Standard Breast-conserving Surgery Research Articles

Oncologic Safety of Immediate Oncoplastic Surgery Compared with Standard Breast-Conserving Surgery for Patients with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma.

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast grows in a diffuse pattern, resulting in a high risk of positive margins at surgical resection. Oncoplastic approaches have been shown to reduce this risk, but concerns persist around the safety of immediate oncoplastic surgery for those with ILC. This study evaluated the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of immediate oncoplastic surgery for patients with ILC. This study retrospectively analyzed an institutional database of stages I to III ILC patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with or without immediate oncoplastic surgery (oncoplastic closure or oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty [ORM]). The study compared positive margin rates, rates of successful BCS, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) by type of surgery. For 494 patients the findings showed that the use of immediate ORM was associated with significantly lower odds of positive margins (odds ratio [OR], 0.34; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.66; p = 0.002). Both lumpectomy with oncoplastic closure and ORM were significantly associated with higher rates of successful BCS than standard lumpectomy (94.2 %, 87.8 %, and 73.9 %, respectively; p < 0.001). No difference in RFS was observed between those undergoing immediate oncoplastic surgery and those undergoing standard lumpectomy alone. The patients with stages I to III ILC who underwent immediate oncoplastic surgery had significant benefits including lower odds of positive margins and higher rates of successful BCS, with both types of immediate oncoplastic surgery showing similar RFS compared with lumpectomy alone. This supports the oncologic safety of immediate oncoplastic surgery for diffusely growing tumors such as ILC, providing it an ideal option for patients desiring BCS.

Stabilised Hyaluronic Acid (sHA) gel as a novel marker for breast cancer tumour bed cavity: Surgical feasibility

IntroductionConsistent delineation of the breast conserving surgery (BCS) tumour bed (TB) for breast cancer remains a challenge for radiation oncologists. Accurate delineation allows for better local control and reduces toxicity when planning partial breast or TB boost radiation therapy (RT). MethodsIn the operating theatre (OT) breast surgeons inserted stabilised hyaluronic acid (sHA) gel as small drops approximately one cm into the walls surrounding the resection cavity. Surgical feasibility was determined by the rate of successful sHA gel insertion procedure, the ease of insertion as rated by surgeons, the time required for insertion procedure, the quantity used, and any adverse events (AE) relating to sHA gel insertion. ResultsThirty-five patients were enrolled. All patients underwent sHA gel insertion successfully. The procedure added a median of 2.8 min to the OT time and was rated as ‘easy’ in 89 % of patients. There were no immediate AE in OT. Five (14 %) patients experienced a grade 2 or higher AE. Three of the five patients were prescribed oral antibiotics for breast infection. Two of the five patients experienced a grade 3 AE – haematoma which required evacuation in OT day 1 post-BCS, and infected seroma which required drainage and washout in OT 2 months post-BCS. All five patients recovered and underwent the planned adjuvant therapies for their BC. The AE data reflects common risks with standard BCS and are not clearly attributed to sHA gel insertion alone. ConclusionWe show that sHA gel is surgically feasible as a marker to help define the TB cavity for post-BCS adjuvant MRI-based RT planning.

Non-Animal Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid (NASHA) Gel Marker vs. Surgical Clips for Tumor Bed Delineation in Breast Cancer Using MR-Simulation

