-
The Journal of Pain Dec 2018Persistent Post-Mastectomy Pain (PPMP) is a common condition that can follow surgeries for breast cancer, the most common cancer in women. Because of the frequency of... (Review)
Review
Persistent Post-Mastectomy Pain (PPMP) is a common condition that can follow surgeries for breast cancer, the most common cancer in women. Because of the frequency of PPMP and its potential severity, it has received increasing research attention. This manuscript reviews the recent research literature, beginning with a brief history and then relevant medical, surgical, demographic, and psychosocial risk factors. Subsequently, social, psychological, and functional sequelae that have been linked to PPMPS are considered, as is research on current pharmacological, psychological, and rehabilitative approaches to treatment. The review concludes with a discussion of directions for future research and treatment that might reduce the incidence and impact of PPMP on breast cancer survivors. PERSPECTIVE: This article describes current research literature involving mechanisms, risks, and treatments related to persistent post-mastectomy pain. Implications of research findings also are discussed for pre- and post-surgical approaches to pain management, current treatments, and promising research directions.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Pain, Postoperative; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29966772
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.06.002 -
PET Clinics Jul 2018Breast cancer treatment is multidisciplinary. Most women with early stage breast cancer are candidates for breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy or mastectomy. The... (Review)
Review
Breast cancer treatment is multidisciplinary. Most women with early stage breast cancer are candidates for breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy or mastectomy. The risk of local recurrence and the chance of survival does not differ with these approaches. Sentinel node biopsy is used for axillary staging, and individualized approaches are minimizing the need for axillary dissection in women with positive sentinel nodes. Adjuvant systemic therapy is used in most women based on proven survival benefit, and molecular profiling to individualize treatment based on risk is now a clinical reality for patients with hormone receptor-positive cancers.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Neoadjuvant Therapy
PubMed: 30100074
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpet.2018.02.006 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Aug 2017Skin-sparing (SSM) and nipple-sparing (NSM) mastectomies are relatively new conservative surgical approaches to breast cancer. In SSM most of the breast skin is... (Review)
Review
Skin-sparing (SSM) and nipple-sparing (NSM) mastectomies are relatively new conservative surgical approaches to breast cancer. In SSM most of the breast skin is conserved to create a pocket that facilitates immediate breast reconstruction with implant or autologous graft to achieve a quality cosmetic outcome. NSM is closely similar except that the nipple-areola complex (NAC) is also conserved. Meta-analyses indicate that outcomes for SSM and NSM do not differ from those for non-conservative mastectomies. Recurrence rates in the NAC after NSM are acceptably low (0-3.7%). Other studies indicate that NSM is associated with high patient satisfaction and good psychological adjustment. Indications are carcinoma or DCIS that require mastectomy (including after neoadjuvant chemotherapy). NSM is also suitable for women undergoing risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Tumor not less than 2 cm from the NAC is recommended, but may be less important than no evidence of nipple involvement on mandatory intraoperative nipple margin assessment. A positive margin is an absolute contraindication for nipple preservation. Other contraindications are microcalcifications close to the subareolar region and a positive nipple discharge. Complication rates are similar to those for other types of post-mastectomy reconstructions. The main complication of NSM is NAC necrosis, however as surgeon experience matures, frequency declines. Factors associated with complications are voluminous breast, ptosis, smoking, obesity, and radiotherapy. Since the access incision is small, breast tissue may be left behind, so only experienced breast surgeons should do these operations in close collaboration with the plastic surgeon. For breast cancer patients requiring mastectomy, NSM should be the option of choice.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating; Contraindications, Procedure; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Nipples; Organ Sparing Treatments; Patient Selection; Prophylactic Mastectomy; Skin
PubMed: 28673535
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.034 -
JAMA Oncology Jan 2020Mastectomy is standard for recurrence of breast cancer after breast conservation therapy with whole breast irradiation. The emergence of partial breast irradiation led...
