Dataset Information

Patterns of invasive recurrence among patients originally treated for ductal carcinoma in situ by breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is more common than after mastectomy, but it is unclear if patterns of invasive recurrence vary by initial surgical therapy. Among patients with invasive recurrence after treatment for DCIS, we compared patterns of first recurrence between those originally treated with BCS vs. mastectomy.

Methods

From 2000 to 2016, women with an invasive recurrence occurring ≥ 6 months after initial treatment for DCIS were retrospectively identified. Clinicopathologic features and adjuvant treatment of the initial DCIS, as well as characteristics of first invasive recurrences, were compared between patients who had undergone BCS vs. mastectomy.

Results

452 patients with an invasive recurrence after surgery for DCIS were identified: 367 patients (81%) had initially undergone BCS and 85 patients (19%) mastectomy. Patients originally treated with mastectomy were younger and were more likely to have had high grade, necrosis, and multifocal or multicentric DCIS (p < 0.001) compared with the BCS group. A higher proportion of invasive recurrences were local after BCS (93%; 343/367), whereas 88% (75/85) of recurrences after mastectomy were regional or distant (p < 0.001). The median time to first invasive recurrence was not different between surgical groups (BCS: 6.4 years vs. mastectomy: 5.5 years; p = 0.12).

Conclusions

Among women who experienced a first invasive recurrence after treatment for DCIS, those who had originally undergone mastectomy more commonly presented with advanced disease compared to those treated with BCS, likely related to the absence of the breast and the higher risk profile of their initial DCIS.

SUBMITTER: Pawloski KR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019411 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAge is a known risk factor for recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). We explored the relationship between age, other risk factors, and recurrence.MethodsUsing a prospectively maintained database of DCIS patients undergoing BCS from 1978 to 2010, the association of age and recurrence risk was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates, multivariable analysis, and competing risk multivariable analysis.ResultsOverall, 2996 cases were identified. Median follow-up for those without recurrence was 75 months; 732 were followed for ≥10 years, and 363 (12 %) had recurrence [192 (53 %) DCIS, 160 (44 %) invasive, 11 (3 %) unknown]. Risk of recurrence decreased with age, even after adjustment for eight clinicopathologic variables on multivariable analysis [hazard ratios (HR), with <40 years of age as the reference: 40-49 years, 0.82 (p = 0.36), 50-59 years, 0.46 (p = 0.0005), 60-69 years, 0.50 (p = 0.003), 70-79 years, 0.56 (p = 0.02), ≥80 years, 0.21 (p = 0.0015)]. This association persisted for cohorts with and without radiation therapy. Using competing risk multivariable analysis, the effect of age on invasive recurrence was empirically stronger than for DCIS recurrence. Ten-year invasive recurrence was 16 and 6.5 % in women <40 years of age and women ≥40 years of age, respectively. Only 0.6 % of the population ultimately developed distant disease; those <40 years of age constituted 4.7 % (141/2996) of the population, but 21 % (4/19) of those developed distant disease.ConclusionsThe risk of recurrence of DCIS decreases with age. This effect is particularly strong at the extremes of age and is independent of other clinicopathologic factors. The oldest women are at low risk of recurrence, while the youngest women have a higher overall, and especially invasive, recurrence rate, although mortality remains low. These findings should be incorporated into risk/benefit discussions of treatment options.

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.