Consistent delineation of the tumor bed (TB) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) is critical and remains a challenge with increasing prevalence of oncoplastic surgeries. Clips are generally used to help TB identification on CT-simulation but they are not well identified on MR-simulation. The aim of this study is to assess whether the use of NASHA gel with MR-simulation yields similar interobserver variability (inter-OV) compared to clips with CT-simulation. This prospective single arm feasibility study included patients eligible for BCS. After lumpectomy, the surgeon placed both clips (>5) and NASHA gel drops as markers to define the TB. Patients underwent CT and MRI simulation scans. Five radiation oncologists and one radiologist delineated the TB aided by clips on CT, and gel on MRI. The observers also assessed the visibility and utility of the gel (scale from 1 to 10), as well as the cavity visualization score (CVS, scale from 1 to 5). The primary endpoint was the inter-OV of the delineated TB using the overlap difference of contours using clips and CT versus gel and MRI, with the conformity index measured according to the pair definition of the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Of the 35 patients recruited, 30 were eligible for inter-OV analysis of TB delineation and 5 patients required further breast surgery for positive margins. One third of the eligible patients underwent an oncoplastic procedure. There were no significant differences between inter-OV of delineated TB using clips and CT versus gel and T2-weighted MRI with the mean DSC (0.60 vs 0.62, p = 0.364). The observers reported higher usefulness of gel in patients with an oncoplastic procedure than not (median US 8.2 vs 6.6, p = 0.024), and higher visibility of gel in patients who had their scans within 6 weeks than beyond post-op (median VS 8.1 vs 6.1, p = 0.013). When the CVS was higher (3-5), the median US of gel was lower (5.9 vs 7.8, p = 0.004), and the conformity index of clip and CT delineated TB was higher (median DSC 0.72 vs 0.53, p <0.001). Interestingly, a higher CVS did not lead to significantly higher conformity index of gel and T2-weighted MR delineated TB (mean DSC 0.67 vs 0.58, p = 0.073). NASHA gel injection added a median of 3 minutes to the operating theatre (OT) time and was rated as 'easy' in 89% of cases by surgeons. There were no immediate adverse events (AE) in OT, while 2 of 35 patients later experienced a grade 3 AE - hematoma which required evacuation in OT day 1 post-BCS, and infected seroma which required drainage and washout in OT 2 months post-BCS and axillary dissection. These reflect common risks with standard BCS and are not clearly attributed to gel injection alone. Use of NASHA gel leads to similar inter-OV of BC TB delineation compared to >5 clips. NASHA gel is hence a reliable alternative to clips when MR-simulation is used.

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery versus standard breast conserving surgery for early and locally advanced breast cancer: a retrospective analysis from Sri Lanka

BackgroundBreast aesthetics is becoming increasingly important in breast cancer surgery due to changes in patient expectations and greater emphasis been placed on the psychosocial outcomes. Studies have shown no difference in local recurrence risk between mastectomy and breast conserving surgery (BCS) and also a higher overall survival rate after BCS. Breast preservation improves the quality of life substantially compared to mastectomy. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves tumour excision whilst overcoming the limitations of standard breast conserving surgery (S-BCS) by allowing larger resection volumes, avoiding deformities with better aesthetic results. Our study aims to compare the oncosurgical and aesthetic outcomes of O-BCS versus S-BCS among women in Sri Lanka.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study over a 4-year period including patients who underwent breast conservation surgery for primary non-metastatic breast cancer in two tertiary care units. We assessed outcomes in terms of re-excision rates, resection margin, complications and aesthetic outcomes using a Likert scale questionnaire to grade specific outcomes such as symmetry, volume, nipple position, scar visibility. Non-parametric tests were used for statistical analyses.ResultsFifty-four and seventy-three patients underwent S-BCS and O-BCS respectively. The median specimen volume and the maximum tumour diameter were significantly higher in O-BCS [160(range:65–220); 4.2(range: 1.2–5.2)] compared to S-BCS [65(range:45–86); 2.4(range: 1.0-2.6)]. The median closest tumour margin was 16 mm (range:4-25 mm) in O-BCS while 6 mm (range:<1 – 12 mm) in S-BCS (p = 0.01). Close (< 1 mm) and positive margins needing re-excision were seen mostly in S-BCS. Superior aesthetic outcomes with statistical significant difference were reported in the O-BCS compared to S-BCS group with better symmetry, volume, nipple position and scar visibility. The re-excision rates were significantly lower in O-BCS group. There was no significant difference in the operative time and complications while the aesthetic outcomes were significantly superior in OBCS.ConclusionsOverall, Level 2 perforator flap based reconstruction had superior aesthetic outcomes. O-BCS is safe and more aesthetically acceptable with no difference in oncological outcome and operative time. More consideration should be given to aesthetic parameters such as scar visibility, nipple position, breast volume and shape when considering the best surgical option for the patients.