Effectiveness of Breast-Conserving Surgery and 3-Dimensional Conformal Partial Breast Reirradiation for Recurrence of Breast Cancer in the Ipsilateral Breast: The NRG Oncology/RTOG 1014 Phase 2 Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Mastectomy is standard for recurrence of breast cancer after breast conservation therapy with whole breast irradiation. The emergence of partial breast irradiation led to consideration of its application for reirradiation after a second lumpectomy for treatment of recurrence of breast cancer in the ipsilateral breast.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of partial breast reirradiation after a second lumpectomy and whether the treatment is an acceptable alternative to mastectomy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
The NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1014 trial is a phase 2, single-arm, prospective clinical trial of 3-dimensional, conformal, external beam partial breast reirradiation after a second lumpectomy for recurrence of breast cancer in the ipsilateral breast after previous whole breast irradiation. The study opened on June 4, 2010, and closed June 18, 2013. Median follow-up was 5.5 years. This analysis used all data received at NRG Oncology through November 18, 2018. Eligible patients experienced a recurrence of breast tumor that was less than 3 cm and unifocal in the ipsilateral breast more than 1 year after breast-conserving therapy with whole breast irradiation and who had undergone excision with negative margins.
INTERVENTIONS
Adjuvant partial breast reirradiation, 1.5 Gy twice daily for 30 treatments during 15 days (45 Gy), using a 3-dimensional conformal technique.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcomes of the present study were the predefined secondary study objectives of recurrence of breast cancer in the ipsilateral breast, late adverse events (>1 year after treatment), mastectomy incidence, distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and circulating tumor cell incidence.
RESULTS
A total of 65 women were enrolled, with 58 evaluable for analysis (mean [SD] age, 65.12 [9.95] years; 48 [83%] white). Of the recurrences of breast cancer in the ipsilateral breast, 23 (40%) were noninvasive and 35 (60%) were invasive. In all 58 patients, 53 (91%) had tumors 2 cm or smaller. All tumors were clinically node negative. A total of 44 patients (76%) tested positive for estrogen receptor, 33 (57%) for progesterone receptor, and 10 (17%) for ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu) overexpression. Four patients had breast cancer recurrence, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 5% (95% CI, 1%-13%). Seven patients underwent ipsilateral mastectomies for a 5-year cumulative incidence of 10% (95% CI, 4%-20%). Both distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival rates were 95% (95% CI, 85%-98%). Four patients (7%) had grade 3 and none had grade 4 or higher late treatment adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
For patients experiencing recurrence of breast cancer in the ipsilateral breast after lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation, a second breast conservation was achievable in 90%, with a low risk of re-recurrence of cancer in the ipsilateral breast using adjuvant partial breast reirradiation. This finding suggests that this treatment approach is an effective alternative to mastectomy.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prospective Studies; Re-Irradiation
PubMed: 31750868
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4320 -
JAMA Surgery Jun 2022Treatment options for early breast cancer include breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy and breast reconstruction without RT. Despite...
IMPORTANCE
Treatment options for early breast cancer include breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy and breast reconstruction without RT. Despite marked differences in these treatment strategies, little is known with regard to their association with long-term quality of life (QOL).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the association of treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT vs mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with long-term QOL.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This comparative effectiveness research study used data from the Texas Cancer Registry for women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008. The study sample was mailed a survey between March 2017 and April 2018. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2018 to October 15, 2021.
EXPOSURES
Breast-conserving surgery with RT or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was satisfaction with breasts, measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included BREAST-Q physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being; health utility, measured using the EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level questionnaire; and local therapy decisional regret. Multivariable linear regression models with weights for treatment, age, and race and ethnicity tested associations of the exposure with outcomes.
