renaud Schiappa
- Department of Epidemiology/Biostatistics, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Centre, University Cote d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Crisitna Gutierrez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Aristei C, Kaidar-Person O, Boersma L, Leonardi MC, Offersen B, Franco P, Arenas M, Bourgier C, Pfeffer R, Kouloulias V, Bölükbaşı Y, Meattini I, Coles C, Luis AM, Masiello V, Palumbo I, Morganti AG, Perrucci E, Tombolini V, Krengli M, Marazzi F, Trigo L, Borghesi S, Ciabattoni A, Ratoša I, Valentini V, Poortmans P. The 2022 Assisi Think Tank Meeting: White paper on optimising radiation therapy for breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2023:104035. [PMID: 37244324 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2023] [Revised: 05/11/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 05/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The present white paper, referring to the 4th Assisi Think Tank Meeting on breast cancer, reviews state-of-the-art data, on-going studies and research proposals. < 70% agreement in an online questionnaire identified the following clinical challenges: 1: Nodal RT in patients who have a) 1-2 positive sentinel nodes without ALND (axillary lymph node dissection); b) cN1 disease transformed into ypN0 by primary systemic therapy and c) 1-3 positive nodes after mastectomy and ALND. 2. The optimal combination of RT and immunotherapy (IT), patient selection, IT-RT timing, and RT optimal dose, fractionation and target volume. Most experts agreed that RT- IT combination does not enhance toxicity. 3: Re-irradiation for local relapse converged on the use of partial breast irradiation after second breast conserving surgery. Hyperthermia aroused support but is not widely available. Further studies are required to finetune best practice, especially given the increasing use of re-irradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
| | - O Kaidar-Person
- Breast Radiation Unit, Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - L Boersma
- Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - M C Leonardi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - B Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - P Franco
- Depatment of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont and Department of Radiation Oncology, 'Maggiore della Carita`' University Hospital, Novara, Italy
| | - M Arenas
- Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Universitari Sant Hoan de Reus, IISPV, Spain
| | - C Bourgier
- Radiation Oncology, ICM-Val d' Aurelle, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - R Pfeffer
- Oncology Institute, Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion University Medical School, Israel
| | - V Kouloulias
- 2nd Department of Radiology, Radiotherapy Unit, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
| | - Y Bölükbaşı
- Koc University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - I Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence & Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - C Coles
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK
| | - A Montero Luis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - V Masiello
- Unità Operativa di Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagine, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCSS Roma, Italy
| | - I Palumbo
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - A G Morganti
- DIMES, Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna University, Bologna, Italy; Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna University; Bologna, Italy
| | - E Perrucci
- Radiation Oncology Section, Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - V Tombolini
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Science, University "La Sapienza", Roma, Italy
| | - M Krengli
- DISCOG, Università di Padova e Istituto Oncologico Veneto - IRCCS
| | - F Marazzi
- Unità Operativa di Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagine, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCSS Roma, Italy
| | - L Trigo
- Service of Brachytherapy, Department of Image and Radioncology, Instituto Português Oncologia Porto Francisco Gentil E.P.E., Portugal
| | - S Borghesi
- Radiation Oncology Unit of Arezzo-Valdarno, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est, Italy
| | - A Ciabattoni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, San Filippo Neri Hospital, ASL Rome 1, Rome, Italy
| | - I Ratoša
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - V Valentini
- Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore e Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCSS Roma, Italy
| | - P Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Kankernetwerk, Antwerp, Belgium; University of Antwerp, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Li Y, Li WW, Yuan L, Xu B. Is repeat breast conservation possible for small ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence? Cancer 2022; 128:3919-3928. [PMID: 36128621 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2022] [Revised: 08/22/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most cases of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) involve small tumors. Although a few guidelines recommend mastectomy, several patients prefer repeat BCS (re-BCS). This study aimed to compare re-BCS and mastectomy in terms of prognosis in patients with IBTR and to identify candidates for re-BCS. METHODS The data of patients with small IBTR between 1999 and 2015 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models and propensity score matching were applied. RESULTS Of the 3648 patients with IBTR, 2831 (77.6%) underwent mastectomy and 817 (22.4%) underwent re-BCS. The multivariate Cox model showed that re-BCS was associated with a worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.342; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.084-1.663) and BCSS (HR, 1.454; 95% CI, 1.004-2.105) compared with mastectomy. The omission of radiation after re-BCS was associated with worse survival overall and especially in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative IBTR (HR, 1.384; 95% CI, 1.110-1.724; and HR, 1.577; 95% CI, 1.075-2.314, respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed in the OS and BCSS between re-BCS with radiation and mastectomy. Subgroup analysis indicated that the surgical approach was not an independent factor for survival in the ER-positive patients with IBTR. CONCLUSIONS Re-BCS should be considered with caution in patients with small IBTR. However, a positive ER status can be an important factor for choosing re-BCS, and radiation therapy may improve oncological safety after re-BCS. LAY SUMMARY Repeat breast-conserving surgery (re-BCS) was investigated to determine if it is safe for patients with small ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). This population-based cohort study included 2831 patients with small IBTR. Re-BCS was associated with a worse overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival compared with mastectomy. Further analysis found that the IBTR estrogen receptor status was an important basis for choosing re-BCS, and radiation may improve oncological safety after re-BCS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong Li
- Department of Breast, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Jiangmen City, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.,Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Wei-Wen Li
