Dataset Information

Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis Comparing Conventional with Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Oncological and Surgical Outcomes in Women with High-Risk Breast Cancer from the OPBC-01/iTOP2 Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Recent data suggest that margins ≥2 mm after breast-conserving surgery may improve local control in invasive breast cancer (BC). By allowing large resection volumes, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCII; Clough level II/Tübingen 5-6) may achieve better local control than conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS; Tübingen 1-2) or oncoplastic breast conservation with low resection volumes (OBCI; Clough level I/Tübingen 3-4).

Methods

Data from consecutive high-risk BC patients treated in 15 centers from the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) network, between January 2010 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

A total of 3,177 women were included, 30% of whom were treated with OBC (OBCI n = 663; OBCII n = 297). The BCS/OBCI group had significantly smaller tumors and smaller resection margins compared with OBCII (pT1: 50% vs. 37%, p = 0.002; proportion with margin <1 mm: 17% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). There were significantly more re-excisions due to R1 ("ink on tumor") in the BCS/OBCI compared with the OBCII group (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.049). Univariate and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for tumor biology, tumor size, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment demonstrated no differences in local, regional, or distant recurrence-free or overall survival between the two groups.

Conclusions

Large resection volumes in oncoplastic surgery increases the distance from cancer cells to the margin of the specimen and reduces reexcision rates significantly. With OBCII larger tumors are resected with similar local, regional and distant recurrence-free as well as overall survival rates as BCS/OBCI.

SUBMITTER: Fitzal F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8724061 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionBreast Conserving Surgery (BCS) with whole breast radiation is now standard of care as a safer alternative to Mastectomy in terms of loco-regional recurrence and long-term survival. Despite this, a frequent pitfall of conventional BCS is positive surgical margins and need for second surgery with a reported frequency of 12-59 % in literature. Oncoplastic Surgery can be a safer, more cost effective alternate to conventional BCS owing to its higher rate of negative surgical margins (4-6% vs 12-59 %) and better cosmetic results. We aim to prove utility of Oncoplastic surgery for Low-Middle income countries.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine Oncoplastic Surgery as a more appropriate alternative to Conventional Breast Conserving Surgery for Low-Middle Income countries in terms of its lower positive margins and re-excision rates.MethodologyA retrospective comparative single center study by reviewing patient's medical records from August 2016 to June 2020 was conducted. Rate of positive margins and re-excisions along with mean volume of resection specimen, mean tumor size and quadrant dealt by both surgical procedures were compared.ResultsOut of 421 patients 249 patients underwent oncoplastic surgery and were compared with 173 patients who had conventional breast conserving surgery. Positive margins were seen in 5 patients (2 %) in OPS group whereas in 31 (17.9 %) patients in BCS group (p value < 0.001). Therefore, 2 from OPS group and 17 from BCS group underwent re-excision (p value < 0.002).None in OPS group while 7 out of 17 patients in BCS group underwent mastectomy as second procedure. Mean tumor size in OPS group was 2.26 cm ± SD 1.66 and in BCS group was 1.94 cm ± SD 1.28. Majority of Lobular carcinoma and Ductal carcinoma in-situ, multifocal, upper inner and central quadrant tumors and those unresponsive to neo-adjuvant therapy were treated by Oncoplastic techniques.ConclusionOncoplastic surgery has shown promising results as a safer tool to deal with large, complex tumors, lesions in difficult anatomical locations, multifocal or progressing on neo-adjuvant therapy. With its low Re-excision rates, it is a better alternative to traditional Breast Conserving approach for overburdened and resource limited health care system of Low-Middle Income countries. Multi-center, prospective trials are needed to determine its feasibility.

Project description:BackgroundOncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBS) is the evolution of conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS); however, data from studies comparing patients who received two surgical procedures are limited. A comparison of differences in terms of the patient characteristics, tumor-nipple distance, volume of resected breast tissue, tumor volume and postoperative breast appearance between patients undergoing OPBS and CBCS was carried out in this study, enhancing the evidence base for OPBS by widening indications and improving patient satisfaction.MethodsFrom January 2020 to April 2022, the Breast Center of West China Hospital conducted a retrospective comparative study involving 106 patients. Preoperative characteristics of patients were recorded, and the tumor-nipple distance, the volume of resected breast tissue, tumor volume and patient-reported esthetic outcomes measured by the Harris cosmetic scale were compared between patients who underwent OPBS and CBCS.ResultsEach group had a median follow-up time of 2 months, ranging from 1 week to 6 months. The tumor-nipple distance was significantly shorter in patients receiving OPBS than in those receiving CBCS (2.98±1.42 vs. 3.85±1.78 cm, P=0.006). The rate of positive margin evaluated by intraoperative frozen section biopsy was significantly lower in OPBS group than in CBCS group (2/43, 4.65% vs. 11/63, 17.46%; P=0.048). The maximum diameter of resected tissue (7.80±2.29 vs. 6.75±1.87 cm, P=0.011) and volume of resected tissue (74.20±42.77 vs. 45.52±30.99 cm3, P<0.001) were signiﬁcantly larger with OPBS. The tumor size, tumor volume (either clinically measured by ultrasound or pathologically measured), tumor location, and reoperation rate due to positive margins did not differ signiﬁcantly between groups. Moreover, insigniﬁcant differences existed regarding patient satisfaction between two groups (87.30% vs. 81.40%).ConclusionsThe OPBS strategy allowed extensive resections and expanded indications with equivalent cosmetic satisfaction and favorable oncological safety.