RESULTS
Of 647 patients who responded to the survey (40.0%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery, and 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236). Among the 647 respondents, the median age was 53 years (range, 23-85 years) and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years (range, 8.4-12.5 years). Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference between breast-conserving surgery with RT (referent) and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT in satisfaction with breasts (effect size, 2.71; 95% CI, -2.45 to 7.88; P = .30) or physical well-being (effect size, -1.80; 95% CI, -5.65 to 2.05; P = .36). In contrast, psychosocial well-being (effect size, -8.61; 95% CI, -13.26 to -3.95; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, -10.68; 95% CI, -16.60 to -4.76; P < .001) were significantly worse with mastectomy and reconstruction without RT. Health utility (effect size, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03; P = .83) and decisional regret (effect size, 1.32; 95% CI, -3.77 to 6.40; P = .61) did not differ by treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings support equivalence of breast-conserving surgery with RT and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with regard to breast satisfaction and physical well-being. However, breast-conserving surgery with RT was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in psychosocial and sexual well-being. These findings may help inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35416926
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0631 -
JAMA Surgery Oct 2018Previous outcome studies comparing implant and autologous breast reconstruction techniques have been limited by short-term follow-up, single-center design, and a lack of... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Comparative Study
IMPORTANCE
Previous outcome studies comparing implant and autologous breast reconstruction techniques have been limited by short-term follow-up, single-center design, and a lack of rigorous patient-reported outcome data. An understanding of the expected satisfaction and breast-related quality of life associated with each type of procedure is central to the decision-making process.
OBJECTIVE
To determine outcomes reported by patients undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction using implant or autologous techniques 2 years after surgery.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Patients were recruited from 11 centers (57 plastic surgeons) across North America for the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium study, a prospective, multicenter trial, from February 1, 2012, to July 31, 2015. Women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction using implant or autologous tissue reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer treatment or prophylaxis were eligible. Overall, 2013 women (1490 implant and 523 autologous tissue reconstruction) met the inclusion criteria. All patients included in this analysis had 2 years of follow-up.
EXPOSURES
Procedure type (ie, implant vs autologous tissue reconstruction).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes of interest were scores on the BREAST-Q, a validated, condition-specific, patient-reported outcome instrument, which were collected prior to and at 2 years after surgery. The following 4 domains of the BREAST-Q reconstruction module were evaluated: satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, physical well-being, and sexual well-being. Responses from each scale were summed and transformed on a 0 to 100 scale, with higher numbers representing greater satisfaction or quality of life.
RESULTS
Of the 2013 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 48.1 [10.5] years for the group that underwent implant-based reconstruction and 51.6 [8.7] years for the group that underwent autologous reconstruction), 1217 (60.5%) completed questionnaires at 2 years after reconstruction. After controlling for baseline patient characteristics, patients who underwent autologous reconstruction had greater satisfaction with their breasts (difference, 7.94; 95% CI, 5.68-10.20; P < .001), psychosocial well-being (difference, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.25-5.29; P = .002), and sexual well-being (difference, 5.53; 95% CI, 2.95-8.11; P < .001) at 2 years compared with patients who underwent implant reconstruction.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
At 2 years, patients who underwent autologous reconstruction were more satisfied with their breasts and had greater psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being than did those who underwent implant reconstruction. These findings can inform patients and their clinicians about expected satisfaction and quality of life outcomes of autologous vs implant-based procedures and further support the adoption of shared decision making in clinical practice.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Middle Aged; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient Satisfaction; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 29926096
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1677 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Sep 2021Oncoplastic Breast Surgery has become standard of care in the management of Breast Cancer patients. These guidelines written by an Expert Advisory Group; convened by the... (Review)
Review
Oncoplastic Breast Surgery has become standard of care in the management of Breast Cancer patients. These guidelines written by an Expert Advisory Group; convened by the Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS), are designed to provide all members of the breast cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) with guidance on the best breast surgical oncoplastic and reconstructive practice at each stage of a patient's journey, based on current evidence. It is hoped they will also be of benefit to the wide range of professionals and service commissioners who are involved in this area of clinical practice.