Abstract OT3-20-03: Refusal of Breast Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients With cCR After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy and Vacuum-assisted Biopsy (VAB) and SLNB Confirmed pCR. An interim report of the prospective non-randomized trial. NCT04293796

Abstract Introduction The aim of the study was to prove efficacy and safety of de-escalation of traditional breast surgery in BC patients who develop cCR after neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Refusal of surgery was offered to exceptional responders after vacuum-assisted tumor bed biopsy and sentinel lymph node biopsy confirmed absence of residual disease (pCR). Materials and methods A single-center prospective study was run in the NMRC n.a. N.N. Petrov. Starting from August of 2020, 35 patients with early сT1-2N0-1M0 (stage Ia-IIb) triple-negative and HER2-positive (both ER+ and ER-) unifocal tumours without DCIS in core-biopsy specimen enrolled in the study. Primary lesions were marked with a single clip in the centre. In cases with nodal involvement (cN1) the affected lymph nodes were also clipped. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer received 4 cycles of AC q21d followed by 12 cycles of weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin AUC 2.0. HER2-positive patients received 4 cycles of AC followed by 4 cycles of docetaxel combined with trastuzumab and pertuzumab q21d. Breast US, mammography and SPECT were used at baseline and at response evaluation. Vacuum-assisted biopsy was performed with 7G needle and US-guidance in the OR simultaneously with the SLNB. VAB protocol included retrieval of the tumor clip as first stage. Subsequently surrounding tissues were sampled, and markers were placed to guide radiotherapy. In case residual tumor was found patients received standard breast-conserving surgery. In case the sentinel lymph nodes were found to be positive, standard level II axillary clearance was performed. HER2-positive patients with pCR confirmed by VAB and SLNB received adjuvant trastuzumab up to one year. HER2-positive patients with residual breast or nodal involvement received trastuzumab emtansine up to one year. In case ER+, all patients received appropriate endocrine-therapy. In case of residual in-breast or nodal involvement patients with triple-negative breast cancer received standart capecitabine. Results The interim analysis included 25 patients in both groups. The median follow-up of disease-free survival for patients is 12 months. In the triple-negative group 12 patients achieved cCR. All patients went on to receive VAB and SLNB. After VAB and SLNB pCR was confirmed 11 patients (91.7%). 1 patient had invasive residual tumor with less than 5% cellularity. FNR in this group was 8.3% (1/12). Patient with invasive residual tumor received standard breast-conserving surgery. All the patients in the TNBC group were also found to be (sn)ypN0. In the HER2-positive group cCR was achieved 13 patients. All patients went on to receive VAB and SLNB. After VAB and SLNB pCR was confirmed 10 patients (77%). 3 patients had invasive residual tumor with less than 5% cellularity. FNR in this group was 23% (3/13). Patients with invasive residual tumor received standard breast-conserving surgery. All HER2-positive patients were found to be (sn)ypN0. One patient with HER2-positive subtype experienced a local reccurence in the postoperative zone 16 months after surgery. Initially, this patient achieved cCR and undergone VAB with SLNB. On final pathomorphologic examination isolated focuses of DCIS were found (ypTisN0). Standard breast-conserving surgery was performed and histologically only DCIS was found. This patient recieved 1-year of Trastuzumab and standard radiotherapy with boost. After the histologic confirmation of local reccurence patient underwent nipple-sparring mastectomy with reconstruction and nowadays she is recieveing therapy with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). Conclusion All visualization modalities fail to provide reliable information on the true rate of pCR. Contemporary systemic therapy regimens after accurate selection of patients, following the inclusion criteria, allows to achieve pCR in 75-90%, thereby reducing the risk of FNR after VAB. The trial continues to enroll patients and further follow-up is needed. Citation Format: Petr Krivorotko, Sergey Yerechshenko, Alexander Emelyanov, Ekaterina Busko, Tengiz Tabagua, Viktoria Mortada, Konstantin Zernov, Alexander Komyakhov, Kirill Nikolaev, Elena Zhiltsova, Larisa Gigolaeva, Roman Pesotsky, Diana Enaldieva, Yana Bondarchuk, Nikolay Amirov, Valentin Channov, Sergey Novikov, Zhanna Bryantseva, Anna Artemyeva, Viktoriya Smirnova, Tatiana Semiglazova, Alexey Belyaev, Vladimir Semiglazov. Refusal of Breast Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients With cCR After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy and Vacuum-assisted Biopsy (VAB) and SLNB Confirmed pCR. An interim report of the prospective non-randomized trial. NCT04293796. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-20-03.

