Comparison of long-term oncologic outcomes of central lumpectomy and conventional breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer: propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

Central lumpectomy (CL) is a breast-conserving surgical (BCS) technique that involves excision of the nipple-areolar complex with breast tumor in centrally located breast cancers. We aimed to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of CL in comparison with conventional BCS (cBCS).

METHODS

Patient records who underwent BCS with clear resection margins for invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Of the total 6,533 patients, 106 (1.6%) underwent CL. Median follow-up duration was 73.4 months. 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to minimize selection bias.

RESULTS

The CL group showed a significantly higher ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rate than the cBCS group (10-year IBTR rate: 5.8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.004), even after adjusting for other variables (hazard ratio (HR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-6.60, p = 0.048). However, there were no significant differences observed in regional recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall survival rates between the two groups. Both PSM and IPTW analyses showed significantly higher IBTR in the CL group (PSM HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 0.94-11.36; p = 0.048 and IPTW HR, 4.66; 95%CI, 1.85-11.77; p < 0.001). Lastly, when analyzing 2,213 patients whose tumors were located within 3 cm of the nipple, the CL group showed a significantly higher IBTR than the cBCS group before and after PSM.

CONCLUSION

CL was associated with a higher rate of IBTR compared to cBCS, while other survival outcomes were comparable. For centrally located tumors, CL may be considered for patients preferring breast preservation. However, higher risk for IBTR should be informed and careful surveillance may be necessary during the early post-operative follow-up periods.

Comparison of long-term oncological outcomes after central lumpectomy versus nipple-sparing breast-conserving surgery for centrally located breast cancer: a propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

To compare the oncological safety of nipple-sparing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus central lumpectomy for centrally located breast cancer (CLBC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent BCS for CLBC at Asan Medical Center from 2007 to 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. The oncological outcomes of nipple-sparing BCS (NS-BCS) and central lumpectomy were compared using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses and compared again after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

The study included 306 patients who underwent NS-BCS and 106 patients who underwent central lumpectomy (median follow-up: 111 months). On multivariate analysis, central lumpectomy had a lower risk of local recurrence compared to NS-BCS, albeit without statistical significance (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.24; p = 0.077). There was no significant difference in the risk of death (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-1.68, p = 0.12). After PSM, each group had 106 patients. The 5-year and 10-year local recurrence-free survival rates were 94.2% and 92.9% for NS-BCS, and 99.1% and 99.1% for central lumpectomy, respectively (p = 0.031). There were no significant differences in overall survival, regional recurrence-free survival, or distant recurrence-free survival. Fifteen patients (4.9%) who underwent NS-BCS had ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), of which 40% were in the nipple-areolar complex and previous surgical sites. One patient (0.9%) who underwent central lumpectomy experienced an IBTR in a different quadrant.

CONCLUSION

NS-BCS showed more local recurrence than central lumpectomy. When deciding whether to spare the nipple during BCS in CLBC, patients should be sufficiently informed about the risk of IBTR.

Breast-conserving surgery is an appropriate procedure for centrally located breast cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The evidence of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) applied in centrally located breast cancer (CLBC) is absent. This study aims to investigate the long-term survival of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) in centrally located breast cancer (CLBC) compared with mastectomy in CLBC and BCT in non-CLBC.

METHODS

Two hundred ten thousand four hundred nine women with unilateral T1-2 breast cancer undergoing BCT or mastectomy were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were assessed via log-rank test. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline features, and the multivariable Cox model was used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio [HR] and its 95% confidence interval [CI] for breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 91 months, the BCSS and OS rates in patients who received BCT were greater than those patients treated with mastectomy in the entire CLBC set. Multivariable Cox analyses showed that CLBC patients who received BCT had better BCSS (HR = 0.67, 95%CI: 0.55-0.80, p < 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.68-0.90, p = 0.001) than patients who received a mastectomy, but there were no significant differences of BCSS (HR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47-0.90, p = 0.009) and OS (HR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.65-1.04, p = 0.110) after PSM. In patients treated with BCT, CLBC patients had a similar BCSS (HR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.87-1.12, p = 0.850) but a worse OS (HR = 1.09, 95%CI: 1.01-1.18, p = 0.040) compared to that of the non-CLBC patient, but there was no significant difference both BCSS (HR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.88-1.24, p = 0.614) and OS (HR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.97-1.20, p = 0.168) after PSM.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed that BCT should be an acceptable and preferable alternative to mastectomy for well-selected patients with CLBC.