Topics: Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Data Collection; Decision Making, Shared; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Patient Education as Topic; Patient Selection; United Kingdom
PubMed: 34001384
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.05.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) involves removing the tumour in the breast and using plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct the breast. The adequacy of published evidence on the safety and efficacy of O-BCS for the treatment of breast cancer compared to other surgical options for breast cancer is still debatable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rate is similar to standard breast-conserving surgery (S-BCS) and also mastectomy, but the aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes may be improved with oncoplastic techniques.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objective was to assess oncological control outcomes following O-BCS compared with other surgical options for women with breast cancer. Our secondary objective was to assess surgical complications, recall rates, need for further surgery to achieve adequate oncological resection, patient satisfaction through patient-reported outcomes, and cosmetic outcomes through objective measures or clinician-reported outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via OVID), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 August 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated any O-BCS technique, including volume displacement techniques and partial breast volume replacement techniques compared to any other surgical treatment (partial resection or mastectomy) for the treatment of breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We used ROBINS-I to assess the risk of bias by outcome. We performed descriptive data analysis and meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. The outcomes included local recurrence, breast cancer-specific disease-free survival, re-excision rates, complications, recall rates, and patient-reported outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 78 non-randomised cohort studies evaluating 178,813 women. Overall, we assessed the risk of bias per outcome as being at serious risk of bias due to confounding; where studies adjusted for confounding, we deemed these at moderate risk. Comparison 1: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus standard-BCS (S-BCS) The evidence in the review found that O-BCS when compared to S-BCS, may make little or no difference to local recurrence; either when measured as local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.34; 4 studies, 7600 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or local recurrence rate (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.83; 4 studies, 2433 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain due to most studies not controlling for confounding clinicopathological factors. O-BCS compared to S-BCS may make little to no difference to disease-free survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26; 7 studies, 5532 participants; low-certainty evidence). O-BCS may reduce the rate of re-excisions needed for oncological resection (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; 38 studies, 13,341 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may increase the number of women who have at least one complication (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; 20 studies, 118,005 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and increase the recall to biopsy rate (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.42; 6 studies, 715 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing patient-reported outcomes or cosmetic evaluation; in general, O-BCS reported a similar or more favourable result, however, the evidence is very uncertain due to risk of bias in the measurement methods. Comparison 2: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy alone O-BCS may increase local recurrence-free survival compared to mastectomy but the evidence is very uncertain (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; 2 studies, 4713 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of O-BCS on disease-free survival as there were only data from one study. O-BCS may reduce complications compared to mastectomy, but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias mainly resulting from confounding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 4 studies, 4839 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data on patient-reported outcome measures came from single studies; it was not possible to meta-analyse the data. Comparison 3: oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (O-BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction O-BCS may make little or no difference to local recurrence-free survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.62; 1 study, 3785 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or disease-free survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.22; 1 study, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to mastectomy with reconstruction, but the evidence is very uncertain. O-BCS may reduce the complication rate compared to mastectomy with reconstruction (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; 5 studies, 4973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain due to high risk of bias from confounding and inconsistency of results. The evidence is very uncertain for patient-reported outcome measures and cosmetic evaluation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain regarding oncological outcomes following O-BCS compared to S-BCS, though O-BCS has not been shown to be inferior. O-BCS may result in less need for a second re-excision surgery but may result in more complications and a greater recall rate than S-BCS. It seems that O-BCS may give better patient satisfaction and surgeon rating for the look of the breast, but the evidence for this is of poor quality, and due to lack of numerical data, it was not possible to pool the results of different studies. It seems O-BCS results in fewer complications compared with surgeries involving mastectomy. Based on this review, no certain conclusions can be made to help inform policymakers. The surgical decision for what operation to proceed with should be made jointly between clinician and patient after an appropriate discussion about the risks and benefits of O-BCS personalised to the patient, taking into account clinicopathological factors. This review highlighted the deficiency of well-conducted studies to evaluate efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes following O-BCS.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Cohort Studies; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental
PubMed: 34713449
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013658.pub2 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Jan 2019Breast cancer surgical techniques are evolving. Few studies have analyzed national trends for the multitude of surgical options that include partial mastectomy (PM),... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Breast cancer surgical techniques are evolving. Few studies have analyzed national trends for the multitude of surgical options that include partial mastectomy (PM), mastectomy without reconstruction (M), mastectomy with reconstruction (M+R), and PM with oncoplastic reconstruction (OS). We hypothesize that the use of M is declining and likely correlates with the rise of surgery with reconstructive options (M+R, OS).
