CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » Breast Cancer

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 14 No. 11
Pages: 1  2  3  4  
Previous Next
REVIEW ARTICLE 

Local Recurrence After Mastectomy or Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiation

By Gary M. Freedman, MD1, Barbara L. Fowble, MD2 | November 1, 2000
1Associate Member, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2Senior Member, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Clinical Risk Factors for IBTR

• Young Age—Patient ages of 35 years or less and 40 years or less have been associated with an increased risk of IBTR following breast-conserving surgery and radiation in most series.[4,5,7,12-14,23,57-64] This finding may be due partly to the association of young age with other factors predictive of IBTR, including an extensive intraductal component and close or positive resection margins.[58] Cowen et al[65] reported a 55% rate of IBTR in women 40 years old or younger with positive margins, although this finding was not significant on multivariate analysis.

Freedman et al [unpublished data] conducted a recursive partitioning analysis to identify subgroups of patients at different levels of risk for IBTR. They found a significant dependence upon margin status in women aged 35 years or less with extensive intraductal component–negative tumors; the risk of developing IBTR at 10 years was only 3% with negative margins, compared with 34% for those with close or positive margins. Women £ 35 years old with extensive intraductal component–positive tumors had a 75% risk of IBTR, regardless of margin status. However, there is no evidence to suggest that women £ 35 years old have improved local control or disease-specific survival after mastectomy, as compared to breast-conserving surgery and radiation.[23]

• Tumor Size—For clinical tumors £ 5 cm that are eligible for breast-conserving surgery and radiation, there is no significant difference in the risk of IBTR between T1 and T2 tumors.[4,8,12,13,61,63,65,66]

Little information is available on the risk of IBTR for operable T3 breast cancers treated with immediate breast-conserving surgery and radiation. In one series of 470 patients with operable stage III breast cancer, Toonkel et al[67] reported IBTRs in 2 (6%) of 34 patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation after a mean follow-up of 8 years. Khanna et al[68] also reported that only 3 (8%) of 36 selected patients with T3 tumors developed an IBTR after a median follow-up of 46 months. Fortin et al[5] reported a 16% IBTR rate for T3 tumors, compared to 10% for T1 or T2 tumors, with a median follow-up of 5.2 years.

More data are available on the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for T3 tumors with breast-conserving surgery and radiation offered to responding patients. In NSABP B-18, 13% of 1,523 patients had a T3 tumor size and were randomized to preoperative or postoperative chemotherapy.[69] Following chemotherapy, 33% of the T3 tumors were treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation, compared to only 9% of those randomized to postoperative chemotherapy.

The study showed a statistically significant increase in the rate of IBTR (14% vs 7%) for tumors that were downstaged by chemotherapy to become eligible for breast-conserving surgery and radiation, compared with those initially felt to be candidates for breast conservation prior to chemotherapy.[70] Although the results for T3 tumors were not reported separately, it is likely that a significant portion of the group that was downstaged and rendered eligible for breast conservation were those with tumors that were initially staged as T3.

In contrast, Danforth et al[71] reported no IBTRs in 18 patients treated with radiation after a clinical and pathologic complete response to induction chemotherapy from an initial group of 57 patients with stage IIIA disease. From a group of 84 women with tumors > 5 cm, Bonadonna et al[72] treated 52 chemotherapy responders with quadrantectomy and radiation; at 8 years, the IBTR rate was 4%. After a median follow-up of 41 months, Ellis et al[73] reported that there was a 7% risk of IBTR in responding patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation after induction chemotherapy. However, Buzdar et al[74] selected 15 patients who responded to induction chemotherapy for breast-conserving surgery and radiation (from an original group of 60 women with T3 tumors) and found a 20% rate of IBTR after a median follow-up of only 43 months.

In summary, the majority of T3 tumors remain ineligible for breast conservation, even after induction chemotherapy. Mastectomy should remain standard treatment for initial T3 tumors until the optimal selection factors, guidelines for treatment, and long-term rates of IBTR can be further defined.

