Dataset Information

Cosmetic Outcomes Following Breast-Conservation Surgery and Radiation for Multiple Ipsilateral Breast Cancer: Data from the Alliance Z11102 Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Diagnoses of multiple ipsilateral breast cancer (MIBC) are increasing. Historically, the primary treatment for MIBC has been mastectomy due to concerns about in-breast recurrence risk and poor cosmetic outcome. The Alliance Z11102 study prospectively assessed cosmetic outcomes in women with MIBC treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).

Patients and methods

Z11102 was a multicenter trial enrolling women with two or three separate sites of biopsy-proven malignancy separated by ≥ 2 cm within the same breast. Cosmetic outcome was a planned secondary endpoint. Data were collected with a four-point cosmesis survey (1 = excellent, 4 = poor) and the BREAST-Q (scored 0-100). All patients undergoing successful breast-conserving therapy were treated with whole-breast radiation. Associations were assessed with Chi square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate.

Results

Cosmetic outcome data for 216 eligible women who completed therapy are included in this analysis. Of the 136 patients who completed the survey 2 years postoperatively, 70.6% (N = 96) felt the result was good or excellent, while 3.7% (N = 5) felt the result was poor. We found no significant differences in patient-reported cosmetic outcomes when stratifying by patient age, number of lesions (two or three), number of incisions, number of lumpectomies, or size of largest area of disease. Mean satisfaction score on the BREAST-Q was 77.2 at 6 months following whole-breast radiation and 73.7 at 3 years following surgery.

Conclusions

BCT performed for MIBC results in good or excellent cosmesis for the majority of women. From a cosmetic perspective, BCT is a valid surgical approach to women with MIBC.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01556243.

SUBMITTER: Rosenkranz KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7554157 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To compare cancer recurrence outcomes on the basis of compliant semiannual versus noncompliant annual ipsilateral mammographic surveillance following breast conservation therapy (BCT).A HIPAA-compliant retrospective review was performed of post-BCT examinations from 1997 through 2008 by using a deidentified database. The Committee on Human Research did not require institutional review board approval for this study, which was considered quality assurance. Groups were classified according to compliance with institutional post-BCT protocol, which recommends semiannual mammographic examinations of the ipsilateral breast for 5 years. A compliant semiannual examination was defined as an examination with an interval of 0-9 months, although no examination had intervals less than 3 months. A noncompliant annual examination was defined as an examination with an interval of 9-18 months. Cancer recurrence outcomes were compared on the basis of the last examination interval leading to diagnosis.Initially, a total of 10 750 post-BCT examinations among 2329 asymptomatic patients were identified. Excluding initial mammographic follow-up, there were 8234 examinations. Of these, 7169 examinations were semiannual with 94 recurrences detected and 1065 examinations were annual with 15 recurrences detected. There were no differences in demographic risk factors or biopsy rates. Recurrences identified at semiannual intervals were significantly less advanced than those identified at annual intervals (stage I vs stage II, P = .04; stage 0 + stage I vs stage II, P = .03). Nonsignificant findings associated with semiannual versus annual intervals included smaller tumor size (mean, 11.7 vs 15.3 mm; P = .15) and node negativity (98% vs 91%, P = .28).Results suggest that a semiannual interval is preferable for ipsilateral mammographic surveillance, allowing detection of a significantly higher proportion of cancer recurrences at an earlier stage than noncompliant annual surveillance.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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).MethodsComprehensive 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.ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionThe 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.