Oncoplastic Breast Surgery versus Conservative Mastectomy in the Management of Large Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Surgical, Oncological, and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Oncoplastic level II breast-conserving surgery (OPS2) allows for wider excisions than standard breast-conserving surgery, but the literature on this technique in the treatment of DCIS is scarce. This study compares OPS2 to conservative mastectomy (CM) in patients undergoing surgery for large DCIS. The clinical, radiological, surgical, and post-operative data of 147 patients who underwent either CM or OPS2 for large DCIS between 2007 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical, oncological, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. The surgical outcomes were similar, in terms of margin involvement (p = 0.211), complication rate (p = 0.827), and re-excision rate (p = 1). The rate of additional surgery for cosmetic optimization was significantly lower in the OPS2 group: only 1 (1.8%) patient required surgical adjustments versus 24 (26.4%) patients in the CM group (p &lt; 0.001). The mean hospital stay was lower in the OPS2 group (p &lt; 0.001). The oncological outcomes did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.662). The PRO analysis showed better outcomes in the OPS2 group, which achieved statistical significance in the sexual well-being module (p = 0.015). Skin sensitivity loss was also significantly lower in the OPS2 group (p &lt; 0.001). When feasible, OPS2 should be considered in the treatment of large DCIS, as it is safe and shows high levels of patient satisfaction.

Comparing the outcomes of volume replacement oncoplastic breast surgery with standard breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer

Introduction: Oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS) allows breast conservation for women who would otherwise have a mastectomy or a suboptimal aesthetic result with standard breast-conserving surgery (s-BCS). Although OPS is gaining acceptance, evidence for safety and long-term outcomes is lacking - especially for volume-replacement (VR-OPS) techniques. We present the comparison of lateral chest-wall perforator VR-OPS with s-BCS with a 7-year follow-up.

Comparing costs of standard Breast-Conserving Surgery to Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate two-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BackgroundConventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR. MethodsThis single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed. ResultsA total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01). ConclusionConsidering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified.

Abstract P3-18-09: Refusal of breast surgery in breast cancer patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant systemic therapy and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) confirmed pathological complete response (pCR). A first report of the prospective non-randomized trial results. NCT04293796