- Department of Breast, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Jiangmen City, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Lin Yuan
- Department of Breast, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Jiangmen City, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.,Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Bo Xu
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.,Department of General Surgery, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tollan CJ, Pantiora E, Valachis A, Karakatsanis A, Tasoulis MK. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Role of Repeat Breast-Conserving Surgery for the Management of Ipsilateral Breast Cancer Recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 2022; 29:6440-6453. [PMID: 35849299 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12197-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2022] [Accepted: 06/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The standard surgical management of ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence (IBCR) in patients previously treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) is mastectomy. Recent international guidelines provide conflicting recommendations. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the oncological outcomes in patients with IBCR treated with repeat BCS (rBCS). METHODS The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant English-language publications, with no date restrictions. All relevant studies providing sufficient data to assess oncological outcomes (second local recurrence [LR] and overall survival [OS]) of rBCS for the management of IBCR after previous BCS and RT were included (PROSPERO registration CRD42021286123). RESULTS Forty-two observational studies met the criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled second LR rate after rBCS was 15.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.1-19.7), and 10.3% (95% CI 6.9-14.3) after salvage mastectomy. On meta-analysis of comparative studies (n = 17), the risk ratio (RR) for second LR following rBCS compared with mastectomy was 2.103 (95% CI 1.535-2.883; p < 0.001, I2 = 55.1%). Repeat RT had a protective effect (coefficient: - 0.317, 95% CI - 0.596 to - 0.038; p = 0.026, I2 = 40.4%) for second LR. Pooled 5-year OS was 86.8% (95% CI 83.4-90.0) and 79.8% (95% CI 74.7-84.5) for rBCS and salvage mastectomy, respectively. Meta-analysis of comparative studies (n = 20) showed a small OS benefit in favor of rBCS (RR 1.040, 95% CI 1.003-1.079; p = 0.032, I2 = 70.8%). Overall evidence certainty was very low. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis suggests rBCS could be considered as an option for the management of IBCR in patients previously treated with BCS and RT. Shared decision making, appropriate patient selection, and individualized approach are important for optimal outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Eirini Pantiora
- Department of Surgery, Uppsala University Hospital - Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Antonios Valachis
- Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
| | - Andreas Karakatsanis
- Department of Surgery, Uppsala University Hospital - Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Marios Konstantinos Tasoulis
- Breast Surgery Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Road, London, UK. .,Division of Breast Cancer Research, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sutherland A, Huppe A, Wagner JL, Amin AL, Balanoff CR, Kilgore LJ, Larson KE. The clinical impact of MRI on surgical planning for patients with in-breast tumor recurrence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 193:515-522. [PMID: 35415789 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06589-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2022] [Accepted: 03/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of breast MRI for patients with known in-breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). The aim was to determine if the addition of breast MRI altered surgical approach or multidisciplinary management. Previous studies have focused on using breast MRI for surgical planning for index breast cancers (BC) or detecting IBTR. However, the clinical impact of obtaining MRI in the setting of known IBTR has not been evaluated. METHODS A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed to compare surgical approach and multidisciplinary management for patients diagnosed with isolated IBTR who did and did not undergo breast MRI following IBTR diagnosis. RESULTS IBTR was identified in 69 patients, 46% of whom underwent MRI. There was no difference in the operative approach (p = 0.14) for IBTR patients who did and did not undergo breast MRI Additionally, there was no difference in multidisciplinary care, treatment order, metastatic disease identification, or mortality between cohorts. A relatively small subgroup of patients (n = 3) required change in surgical plan based on MRI results. Patients proceeding with surgery first who also underwent breast MRI experienced a significantly longer time to surgical intervention (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION Breast MRI following IBTR diagnosis infrequently impacted clinical management, including surgical approach and multidisciplinary care. MRI for local disease assessment at the time of IBTR should be used selectively based on clinical concern.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda Sutherland
- Department of Surgery, Division of Breast Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, 4000 Cambridge St, MS 2005, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA
| | - Ashley Huppe
- Department of Radiology, The University of Kansas Health System, 4000 Cambridge St, MS 2005, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA
| | - Jamie L Wagner
- Department of Surgery, Division of Breast Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, 4000 Cambridge St, MS 2005, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA
| | - Amanda L Amin
- Department of Surgery, Division of Breast Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, 4000 Cambridge St, MS 2005, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA
| | - Christa R Balanoff
- Department of Surgery, Division of Breast Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, 4000 Cambridge St, MS 2005, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA
| | - Lyndsey J Kilgore
- Department of Surgery, Division of Breast Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, 4000 Cambridge St, MS 2005, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA
| | - Kelsey E Larson
- Department of Surgery, Division of Breast Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, 4000 Cambridge St, MS 2005, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gentile D, Sagona A, Barbieri E, Antunovic L, Franceschini D, Losurdo A, Fernandes B, Tinterri C. Breast conserving surgery versus salvage mastectomy for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: a propensity score matching analysis. Updates Surg 2021; 74:479-489. [PMID: 34181187 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-01122-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Damiano Gentile
- Breast Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy. .,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20090, , Milan, Italy.
