Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

The clinical effectiveness of treating ipsilateral multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancers using breast-conserving surgery (BCS) compared with the standard of mastectomy is uncertain. Inconsistencies relate to definitions, incidence, staging and intertumoral heterogeneity. The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes after BCS versus mastectomy for MF and MC cancers, collectively defined as multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBC).

Methods

Comprehensive electronic searches were undertaken to identify complete papers published in English between May 1988 and July 2015, primarily comparing clinical outcomes of BCS and mastectomy for MIBC. All study designs were included, and studies were appraised critically using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The characteristics and results of identified studies were summarized.

Results

Twenty-four retrospective studies were included in the review: 17 comparative studies and seven case series. They included 3537 women with MIBC undergoing BCS; breast cancers were defined as MF in 2677 women, MC in 292, and reported as MIBC in 568. Six studies evaluated MIBC treated by BCS or mastectomy, with locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates of 2-23 per cent after BCS at median follow-up of 59·5 (i.q.r. 56-81) months. BCS and mastectomy showed apparently equivalent rates of LRR (risk ratio 0·94, 95 per cent c.i. 0·65 to 1·36). Thirteen studies compared BCS in women with MIBC versus those with unifocal cancers, reporting LRR rates of 2-40 per cent after BCS at a median follow-up of 64 (i.q.r. 57-73) months. One high-quality study reported 10-year actuarial LRR rates of 5·5 per cent for BCS in 300 women versus 6·5 per cent for mastectomy among 887 women.

Conclusion

The available studies were mainly of moderate quality, historical and underpowered, with limited follow-up and biased case selection favouring BCS rather than mastectomy for low-risk patients. The evidence was inconclusive, weakening support for the St Gallen consensus and supporting a future randomized trial.

SUBMITTER: Winters ZE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6069349 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Winters Z E ZE Horsnell J J Elvers K T KT Maxwell A J AJ Jones L J LJ Shaaban A M AM Schmid P P Williams N R NR Beswick A A Greenwood R R Ingram J C JC Saunders C C Vaidya J S JS Esserman L L Jatoi I I Brunt A M AM

BJS open 20180522 4

<h4>Background</h4>The clinical effectiveness of treating ipsilateral multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancers using breast-conserving surgery (BCS) compared with the standard of mastectomy is uncertain. Inconsistencies relate to definitions, incidence, staging and intertumoral heterogeneity. The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes after BCS versus mastectomy for MF and MC cancers, collectively defined as multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBC).< ...[more]

PMID: 30079385

Similar Datasets

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.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets