Dataset Information

Increased risk of locoregional recurrence for women with T1-2N0 triple-negative breast cancer treated with modified radical mastectomy without adjuvant radiation therapy compared with breast-conserving therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR) associated with locoregional treatment of women with primary breast cancer tumors negative for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]).

Patients and methods

Patients diagnosed with TNBC were identified from a cancer registry in a single institution (n=768). LRR-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine risk of LRR on the basis of locoregional management: breast-conserving therapy (BCT; ie, lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy [RT]) and modified radical mastectomy (MRM) in the TNBC population and T1-2N0 subgroup.

Results

At a median follow-up of 7.2 years, 77 patients (10%) with TNBC developed LRR. Five-year LRR-free survival was 94%, 85%, and 87% in the BCT, MRM, and MRM + RT groups, respectively (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, MRM (compared with BCT), lymphovascular invasion and lymph node positivity were associated with increased LRR. Conversely, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with decreased risk of LRR. For patients with T1-2N0 tumors, 5-year LRR-free survival was 96% and 90% in the BCT and MRM groups, respectively (P = .027), and MRM was the only independent prognostic factor associated with increased LRR compared with BCT (hazard ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.12 to 5.75; P = .0264).

Conclusion

Women with T1-2N0 TNBC treated with MRM without RT have a significant increased risk of LRR compared with those treated with BCT. Prospective studies are warranted to investigate the benefit of adjuvant RT after MRM in TNBC.

SUBMITTER: Abdulkarim BS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5073381 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to evaluate the influence of mammographic breast density at diagnosis on the risk of cancer recurrence and survival outcomes in patients with invasive breast cancer after modified radical mastectomy.MethodsThis case-control study included 121 case-control pairs of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2009, and who had undergone modified radical mastectomy and had mammographic breast density measured before or at diagnosis. Women with known locoregional recurrence or distant metastasis were matched by pathological disease stage, age, and year of diagnosis to women without recurrence. Locoregional recurrence was defined as recurrence in the ipsilateral chest wall, or axillary, internal mammary, or supraclavicular nodes. The median follow-up duration was 84.0 months for case patients and 92.9 months for control patients.ResultsPatients with heterogeneously dense (50-75% density) and extremely dense (>75% density) breasts had an increased risk of locoregional recurrence (hazard ratios 3.1 and 5.7, 95% confidence intervals 1.1-9.8 and 1.2-34.9, p = 0.043 and 0.048, respectively) than did women with less dense breasts. Positive margins after surgery also increased the risk of locoregional recurrence (hazard ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.3-8.3, p = 0.010). Multivariate analysis that included dense breasts (>50% density), positive margin, no adjuvant radiotherapy, and no adjuvant chemotherapy revealed that dense breasts were significant factors for predicting locoregional recurrence risk (hazard ratio 3.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2-11.1, p = 0.025).ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that dense breast tissue (>50% density) increased the risk of locoregional recurrence after modified radical mastectomy in patients with invasive breast cancer. Additional prospective studies are necessary to validate these findings.Trial registrationThe study is retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02771665 , on May 11, 2016.

Project description:Introduction: The early randomized controlled trials revealed no differences in survival between breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy. However, breast cancer treatment has undergone changes, and the results of recent population-based registry studies suggest superior long-term survival after BCS. To explore the current evidence, a systematic review and meta-ana lysis of population-based observational studies from 2010 and onward was conducted. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant literature. Keywords included “mastectomy,” “breast conserving surgery,” and “survival.” The identified studies were narratively reviewed and effect sizes (hazard ratios [HRs]) for overall (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were combined with random-effects models. Results: A total of 30 reports were included in the review, and results from 25 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Compared with mastectomy, BCS was associated with better OS (HR = 1.34 [1.20–1.51]; N = 1,311,600) and BCSS (HR = 1.38 [1.29–1.47]; N = 494,267). Selected subgroups of patients, based on lymph node status, age (<50 years/≥50 years), and radiation therapy after mastectomy (±), all showed better overall survival after BCS. The number (range 4–12) and type of prognostic variables adjusted for in the survival analyses of the studies did not statistically significantly moderate the differences in survival between BCS and mastectomy. Conclusions: The combined findings from large population-based studies indicate that BCS is associated with survival benefit compared with mastectomy, suggesting that BCS be the recommended treatment of early breast cancer (T1-2N0-1M0) if a radical lumpectomy can be performed. Mini-Abstract: A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based observational studies comparing the survival after breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. The review comprises 30 papers from 2010 to 2021. More than 1.3 million patients are included in the meta-analyses.