| | - Andrea Sagona
- Breast Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Erika Barbieri
- Breast Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Lidija Antunovic
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Davide Franceschini
- Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Agnese Losurdo
- Medical Oncology and Hematology Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Bethania Fernandes
- Department of Pathology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy
| | - Corrado Tinterri
- Breast Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20090, , Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hannoun-Levi JM, Gal J, Van Limbergen E, Chand ME, Schiappa R, Smanyko V, Kauer-Domer D, Pasquier D, Lemanski C, Racadot S, Houvenaeghel G, Guix B, Belliere-Calandry A, Loessl K, Polat B, Gutierrez C, Galalae R, Polgar C, Strnad V. Salvage Mastectomy Versus Second Conservative Treatment for Second Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Event: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis of the GEC-ESTRO Breast Cancer Working Group Database. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 110:452-461. [PMID: 33383125 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.12.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2020] [Revised: 12/16/2020] [Accepted: 12/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Second conservative treatment has emerged as an option for patients with a second ipsilateral breast tumor event after conserving surgery and breast irradiation. We aimed to address the lack of evidence regarding second breast event treatment by comparing oncologic outcomes after conservative treatment or mastectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Oncologic outcomes were analyzed using a propensity score-matched cohort analysis study on patients who received a diagnosis of a second breast event between January 1995 and June 2017. Patient data were collected from 15 hospitals/cancer centers in 7 European countries. Patients were offered mastectomy or lumpectomy plus brachytherapy. Propensity scores were calculated with logistic regression and multiple imputations. Matching (1:1) was achieved using the nearest neighbor method, including 10 clinical/pathologic data related to the second breast event. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival from the salvage surgery date. Secondary endpoints were 5-year cumulative incidence of third breast event, regional relapse and distant metastasis, and disease-free and specific survival. Complications and 5-year incidence of mastectomy were investigated in the conservative treatment cohort. RESULTS Among the 1327 analyzed patients (mastectomy, 945; conservative treatment, 382), 754 were matched by propensity score (mastectomy, 377; conservative treatment, 377). The median follow-up was 75.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.4-83.3) and 73.8 months (95% CI, 67.5-80.8) for mastectomy and conservative treatment, respectively (P = .9). In the matched analyses, no differences in 5-year overall survival and cumulative incidence of third breast event were noted between mastectomy and conservative treatment (88% [95% CI, 83.0-90.8] vs 87% [95% CI, 82.1-90.2], P = .6 and 2.3% [95% CI, 0.7-3.9] vs 2.8% [95% CI, 0.8-4.7], P = .4, respectively). Similarly, no differences were observed for all secondary endpoints. Five-year cumulative incidence of mastectomy was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.0-5.1). CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, this is the largest matched analysis of mastectomy and conservative treatment combining lumpectomy with brachytherapy for second breast events. Compared with mastectomy, conservative treatment does not appear to be associated with any differences in terms of oncologic outcome. Consequently, conservative treatment could be considered a viable option for salvage treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jean-Michel Hannoun-Levi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Centre, University of Côte d'Azur, Nice, France.
| | - Jocelyn Gal
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Centre, University of Cote d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Erik Van Limbergen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Marie-Eve Chand
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Centre, University of Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Renaud Schiappa
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Centre, University of Cote d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Viktor Smanyko
- Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Daniela Kauer-Domer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - David Pasquier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oscar Lambret Cancer Centre, Lille University, Lille, France
| | - Claire Lemanski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France
| | - Séverine Racadot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leon Berard Cancer Centre, Lyon, France
| | - Gilles Houvenaeghel
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Institute, Marseille, France
| | - Benjamin Guix
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Institute for Radiotherapy & Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Kristina Loessl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland
| | - Bulent Polat
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wurzburg University, Wurzburg, Germany
| | - Cristina Gutierrez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Razvan Galalae
- MedAustron Centre for Ion Therapy and Research, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Csaba Polgar
- Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Oncology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Vratislav Strnad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sagona A, Gentile D, Anghelone CAP, Barbieri E, Marrazzo E, Antunovic L, Franceschini D, Tinterri C. Ipsilateral Breast Cancer Recurrence: Characteristics, Treatment, and Long-Term Oncologic Results at a High-Volume Center. Clin Breast Cancer 2020; 21:329-336. [PMID: 33431329 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.12.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2020] [Revised: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 12/13/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Sagona
- Breast Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Damiano Gentile
- Breast Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
| | | | - Erika Barbieri
- Breast Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Emilia Marrazzo
- Breast Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Lidija Antunovic
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Davide Franceschini
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Corrado Tinterri
- Breast Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|