Abstract Introduction The aim of the study was to prove efficacy and safety of refusal of traditional breast surgery in BC patients who develop cCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Refusal of surgery was offered to exceptional responders after vacuum-assisted tumor bed biopsy and sentinel lymph node biopsy confirmed absence of residual disease (pCR). Materials and methods A single-center prospective study was run in the NMRC n.a. N.N. Petrov. Starting from August of 2020 20 patients with early сT1-2N0-1M0 (stage Ia-IIb) triple-negative and HER2-positive (both ER+ and ER-) unifocal tumours without in situ component in core-biopsy specimen enrolled in the study. Primary lesions were marked with a single clip in the centre. In cases with nodal involvement (cN1) the affected lymph nodes were also clipped. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer received 4 cycles of AC q21d followed by 12 cycles of weekly paclitaxel and carboplatinum AUC 2.0. HER2-positive patients received 4 cycles of AC followed by 4 cycles of docetaxel combined with trastuzumab and pertuzumab q21d. Breast US, mammography and SPECT were used at baseline and at response evaluation. Vacuum-assisted biopsy was performed with 7G needle and US-guidance in the OR simultaneously with the SLNB under general anesthesia. VAB protocol included retrieval of the tumor clip as first stage. Subsequently surrounding tissues were sampled, and markers were placed to guide radiotherapy. In case residual tumor was found patients received standard breast-conserving surgery. In case the sentinel lymph nodes were found to be positive, standard level II axillary clearance was performed. HER2-positive patients with pCR confirmed by VAB and SLNB received adjuvant trastuzumab up to one year. HER2-positive patients with residual breast or nodal involvement received trastuzumab-emtanzine up to one year. In case ER-positive, all patients received appropriate endocrine-therapy. In case of residual in-breast or nodal involvement patients with triple-negative breast cancer received 6 cycles of capecitabine. Results cCR was achieved in 8 of 10 patients in the HER2-positive group. VAB and SLNB were performed in 7 cases and confirmed pCR in 5 patients. 2 had residual in-breast disease with &amp;lt;10% cellularity. One patient with cCR requested standard surgical approach that confirmed pCR. 2 patients failed to obtain cCR. Both received standard surgery. In one of the cases no residual disease was found, in another one - a residual in-breast tumor was found at section. All HER2-positive patients were found to be sn ypN0. In the triple-negative group cCR was achieved in 6 of 10 patients. 4 patients went on to receive VAB and SLNB. After VAB and SLNB pCR was confirmed in three of them. 1 patient had residual tumor with less than 5% cellularity. Two patients with cCR after NAT opted for standard surgery. In both cases pCR was confirmed. 4 patients with clinically detectable residual in-breast tumor received standard surgery. All turned out to have pCR. All the patients in the TNBC group were also found to be sn ypN0.ConclusionVisualization modalities fail to provide reliable information on the true rate of pCR. Contemporary systemic therapy regimens provide the rate of pCR up to 60-70%. In all cases of NAT tumor bed marking at baseline is an essential procedure to guide future interventions and confirm their success. Discrepancies between radiologic assessment and true rates of pCR are a substrate for further search for the techniques that would challenge the role of surgery in exceptional responders developing cCR. The trial continues to enrol patients. Citation Format: Petr Krivorotko, Sergey Yerechshenko, Alexander Emelyanov, Ekaterina Busko, Alexander Bessonov, Viktoriya Gukova, Alexander Komyahov, Elena Zhiltsova, Kirill Nikolaev, Tengiz Tabagua, Larisa Gigolaeva, Roman Pesotsky, Sergey Novikov, Zhanna Bryantseva, Anna Artemyeva, Viktoriya Smirnova, Vladimir Kushnarev, Alexey Belyaev, Tatiana Semiglazova, Vladimir Semiglazov. Refusal of breast surgery in breast cancer patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant systemic therapy and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) confirmed pathological complete response (pCR). A first report of the prospective non-randomized trial results. NCT04293796 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-18-09.

Impact of Chest Wall Perforator Flaps on Rates of Total Mastectomy in Breast Cancer.

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) outcomes are comparable to mastectomy in breast cancer treatment. However, patients with large tumours were offered mastectomy due to the resulting poor cosmetic sequelae after standard BCS. With the introduction of chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF), BCS is an option in patients with large tumour:breast ratio. The objective of our study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of CWPFs and their impact on mastectomy rates. In order to assess the impact of CWPF on mastectomy rates, patients who underwent breast cancer surgery from January 2016 to December 2019 were included in a cohort named group A. In group A, the type of surgery performed was collected for each year from January 2016 to December 2019. Patients who underwent BCS and CWPF from July 2016 to June 2021 were included in another cohort named group B. In group B, patient-related and disease-specific details including post-operative complications were collected and analysed. In group A, following the introduction of CWPF, the mastectomy rates dropped by 10.69% and the mastectomy with reconstruction rates dropped by 23.29%. In group B, a total of 152 patients underwent CWPF reconstructions. The median tumour size was 20mm (range = 0-80). A majority of patients were discharged within 24-h hospital stay (98.2%). Seventeen patients (11.11%) had a re-operation for margin positivity. Sixteen patients (10.46%) developed early complications and 19 patients (12.42%) developed delayed complications. CWPFs expand indications for BCS thus reducing mastectomy rates. It also has less morbidity when compared to reported mastectomy and reconstruction rates, thus making it a safe option for suitable patients.

Implications of Oncoplastic Breast Surgery on Radiation Boost Delivery in Localized Breast Cancer.

