Article

Breast conservation treatment in women with locally advanced breast cancer - experience from a single centre.

Breast Service, Breast Group, Tata Memorial Hospital, Surgical Oncology, Dr. Ernest Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 012, India.
International Journal of Surgery (London, England) (Impact Factor: 1.44). 01/2006; 4(2):106-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2006.01.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In absence of randomized evidence to support safety of conservative surgery (BCT) in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), we analyzed a cohort of 664 women with LABC treated during January 1998 to December 2002 at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
All were treated with a multimodality regimen comprising of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by surgery (modified radical mastectomy or BCT) and adjuvant radiotherapy and hormone therapy. The outcome was evaluated to assess safety of BCT.
71% (469/664) women responded to NACT (22% clinical CR and 49% PR) and 28.3% (188/664) underwent BCT. Positive lumpectomy margins were reported in 8.5%, with gross presence of tumor at the margins in 2.3% requiring a revision surgery. At a median follow-up of 30months, local relapse rate was 8% after BCT and 10.7% after mastectomy. The 3-year local DFS was better post-conservation than after mastectomy (87% vs 78%, P=0.02). The disease-free survival (DFS) was also superior after BCT, 72% vs 52% (P<0.001) at 3years and 62% vs 37% (P<0.001) at 5years respectively. On multivariate analysis, presence of lymphatic vascular emboli (LVE) was the major significant predictor of local recurrence (P<0.001, HR 2.52, 95% CI 1.52-4.18). DFS was better after BCT [(P<0.001, HR 2.0 (95% CI 1.38-2.91)]; shorter DFS was noted in LVE positive (HR 1.54, P=0.007) and larger residual disease after NACT (HR 1.13, P=0.001).
BCT is technically feasible and safe post neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in women with LABC with no detriment in outcome.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
73 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The indications of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer are extending to a larger population of breast cancer patients. The aims of this therapy are to transform the cancer to an operable form, downsize the tumor volume to allow a lumpectomy instead of a mastectomy, or to perform an in vivo test of the effect of the treatment on breast cancer in a specific individual. Along with these benefits, there is concern about the safety of lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this review, we discuss the experience of breast conservation therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the reported recurrence rates in the preserved breasts. An overview of the studies that utilized sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is presented, summarizing the identification rates and false-negative rate.
    Current Breast Cancer Reports 3(4).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast conservation as an additional benefit was beyond the initial expectations of the investigators who pioneered neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). In recent years an increasing number of patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) are being treated with NACT, followed by breast conservation surgery with axillary dissection and radiation as a part of the multimodality management. Breast conservation has not been the standard of care for women with LABC, owing to concerns of increased chances of local recurrence, and possible survival disadvantage and psychological trauma from experiencing a recurrence of malignancy. LABC is still a common form of presentation of breast cancer in developing countries. Strict adherence to treatment protocols and regular follow-ups for years may not be practical for a large majority of patients hailing from the regions most affected by LABC. Defaulters often thus have a heavy price to pay. Hence lies the importance of carefully selecting LABC patients for a breast conservation approach from others that would have a higher risk of locoregional recurrence. Can we extrapolate the lessons learnt in early breast cancer to LABC and offer selected patients with LABC breast conservation therapy? Would the local control and survival results with conservative therapy be comparable to those obtained using mastectomy, or does the increased tumor burden in LABC necessitate ablative surgery in all women? This review aims to address these important questions.
    Surgical Oncology 09/2008; 18(1):3-13. · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate retrospectively rates of local (LCR) and locoregional tumor control (LRCR) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) who were treated with preoperative chemotherapy (PST) followed by breast conserving surgery (BCS) and either intraoperative radiotherapy with electrons (IOERT) preceding whole breast irradiation (WBI) (group 1) or with WBI followed by an external tumorbed boost (electrons or photons) instead of IOERT (group 2). From 2002 to 2007, 83 patients with clinical stage II or III breast cancer were enrolled in group one and 26 in group two. All patients received PST followed by BCS and axillary lymph node dissection. IOERT boosts were applied by single doses of 9 Gy (90% reference isodose), versus external boosts of 12 Gy (median dose, range 6 – 16) in 2 Gy/fraction (ICRU). WBI in both groups was performed up to total doses of 51 - 57 Gy (1.7- 1.8 Gy/fraction).The respective median follow-up times for groups one and two amount 59 months (range 3 – 115) and 67.5 months (range 13 - 120). Corresponding 6-year rates for LCR, LRCR, metastases free survival (FFM), disease specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS) were 98.5%, 97.2%, 84.7%, 89.2% and 86.4% for group one and 88.1%, 88.1%, 74%, 92% and 92% for group two, respectively, without any statistical significances. IOERT as boost modality during BCS in LABC following PST shows a trend to be superior in terms of LCR and LRCR in comparison with conventional boosts. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    International Journal of Cancer 07/2014; · 6.20 Impact Factor