 • Gross Multifocal/Multicentric Disease—Clinically detected multifocal or multicentric disease, whether presenting as more than one palpable mass or as a mammographic abnormality, has been associated with nearly a 40% risk of IBTR.[75-77] A closer distance between separate clinically detected tumors has not been shown to be a predictor for a lower risk of recurrence.[75] The risk of IBTR may not be increased by the presence of multifocal disease first detected by the surgeon intraoperatively.[77] When detected by the pathologist on gross pathologic inspection, multifocal disease has generally been associated with a 20% to 36% risk of IBTR.[4,13,65,75,77] However, the risk of IBTR may be minimized after radiation with gross pathologic multifocal disease by selection of extensive intraductal component–negative tumors resected with negative margins.[78]

• Genetic Factors—In contrast to findings in the mastectomy setting, data show that a genetic mutation does not increase the risk of IBTR at 5 years following breast-conserving surgery and radiation. Chabner et al[79] reported on a series of 201 women aged 36 years or less treated by breast-conserving surgery and radiation, 29 of whom had a family history suggestive of inherited breast cancer but no documented BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The crude 5-year local failure rate was lower in the subgroup with a strong family history (14% vs 3%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance.

Pierce et al[80] reported a study of 73 women with known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation. There was no significant difference in the local failure-free survival at 5 years between these 71 patients and a matched similarly treated cohort of 219 patients with presumed sporadic breast cancer (99% vs 96%).

In another series of 28 Ashkenazi women with known BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations, Robson et al[81] reported IBTR rates of 15% at 5 years and 22% at 10 years, compared with rates in controls without the mutations of 5% and 7%, respectively. The difference in IBTR at 10 years did not reach statistical significance (P = .25). Women with mutations were more likely to be under the age of 50 years, which itself was the only significant variable associated with the risk of IBTR.

Seynaeve et al[82] reported on the risk of IBTR following breast-conserving surgery and radiation in a series of 79 patients with hereditary breast cancer based on BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (18 patients) or a strong family history of three or more first-degree relatives with breast/ovarian cancer (61 patients). The risk of IBTR at 5 years was 14%, compared to a rate of 5% observed in 79 matched controls of presumed sporadic breast cancers. However, the magnitude of this difference continued to increase to 27% with longer follow-up at 10 years and to 48% at 13 years in hereditary cases, compared with only 18% in controls (P = .09).

Turner et al[83] found that 8 (15%) of 52 patients with IBTR following breast-conserving surgery and radiation retrospectively tested positive for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The mean time to IBTR in these women was 8.7 years, compared with an interval of 4.3 years for the overall population. In addition, differences between relapse histology and location in the breast compared to the original tumors suggested that the majority of these IBTRs were actually new primaries in the treated breast. Therefore, 5-year rates of IBTR should be viewed with caution, and additional studies with 10-year follow-up will be needed to define the risk of IBTR—whether a true recurrence or a new breast primary—in patients with genetic mutations.

Histopathologic Risk Factors for IBTR

• Nodal Status—Compared with node-negative patients, patients with node-positive disease do not have an increased risk of IBTR following breast-conserving surgery and radiation and are generally at lower risk because of the combined use of adjuvant systemic therapy.[2,4,8,12,54,59,61]

• Extracapsular Extension—In patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery, axillary dissection, and radiation, extracapsular nodal extension is not associated with an increased risk of IBTR.[84,85] However, just as in the mastectomy setting, extracapsular extension is more prevalent in patients with a higher number of positive nodes but not an independent factor for axillary recurrence following breast-conserving surgery and radiation.[84,85]

• Margin Status—In most series, the presence of positive resection margins is associated with a two to three times increased risk of developing IBTR (compared to negative margins) following breast-conserving surgery and radiation.[5,7,54,62,65,86-90] There is controversy regarding the impact of a close margin on the risk of IBTR, with close margin defined variously as cancer cells within a distance of 1 mm[62,89,91] or 2 mm[86-88,90, 92,93] but not involving the resection edge. Obedian et al[90] found the relapse-free survival rate was the same 98% at 10 years with close (£ 2 mm) or negative margins.

In a retrospective series from the Joint Center for Radiation Therapy, Park et al[89] reported the same crude rate of IBTR (7%) at 8 years with close (£ 1 mm) or negative margins. However, in a prospective trial reported by Recht et al from the same institution, a close (£ 1 mm) margin was a significant predictor of IBTR in a randomized trial of sequencing chemotherapy before or after radiation following breast-conserving surgery.[91] The overall crude 5-year risk of IBTR with close margins (£ 1 mm) was 11%, compared to 3% with negative margins, with a greater risk of IBTR observed in patients receiving chemotherapy before radiation (23% for £ 1 mm vs 0% for negative margins).

