Anzeige
Erschienen in:
11.01.2018 | Correction
Correction to: Breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy-a systematic review on surgical outcomes
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 1/2018
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenExcerpt
In the original publication of the article, Table 1 was published incorrectly. The corrected Table 1 is given in this erratum. The original article has been corrected.
Table 1
Margin status and additional therapies
|
Study
|
Study type
|
Inclusion period
|
Comparison
|
BCS after NACT (vs primary BCS)
|
Lobular carcinoma (%)
|
Definition positive margin
|
Positive margins (%)
|
Additional boost (%)
|
Re-excision (%)
|
Secondary mastectomy (%)
|
pCR (%)
|
OCEBM evidence
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Assersohn (1999) [24]
|
Randomized controlled trial
|
1990–1995
|
NACT 4x plus adjuvant 4x vs 8x adjuvant chemotherapy
|
98 vs 86
|
NR
|
inked margin close < 1 mm
|
40% vs 36%
|
NR
|
0% vs 0%
|
0% vs 0%
|
NR
|
3
|
|
Boughey (2006) [25]
|
Prospective cohort (RCT data)
|
1998–2005
|
NACT vs adjuvant chemotherapy
|
162 (vs 101)
|
NR
|
≤ 2 mm
|
NR
|
NR
|
12.3% vs 13.9%
|
7.4% vs 9.9%
|
NR
|
3
|
|
Waljee (2008) [26]
|
RSCC
|
2002–2006
|
NACT vs adjuvant chemotherapy
|
65 (vs 211)
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
31.3% vs 58.8% (p = 0.001)
|
14.1% vs 16.7% (p = 0.001)
|
NR
|
4
|
|
Komenaka (2011) [27]
|
RSCC
|
2002–2009
|
NACT vs adjuvant chemotherapy
|
39 (vs 68)
|
NR
|
Inked margin close < 1 mm
|
23% vs 46% (close or positive) (p = 0.04)
|
NR
|
18% vs 41% (p = 0.01)
|
2.6% vs 8.8%
|
NR
|
4
|
|
Tiezzi (2008) [31]
|
RSCC
|
1990–2003
|
NACT vs no NACT
|
88 (vs 191)
|
NR
|
≤ 1 mm
|
19.3% vs 13.1%
|
NR
|
0% vs 0%
|
0% vs 0%
|
NR
|
4
|
|
Christy (2009) [29]
|
RSCC
|
2002–2007
|
NACT vs no NACT
|
31 (vs 62)
|
NR
|
Positive NR close<1mm
|
10% vs 32% (p < 0.01)
|
NR
|
3.2% vs 17.7% (p < 0.01)
|
3.2% vs 21.0% (p < 0.01 )
|
NR
|
4
|
|
Karanlik (2015) [28]
|
RSCC
|
2008–2011
|
NACT vs no NACT
|
80 (vs 116)
|
NR
|
< 5 mm
|
5% vs15.5%* (p = 0.02)
|
NR
|
3.8% vs 7.8% (p = 0.02)
|
1.3% vs 7.8% (p = 0.02)
|
NR
|
4
|
|
Volders (2016) [33]
|
RSCC
|
2012–2013
|
NACT vs no NACT
|
626 (vs 9275)
|
11.3% vs 9.0%
|
Inked margin
|
27.3% vs 16.4% (p < 0.001)
|
NR
|
4.0% vs 2.3% (p < 0.001)
|
5.1% vs 3.0% (p < 0.001)
|
15%
|
4
|
|
Sadetzki (2005) [34]
|
RSCC
|
1995–2001
|
100
|
9%
|
< 5 mm invasive < 10 mn DCIS
|
NR
|
NR
|
10%
|
21%
|
NR
|
4
|
|
|
Fukutomi (2006) [35]
|
RSCC
|
NR
|
113
|
NR
|
NR
|
24.7%
|
NR
|
2nd procedures 11.5%
|
NR
|
4
|
||
|
Straver (2010) [36]
|
RSCC
|
2000–2007
|
135
|
15.6%
|
≤ 2 mm
|
24%
|
15.6%
|
1.5%
|
6.7%
|
NR
|
4
|
|
|
van Riet (2010) [47]
|
RSCC
|
2003–2008
|
47
|
6.4%
|
Inked margin
|
6.4%
|
2.1%
|
4.3%
|
40.4%
|
4
|
||
|
Gobardhan (2012) [38]
|
RSCC
|
2009–2010
|
85
|
6%
|
Inked margin
|
8.2%
|
4.8%
|
0%
|
3.5%
|
31%
|
4
|
|
|
Mazouni (2013) [39]
|
RSCC
|
2002–2010
|
BCS vs OPBS
|
259; 214 vs 45
|
6.1%vs 4.4%
|
NR
|
14.1% vs 15.6%
|
NR
|
9% vs 2%
|
18% vs 24%
|
24.3% vs 22.2%
|
4
|
|
Donker (2013) [40]
|
RSCC
|
2007–2010
|
ROLL vs seed localization
|
154; 83 vs 71
|
7% vs 4%
|
Inked margin
|
13% vs 13%
|
6.0% vs 4.2%
|
1% vs 4%
|
6% vs 4%
|
30% vs 38%
|
4
|
|
Gerber (2014) [41]
|
Multicenter RCT
|
2007–2010
|
NACT ECDB vs
NACT ECD
|
502
|
NR
|
NR
|
26.5%
|
NR
|
2nd procedures 26.5%
|
NR
|
3
|
|
|
Krygh (2014) [30]
|
RSCC
|
2005–2012
|
NACT vs no NACT
|
83 vs 1252
|
NR
|
< 5 mm
< 2 mm (after Oct 2009)
|
NR
|
NR
|
8.8% vs 10.3%
|
NR
|
NR
|
4
|
|
Ramos (2014) [42]
|
Prospective single center cohort
|
2008–2012
|
58
|
5.2%
|
< 2 mm
|
12.1%
|
0 (0%)
|
6.9%
|
5.2%
|
31%
|
4
|
|
|
Amabile (2015) [32]
|
RSCC
|
2009–2013
|
NACT vs no NACT
|
44 vs 85
|
2.3% vs 21.2%
|
Positive close < 1 mm
|
27.3% vs 29.4% positive or close
|
NR
|
2nd procedures 27.3% vs 29.3%
|
28.1%
|
4
|
|
|
Truin (2016) [43]
|
Retrospective national database
|
2008–2012
|
ILC VS IDC
|
1539; 113 vs 1426
|
100% vs 0%
|
NR
|
33.6% vs 8.6%
|
NR
|
7.1% vs 3.9%
|
26.5% vs 4.7%
|
NR
|
4
|
|
Rubio (2016) [44]
|
Single center cohort
|
2008–2012
|
IOUS vs WL
|
214; 145 vs 69
|
8.3% vs 2.9%
|
Inked margin
|
3.4% vs 4.3%
|
NR
|
8.9% vs 2.9%
|
0.7% vs 5.8%
|
22.7% vs 34.7%
|
4
|
|
Chauhan (2016) [45]
|
Prospective single center cohort
|
2012–2014
|
BCS vs OPBS™
|
100; 43 vs 57
|
2% vs 2%
|
Inked margin
|
8% vs 2%
|
NR
|
2% vs 0
|
5% vs 2%
|
NR
|
4
|