BackgroundOncoplastic partial mastectomy (OPM) is a technique utilized to improve aesthetic and survivorship outcomes in patients with localized breast cancer. This technique leads to breast tissue rearrangement, which can have an impact on target definition for boost radiotherapy (BRT). The aim of this study was to determine if the choice of surgical technique independently affected the decision to deliver a radiation boost.Materials and methodsThis was a retrospective study of patients treated between January 2017 and December 2018. We selected consecutive patients based on surgical procedure: 50 undergoing standard breast-conserving surgery and 50 having had an OPM. The primary outcome was average treatment effect (ATE) of surgery type on reception of BRT. Secondary outcomes included ATE of surgery type on the time to reception of radiotherapy and incidence of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). The ratio of boost clinical target volume (CTV) to pathologic tumor size was also compared between the two groups. Treatment effects regression adjustment and inverse-probability weighted analysis was used to estimate ATEs for both primary and secondary outcomes.ResultsFor the entire cohort, the median age was 64 years (range: 37-88 years). The median tumor size was 1.5 cm (range: 0.1-6.5 cm). The majority of patients were with ≤ stage IIA (78%), invasive ductal subtype (80%), negative lymphovascular space invasion (78%), negative margin (90%), and positive ER/PR (estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor) (69%). Overall, surgical technique was not associated with differences in the proportion of patients receiving BRT (ATE: 6.0% [95% CI: -4.5 to 16.0]). There were no differences in delays to radiation treatment between the two groups (ATE: 32.8 days [95% CI: -22.1 to 87.7]). With a median follow-up time of 419 days (range: 30-793 days), there were only five recurrences, with one case of IBTR in each group. There was no difference in the ratio of CTV volume to tumor size between the two groups (p=0.38).ConclusionsOPM did not affect the decision to offer localized BRT following standard whole breast radiotherapy or significantly affect treatment times or radiation volumes. The decision to offer OPM should include a multi-disciplinary approach.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer.

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer.

Oncological Safety of Oncoplastic Level II Mammoplasties After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Large Breast Cancers: A Matched-Cohort Analysis

Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) has extended the indications for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Its role in patients with large breast cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is unclear. This study evaluated the oncological safety of OPS for tumors with partial response after NAC. A consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent OPS (study group) after NAC for large breast cancer from January 2004 to July 2018 was compared with 130 matched patients treated by NAC, followed by standard BCS in 65 cases and mastectomy in 65 cases (two case-controlled groups). The mean initial radiological tumor size was 46 mm. Residual pathological tumor size was 22mm in the OPS cohort, 19mm in the standard BCS cohort, and 31mm in the mastectomy cohort (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up was 59 months in the study cohort. Five-year local recurrence rates were 0%, 0%, and 10.5% (0-22%) for the OPS, BCS, and mastectomy cohorts, respectively, while 5-year regional recurrence rates were 4.1% (0-11.1%), 0, and 19.4% (0-35.2%, p > 0.05), respectively. Five-year overall survival was 85.3% for the OPS cohort, 94.1% for the standard BCS cohort (p = 0.194), and 79.9% for the mastectomy cohort (p = 0.165). OPS is safe after NAC for large breast cancers, and provides excellent local control, identical to that of tumors with a better response, treated by standard BCS. After NAC, OPS can be a valuable treatment option for tumors that did not shrink optimally and would not be suitable for standard BCS.

Recurrence and survival after standard versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer.

BackgroundOncoplastic techniques in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are used increasingly for larger tumours. This large cohort study aimed to assess oncological outcomes after oncoplastic BCS (OPS) versus standard BCS.MethodsData for all women who had BCS in three centres in Stockholm during 2010–2016 were extracted from the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register. All patients with T2–3 tumours, all those receiving neoadjuvant treatment, and an additional random sample of women with T1 tumours were selected. Medical charts were reviewed for local recurrences and surgical technique according to the Hoffman–Wallwiener classification. Date and cause of death were retrieved from the Swedish Cause of Death Register.ResultsThe final cohort of 4178 breast cancers in 4135 patients was categorized into three groups according to surgical technique: 3720 for standard BCS, 243 simple OPS, and 215 complex OPS. Median duration of follow up was 64 (range 24–110) months. Node-positive and large tumours were more common in OPS than in standard BCS (P < 0.001). There were 61 local recurrences: 57 (1.5 per cent), 1 (0.4 per cent) and 3 (1.4 per cent) in the standard BCS, simple OPS and complex OPS groups respectively (P = 0.368). Overall, 297 patients died, with an unadjusted 5-year overall survival rate of 94.7, 93.1 and 92.6 per cent respectively (P = 0.350). Some 102 deaths were from breast cancer, with unadjusted 5-year cancer-specific survival rates of 97.9, 98.3 and 95.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.056).DiscussionOncoplastic BCS is a safe surgical option, even for larger node-positive tumours, with low recurrence and excellent survival rates.