Peterson et al[93] reported an 8-year actuarial IBTR risk of 17% with close (£ 2 mm) margins, compared to 8% with negative margins, although this did not reach statistical significance. Freedman et al[86] reported no significant difference in the 5-year cumulative incidence of IBTR at 5 years with a close or negative margin, although by 10 years, a significant difference became apparent (14% vs 7%, respectively, P = .04). A long delay of 10 years or more until the rates of IBTR with close margins diverge from those of negative margins has also been shown in other series.[87,88]

• Extensive Intraductal Component—The presence of an extensive intraductal component–positive tumor has been associated with an increased risk of IBTR following breast-conserving surgery and radiation, although this effect is minimized by more extensive breast-conserving surgery and wide negative margins.[4,54,59,63,86,88,89]

• High Grade—High histologic grade has been variably associated with the risk of IBTR following breast-conserving surgery and radiation, with an increased risk reported by some series[65,94] but not others.[4,13,95]

• Lymphovascular Invasion—Lymphovascular invasion has been associated with an increased risk of IBTR in many [13,14,59,62,94] but not all [4,12,65] series.

• Oncogenes and Tumor-Suppressor Genes—Similar to the mastectomy setting, there is a paucity of data addressing the impact of HER2/neu or p53 expression on the risk of local failure. Haffty et al[96] reported a case-control study in which 56% of patients with IBTR had overexpression of HER2/neu in the original tumor, compared with only 18% of matched control patients without IBTR. However, Pierce et al[51] reported a series of 107 patients with known c-erbB-2 expression treated with either breast-conserving surgery and radiation or mastectomy. The risk of IBTR was 8% with overexpression, compared to 24% with no overexpression. Silvestrini et al[97] found p53 overexpression was associated with a higher risk of IBTR following breast-conserving surgery alone but not following breast-conserving surgery with radiation.

• Estrogen-Receptor Status—Estrogen-receptor–negative tumors have not had a higher risk of IBTR following breast-conserving surgery and radiation in most series.[7,13,57,62,66]

• Adjuvant Systemic Therapy—The risk of IBTR has been reported to decrease with the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in subgroups of patients with node-positive disease[2,8,54,59] or focally positive margins[89] following breast-conserving surgery and radiation. Adjuvant tamoxifen(Drug information on tamoxifen) has also been associated with a significant decrease in the rate of IBTR following conservative surgery and radiation.[5,12,55,98-101]

Cowen et al[13,65] reported that adjuvant hormone use increased local recurrence-free survival with positive margins but not with negative margins up to 10 years following breast-conserving surgery and radiation without chemotherapy. Freedman et al[86], using a cumulative incidence methodology, also showed no significant decrease in IBTR at 5 or 10 years with adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with negative margins. However, in patients with positive margins, adjuvant systemic therapy was associated with a lower rate of IBTR at 5 years (compared with no adjuvant systemic therapy) but no significant decrease in the ultimate 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR.

Summary

TABLE 2

Factors Related to Risk of Chest Wall Recurrence After Mastectomy for Stage I-IIIA or Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiation for Stage I/II Breast Cancer

Differences between the clinical and histopathologic risk factors associated with local recurrence following breast-conserving surgery and radiation or mastectomy are shown in Table 2. Significant factors contributing to an increased risk of local recurrence following either treatment are tumor size ³ 5 cm, close or positive margins, young age £ 35 to 40 years, and lymphovascular invasion.

Factors that increase the risk of chest wall recurrence but not IBTR include 4 or more positive axillary nodes, ER negativity, and p53 positivity. The few studies addressing high histologic grade suggest that there is an increased risk of chest wall recurrence but a variable association with IBTR. Extracapsular extension, particularly in those with 1 to 3 positive nodes, may also have an impact on chest wall recurrence but not on IBTR.

In contrast, gross multicentric disease or extensive intraductal component positivity increases the risk of IBTR but not chest wall recurrence. Patients with hereditary breast cancer are not at increased risk of developing IBTR within 5 years, but there are no data regarding its prognostic value for chest wall failure. Tumor size < 5 cm, adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, and HER2/neu overexpression are associated with a low risk of local recurrence after either treatment.

