Dataset Information

The different outcomes between breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy and mastectomy in metaplastic breast cancer: A population-based study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Metaplastic breast cancer (MBC) are rare. The survival outcomes of MBC patients after breast conserving surgery plus radiotherapy (BCS+RT) or mastectomy have not been established. The study aimed to compare survival outcomes of MBC patients subjected to BCS+RT or mastectomy therapeutic options.

Methods

Patients who were subjected to BCS+RT or mastectomy between 2004 and 2014 were enrolled in this study through the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and the overall survival (OS) of the participants were determined. Cox proportional hazard model and the Kaplan Meier method were used to determine the correlation between the two surgical methods and survival outcomes.

Results

A total of 1197 patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 439 patients were subjected to BCS+RT, while 758 patients were subjected to mastectomy. After propensity score matching (PSM), the BCS+RT and mastectomy groups consisted of 321 patients, respectively. The univariate and multivariate analysis with a 6-month landmark all indicate that patients receiving BCS+RT has higher OS than patients receiving mastectomy (HR = 0.701,95% CI = 0.496-0.990, P = 0.044; HR = 0.684,95% CI = 0.479-0.977, P = 0.037) while the BCSS was no difference between the two groups (HR = 0.739,95% CI = 0.474-1.153, P = 0.183; HR = 0.741,95% CI = 0.468-1.173, P = 0.200).

Conclusion

The BCS+RT therapeutic option exhibits a higher OS in MBC patients compared to the mastectomy approach.

SUBMITTER: Xia LY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8412345 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.

Project description:BackgroundOncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) has demonstrated superior cosmetic outcomes to traditional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) while maintaining oncologic safety. While prior studies have compared OBCS to mastectomy, there is a scarcity of literature on the impact of social determinants of health on outcomes. Furthermore, although traditionally tumors larger than 5 cm and multifocal disease were treated with mastectomy, the literature has now shown OBCS to be safe in treating such disease. As a result, patients with large or multifocal tumors could be eligible for both mastectomy and OBCS, which prompts the need for comparison between the two. Thus, the aim of our study was to compare OBCS and mastectomy with reconstruction using BREAST-Q and oncologic outcome measures, as well as stratify these outcomes based on race, ethnicity, and body mass index (BMI).MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed for 57 patients treated with OBCS and 204 patients treated with mastectomy with reconstruction from 2015 to 2021. Variables including age, race, ethnicity, BMI, insurance status, surgery type, pathology, recurrence, and complications were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded using BREAST-Q pre- and post-operatively.ResultsDespite having a higher BMI (P<0.001), OBCS yielded higher "satisfaction with breast" and "satisfaction with outcome" than mastectomy (P=0.02 and P=0.02, respectively). When stratified by race, there were no statistical differences in the PROs between the two surgeries for Hispanic nor African American patients. OBCS had a significantly lower rate of infection and fewer additional surgeries than mastectomy (P=0.004 and P<0.001, respectively). There were no differences in positive margin rate or recurrence rate between the groups.ConclusionsIn our study, OBCS yielded better PROs than mastectomy while maintaining oncologic safety and resulting in fewer surgeries and complications. These excellent outcomes in a majority non-Caucasian cohort support the utilization of OBCS for underserved, minority populations. Larger studies evaluating PROs in diverse and uninsured groups are needed to reinforce these conclusions.