Evaluating Need for Additional Imaging and Biopsy After Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery.

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) using oncoplastic surgery (OPS) allows for larger resections and improved aesthetics though volume redistribution and tissue rearrangement. Data regarding the impact of OPS on surveillance imaging and need for additional biopsies are limited. This observational cohort underwent BCT at a single institution from 2009 to 2018; standard breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was the predominant approach until OPS was introduced in 2012. Rates of imaging beyond standard diagnostic views, as well as rates of biopsy following both approaches, are reported. A total of 422 consecutive patients were identified. The OPS group comprised 205 patients and the BCS group included 217 patients. There was no difference in need for additional imaging between groups (BCS: 58 patients [26.7%] vs. OPS: 53 patients [25.9%]; p = 0.91). When additional imaging was required, it was on the ipsilateral side in 35 (60.3%) BCS patients compared with 24 (45.3%) OPS patients (p = 0.21). The need for biopsy was higher in the BCS group (BCS: 41 patients [18.9%] with 47 total biopsies vs. OPS: 20 patients [9.3%] with 22 total biopsies; p < 0.01). Benign findings on biopsy were similar between groups (BCS: 18 [38.3%] vs. OPS: 11 [50.0%]; p = 0.66). OPS was not associated with an increased need for additional imaging compared with BCS. Concern regarding challenges with follow-up imaging should not impact the decision to offer OPS. Further study and longer-term follow-up is warranted to understand the trends in need for additional imaging, biopsy, and additional procedures following OPS.

Abstract P4-13-09: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS): A meta-analysis of real-world data

Abstract Background: The role of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) is that of a middle ground between standard breast conserving surgery (SBCS) and mastectomy - it allows adequate resection margins of tumours unsuitable for traditional breast conserving surgery whilst allowing for a better cosmetic outcome and a reduced morbidity rate when compared to a traditional mastectomy. However, due to this being a relatively new type of procedure, there is limited evidence on its oncological safety, which is the ultimate goal of any breast cancer surgery. Methods: This study aims to compare oncological safety of OBCS with SBCS and mastectomy by examining the relative risk of cancer recurrence and re-operation rates through meta-analysis. Literature search of Pubmed and Web of Science databases was conducted looking for studies up until February 2019. Meta-Analysis was performed using R Statistical Software (www.r-project.org). Results: Initial finding of 645 studies was narrowed down to a pool of 19 studies including 18,163 patients. For the primary outcome measure of recurrence there was found to be no significant difference between the OBCS and SBCS or mastectomy (RR 0.861; 95% CI 0.640-1.160; p&amp;lt;0.296). The secondary outcome measure of re-operation was initially found to be significant in favour of OBCS (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.89; p&amp;lt;0.01), however after adjustment for publication bias this was attenuated to an insignificant difference between the two study groups (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.56-1.31; p&amp;gt;0.05). Conclusions: For both recurrence of cancer and re-operation rate, there was not found to be a significant difference between OBCS and more traditional techniques. This would suggest that OBCS is of comparable oncological safety to more established operations and a useful option in suitable patients. Citation Format: Sebastian Kosasih, Salim Tayeh, Kefah Mokbel, Abdul Kasem. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS): A meta-analysis of real-world data [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-13-09.