Breast conserving therapy for central breast cancer in the United States

Introduction

Although central breast cancer is not a contraindication to breast conserving, most surgeons still choose to perform total mastectomy. The safety of breast conserving treatment for central breast cancer is still unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term survival outcome of central breast cancer.

Materials and methods

Using SEER database to explore the trend of surgical procedures for patients with central breast cancer. The patients were divided into breast conserving group and non-breast conserving group. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of breast conserving surgery in central breast cancer. The clinicopathological variables were adjusted through the multivariable Cox risk model, and the stage and T stage were stratified to compare survival results.

Results

A total of 8702 patients with central breast cancer underwent surgical treatment from 2010 to 2015. There were 3870 patients in the breast conserving group and 4832 patients in the non-breast conserving group. The breast preservation rate was 44.4%, which rose from 39.9% in 2010 to 51% in 2015. Elderly patients (p < 0.001) and low tumor malignancy were predictors of breast conserving therapy. In the 1:1 matched case–control analysis, breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) (p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (p < 0.001) in breast conserving therapy group were still higher than those of non-breast conserving. In the subgroup analysis of T staging and stage, the breast conserving therapy group still had higher OS and BCSS.

Conclusion

In central breast cancer, breast-conserving therapy is safe and optional.

Modified Grisotti flap technique in centrally located breast cancer: case report

Traditionally, breast cancer patients with centrally located mass always receive mastectomy or the combination of central excision and primary closure. With the development of modern oncoplastic breast-conserving techniques, these patients can conserve their breast, and achieve satisfactory cosmetic outcome as well as clear margin. A variety of techniques are available to deal with centrally located breast cancers (CLBCs). Among these techniques, Grisotti flap technique is special, because it is easy to handle, and only causes minor injury by using a local rotational dermoglandular flap to fill the defection of central part. However, in our clinical practice, we find a lot of women in south China have special properties. Such as short distance from inframammary liner to the nipple, long distance from midclavicular to the nipple, and large breast diameter. Simply apply the Grisotti flap technique to those patients is not very suitable that drive us to modify this technique to suit our patients. We adopt the idea that use pedicled skin flap with skin island to replace the central defection to modify Grisotti flap technique. And applied this technique to two patients. We find modified Grisotti flap technique for Paget's disease or CLBC had good cosmetic results as well as safety in suitable patients. In the future, we can use superior pedicle with skin island for ptotic breasts, and lateral pedicle is suitable for patients without large and ptotic breasts.

Breast-Conserving Therapy Has Better Prognosis for Tumors in the Central and Nipple Portion of Breast Cancer Compared with Mastectomy: A SEER Data-Based Study

Background and Objectives

Currently, the location of primary tumor was an independent prognostic factor of breast cancer. Tumors in the central and nipple portion (TCNP) had poor prognosis compared to other peripheral quadrants. The breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is becoming increasingly common worldwide in breast cancer operations. However, whether the availability of BCT was performed for TCNP remained a matter of debate. We sought to investigate whether BCT was suitable for TCNP with respect to survival outcomes, compared with mastectomy therapy.

Methods

Utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we obtained TCNP breast cancer patients diagnosed during the period of 2010–2015. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to construct a matched sample consisting of pairs of BCT and mastectomy groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were applied to estimate the factors associated with breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS). Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

In the overall cohort, a total of 9,900 patients were enrolled. We found that patients with BCT showed significantly better BCSS (log-rank, p < 0.001) and OS (log-rank, p < 0.001) than the mastectomy group before PSM. The same finding was also shown in 5,820 patients after PSM. Additionally, none of the subgroups, including age, sex, race, histological grade, AJCC stage, and molecular subtype undergoing mastectomy therapy, had better BCSS than BCT.

Conclusions

Our study was the first research to show that BCT exhibited superior prognosis in the cohort of TCNP from SEER databases than mastectomy therapy. This finding could provide a cue for treatment strategies for suitable TCNP patients, especially those with a strong willingness to conserve their breasts.

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.