METHODS
A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2016 and ICD codes for IBC and DCIS. Patients were then grouped together based on current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for PM, M, M+R, and OS. In each group, categories were sorted again based on additional reconstructive procedures. Data analysis was conducted via Pearson's chi-squared test for demographics, linear regression, and a non-parametric Mann- Kendall test to assess a temporal trend.
RESULTS
The patient cohort consisted of 256,398 patients from the NSQIP data base; 197,387 meet inclusion criteria diagnosed with IBC or DCIS. Annual breast surgery trends changed as follows: PM 46.3-46.1% (p = 0.21), M 35.8-26.4% (p = 0.001), M+R 15.9-23.0% (p = 0.03), and OS 1.8-4.42% (p = 0.001). Analyzing the patient cohort who underwent breast conservation, categorical analysis showed a decreased use of PM alone (96-91%) with an increased use of OS (4-9%). For the patient cohort undergoing mastectomy, M alone decreased (69-53%); M+R with muscular flap decreased (9-2%); and M+R with implant placement increased (20-40%)-all three trends p < 0.0001.
CONCLUSION
The modern era of breast surgery is identified by the increasing use of reconstruction for patients undergoing breast conservation (in the form of OS) and mastectomy (in the form of M+R). Our study provides data showing significant trends that will impact the future of both breast cancer surgery and breast training programs.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy
PubMed: 30361873
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-018-5018-1 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2022To determine if margin involvement is associated with distant recurrence and to determine the required margin to minimise both local recurrence and distant recurrence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine if margin involvement is associated with distant recurrence and to determine the required margin to minimise both local recurrence and distant recurrence in early stage invasive breast cancer.
DESIGN
Prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis of literature.
DATA SOURCES
Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Proquest online databases. Unpublished data were sought from study authors.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Eligible studies reported on patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (for stages I-III breast cancer), allowed an estimation of outcomes in relation to margin status, and followed up patients for a minimum of 60 months. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ only or treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or by mastectomy were excluded. Where applicable, margins were categorised as tumour on ink (involved), close margins (no tumour on ink but <2 mm), and negative margins (≥2 mm).
RESULTS
68 studies from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2021, comprising 112 140 patients with breast cancer, were included. Across all studies, 9.4% (95% confidence interval 6.8% to 12.8%) of patients had involved (tumour on ink) margins and 17.8% (13.0% to 23.9%) had tumour on ink or a close margin. The rate of distant recurrence was 25.4% (14.5% to 40.6%) in patients with tumour on ink, 8.4% (4.4% to 15.5%) in patients with tumour on ink or close, and 7.4% (3.9% to 13.6%) in patients with negative margins. Compared with negative margins, tumour on ink margins were associated with increased distant recurrence (hazard ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.65 to 2.69, P<0.001) and local recurrence (1.98, 1.66 to 2.36, P<0.001). Close margins were associated with increased distant recurrence (1.38, 1.13 to 1.69, P<0.001) and local recurrence (2.09, 1.39 to 3.13, P<0.001) compared with negative margins, after adjusting for receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In five studies published since 2010, tumour on ink margins were associated with increased distant recurrence (2.41, 1.81 to 3.21, P<0.001) as were tumour on ink and close margins (1.44, 1.22 to 1.71, P<0.001) compared with negative margins.
CONCLUSIONS
Involved or close pathological margins after breast conserving surgery for early stage, invasive breast cancer are associated with increased distant recurrence and local recurrence. Surgeons should aim to achieve a minimum clear margin of at least 1 mm. On the basis of current evidence, international guidelines should be revised.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
CRD42021232115.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Margins of Excision; Mastectomy; Mastectomy, Segmental; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 36130770
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070346