Is oncoplastic breast conserving surgery oncologically safe? A meta-analysis of 18,103 patients

BackgroundOncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery (OBCS) allows adequate resection margins of tumours unsuitable for standard breast conserving surgery (SBCS) whilst allowing for better cosmesis and reduced morbidity when compared to mastectomy. However, there is limited evidence on its oncological safety. MethodsThis study aims to compare oncological safety of OBCS with SBCS and mastectomy by examining the relative risk of cancer recurrence and re-operation rates through meta-analysis. Results18 studies met the search criteria including 18,103 patients. The primary outcome measure (recurrence) was not significantly different between OBCS and SBCS or mastectomy (RR 0.861; 95% CI 0.640–1.160; p = 0.296). The secondary outcome measure (re-operation) initially achieved significance in favour of OBCS (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46–0.89; p = 0.01). However, after adjustment for publication bias this was attenuated to insignificance between the two study groups (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.56–1.31; p = 0.44). ConclusionsFor both cancer recurrence and re-operation rate, there was no significant difference between OBCS and traditional techniques. OBCS is of comparable oncological safety to more established surgical procedures and a useful option in suitable patients.

Is Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery Oncologically Safe? A Meta-Analysis of 18,163 Patients

Background: The role of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) is that of a middle ground between standard breast conserving surgery (SBCS) and mastectomy - it allows adequate resection margins of tumours unsuitable for traditional breast conserving surgery whilst allowing for a better cosmetic outcome and a reduced morbidity rate when compared to a traditional mastectomy. However, due to this being a relatively new type of procedure, there is limited evidence on its oncological safety.

The axillary flap in oncoplastic resection of breast cancers located in the upper-outer quadrants: a new surgical technique

BackgroundThe combination of breast conserving surgery (BCS) with plastic surgery techniques has provided a useful surgical tool matching the radicality of the oncological excision with the preservation of breast cosmesis. Even though BCS represents a good option for surgical treatment of tumors located in these quadrants, wide excisions often necessitate breast reshaping in order to avoid nipple areola complex (NAC) displacement and skin retraction. We present a new surgical technique to repair upper-outer quadrants’ defects following breast cancer excision using dermo-glandular flaps and an axillary adipo-fascial flap.MethodsDuring the period from January 2014 to December 2015, 168 patients with an upper-outer quadrant’s breast cancer have been treated in our Department. 83 women have been treated with the described oncoplastic technique and immediate contra-lateral symmetrisation and 85 women underwent standard BCS. We present surgical, oncological and cosmetic outcomes comparing our results with standard BCS.ResultsAt a mean follow-up of 27 months loco-regional recurrences in the two groups were comparable. Short-term complication rates were comparable between the two groups. Re-intervention rates for positive margins were significantly higher in the standard BCS group. The overall satisfaction with cosmetic outcome both assessed by the patient and the surgeon was significantly higher in the oncoplastic group.ConclusionsThe proposed oncoplastic technique represents a safe and effective solution for reshaping that follows upper-outer breast cancer wide excision, achieving comparable complication rates, lower re-intervention rates for positive margins and better cosmetic results when compared with standard BCS.

The Results of Surveillance Imaging After Breast Conservation Surgery and Partial Breast Reconstruction With Chest Wall Perforator Flaps; A Qualitative Analysis Compared With Standard Breast-Conserving Surgery for Breast Cancer

IntroductionPartial breast reconstruction (PBR) using chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) allows for excision of tumors in the outer quadrant of the breast in women with small to moderate non-ptotic breasts resulting in a good aesthetic outcome. There are limited data available in the literature regarding long-term follow-up and the effect of CWPF on subsequent surveillance mammographic interpretation and recall rates. A retrospective audit with qualitative analysis of initial mammograms was performed to assess this. Patients and MethodsThis retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database included all consecutive patients who underwent either PBR with CWPF or wide local excision (WLE) between January 2013 and December 2014 by a single surgeon in a tertiary referral center. Qualitative analysis of the postoperative mammograms was performed after review by 2 blinded radiologists. ResultsThirty-six patients were included in the study, 18 in each arm. The CWPF group was younger and had larger tumor size anticipated on preoperative imaging, which correlated with larger specimens excised. Both groups were comparable with respect to tumor pathological characteristics. Comparing the first postoperative mammograms, both groups were similar in features reported such as calcifications, fat necrosis, volume loss, and radiotherapy changes. During the follow-up period (median 4 years), 138 surveillance mammograms were performed. One patient was recalled for further imaging in the CWPF group. There was no significant difference in the need for diagnostic imaging and biopsy between the groups. ConclusionPatients who underwent PBR using CWPF had similar features on postoperative surveillance mammograms compared with that post WLE.