Erschienen in:
12.07.2016 | Breast Oncology
Operative and Oncologic Outcomes in 9861 Patients with Operable Breast Cancer: Single-Institution Analysis of Breast Conservation with Oncoplastic Reconstruction
verfasst von:
Stacey A. Carter, MD, Genevieve R. Lyons, MSPH, Henry M. Kuerer, MD, PhD, Roland L. Bassett Jr., MS, Scott Oates, MD, Alastair Thompson, BSc(Hons), MB ChB, MD, Abigail S. Caudle, MD, MS, Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD, PhD, Isabelle Bedrosian, MD, Anthony Lucci, MD, Sarah M. DeSnyder, MD, Gildy Babiera, MD, Min Yi, MD, PhD, Donald P. Baumann, MD, Mark W. Clemens, MD, Patrick B. Garvey, MD, Kelly K. Hunt, MD, Rosa F. Hwang, MD
Erschienen in:
Annals of Surgical Oncology
|
Ausgabe 10/2016
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
Background
Oncoplastic reconstruction is an approach that enables patients with locally advanced or adversely located tumors to undergo breast conserving surgery (BCS). The objectives were to identify the use of BCS with oncoplastic reconstruction (BCS + R) and determine the operative and oncologic outcomes compared with other breast surgical procedures for breast cancer.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study interrogated a single institution’s prospectively maintained databases to identify patients who underwent surgery for breast cancer between 2007 and 2014. Surgeries were categorized as BCS, BCS + R, total mastectomy (TM), or TM with immediate reconstruction (TM + R). Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed.
Results
There were 10,607 operations performed for 9861 patients. Median follow-up was 3.4 years (range, 0–9.1 years). The use of BCS + R had a nearly fourfold increase in the percentage of all breast cancer surgeries during the study period; 75 % of patients who underwent BCS + R had a T1 or T2 tumor. There was no difference in the use of BCS + R compared with BCS for any quadrant of the breast except the lower outer quadrant (11.1 vs. 6.8 %; p < .0001). BCS + R had a lower rate of seroma formation (13.4 vs. 18 %; p = .002) and positive or close margins compared with BCS (5.8 vs. 8.3 %; p = .04). There was no difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival when comparing BCS and BCS + R.
Conclusions
Patients undergoing BCS + R are not disadvantaged in terms of complications and short-term (3-year) outcomes compared with BCS patients or patients who underwent TM.