Pages: 1  2  3  4  
Previous Next
 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.

  • Oldest First
  • Newest First

by Nikki McCarthy | June 24, 2010 7:26 AM EDT

Hi,  Your research doesn't go much into the prognosis for T4 tumours?  I'm desparate for advice:
DX age 45 (2004) with node neg 3 x multi focal grade 1 (stage 1) tumour loading 2.1cm - treated with skin sparing mastectomy immed. LD reconst. Refused tamox er + pr + her -
2005 felt 2 x rice like nodules in skin of reconst at largest tumour site. Biopsy missed skin recurrence which was eventually dx'd in 2006 - multiple x 3 satellite skin nodules (2 away from original tumour sites).  Still grade 1 er+ pr+.  Removed reconst, radiotherapy and tamox. 
2008  tram diep reconst
2009  salpingo ooperectomy and surg hyster.
2010  Recurrence under scar (6mm only).  No skin involvement.  Neg nodes.  Still grade 1 er+ pr+ her-.... Changed to Arimadex. My BC team are undecided if chemo would help me?  Can you help as I feel like a time bomb!!?

Nikki McCarthy






 
RELATED CONTENT

Breast Cancer Screening, Risk, and Options for High-Risk Women
May 22, 2013
Palliative Radiotherapy in Elderly Patients With Bone Metastases Improves Quality of Life
May 20, 2013
50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
May 17, 2013
It’s Time for Clinicians to Reconsider Their Proscription Against the Use of Soyfoods by Breast Cancer Patients
ONCOLOGY,  May 13, 2013
HERA Trial: Invasive Lobular Breast Carcinoma Patients Derived Same Benefit From Trastuzumab Maintenance
May 7, 2013
 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
   SEARCH MEDICA RX
   Browse drugs by name:
A B C D E F G H I J
K L M N O P Q R S T
U V W X Y Z All      
   Search for drugs:
Search

 

 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Five Steps to Improving Patient Access
Judy Capko,  May 21, 2013
Patient access is getting increased attention through reform initiatives. Here are five steps you can take to make sure patients get appropriate access to care in your office.
Growing HIPAA Threat – Ignore Windows XP at Your Own Peril
Marion K. Jenkins,  May 21, 2013
Chances are good that you have some major ticking software time bombs lurking in your medical practice's computer environment, namely Windows XP and Server 2003.
Finding Physician Work-Life Balance in the Small Moments
Jennifer Frank, MD,  May 21, 2013
At my practice and at home, things are always busy. There's laundry or homework, or a patient with needs.
Three Areas to Reduce Costs at Your Medical Practice
Greg Mertz,  May 19, 2013
By taking a hard look at reducing costs for staffing, overhead, and technology at your medical practice, you may see increased physician compensation.
Dos and Don’ts for Starting a Physician Blog
Michael Woo-Ming, MD,  May 18, 2013
Starting a physician blog can provide your medical practice with marketing benefits, but it's important to do it right.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Slide Show: Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
  • The ABCDEs of Moles and Melanomas
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • ONS: Understanding Spirituality and How It Can Be Used to Help Patients
  • Breast Cancer Screening, Risk, and Options for High-Risk Women
  • Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Therapy Innovations
  • A 52-Year-Old Man Presents With an Erythematous Lesion
  • Bone Metastases
  • Palliative Radiotherapy in Elderly Patients With Bone Metastases Improves Quality of Life
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • Conflicts of Interest in Medicine: What About Ties to Payers?
  • Planning Treatment for Women With Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
  • Rising PSA Level in a 46-Year-Old Man
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • Cancer Metabolism as a Therapeutic Target
  • Study: Cholesterol Drugs Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer Death
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter



CancerNetwork on Facebook
 
SearchMedica SEARCH RESULTS

Find peer-reviewed literature and websites for practicing medical professionals

CME on Breast Cancer
Evidence on Breast Cancer
Guidelines on Breast Cancer
Patient Education on Breast Cancer
Clinical Trials on Breast Cancer
Practical Articles on Breast Cancer
Research and Reviews on Breast Cancer
All "Breast Cancer" results

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy