Treatment of early-stage invasive breast cancer with breast-conserving surgery plus radiation therapy (RT) yields overall survival outcomes equivalent to those achieved with mastectomy. Further, breast-conserving surgery is endorsed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as being supported by the highest-level, category 1 evidence. Advances in pathologic evaluation, management of multiple tumors, oncoplastic lumpectomy techniques, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and hypofractionated RT can expand the pool of patients eligible for breast-conserving surgery. Selected patients (for example, patients older than 70 years of age with hormone receptor–positive T1 tumors who are willing to commit to receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy) may be able to forgo RT completely. This article will detail current management approaches to achieving breast conservation in patients with invasive breast cancer, including cases of bulky tumors and/or multiple tumors.
The most recent breast cancer guidelines released by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) continue to rate breast-conserving surgery for early-stage invasive disease as being supported by the highest-level—category 1—evidence (ie, based upon data from prospective randomized clinical trials). Several management strategies may be employed to expand the number of patients who are deemed eligible for breast-conserving surgery. These include reversal of conventional primary surgery/systemic therapy treatment sequence by delivery of neoadjuvant chemotherapy; broadened applications of lumpectomy to patients with multiple breast tumors; omission/modification of breast irradiation after lumpectomy; and newer approaches to oncoplastic breast reconstruction for lumpectomy patients.
Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy
The benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with unresectable breast cancer became apparent several decades ago. In this scenario neoadjuvant chemotherapy was shown to improve operability, and successfully downstaged patients from this era routinely underwent modified radical mastectomy. The neoadjuvant treatment plan also offers the following advantages[2,3]:
• It enables clinicians to monitor disease chemosensitivity, since breast tumor downstaging by neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a surrogate marker for the effectiveness of chemotherapy in sterilizing micrometastases.
• It increases the possibility of downstaging axillary disease, so that patients are more likely to be node-negative after primary chemotherapy—which then potentially increases the likelihood that axillary lymph node dissection will not be necessary. A comprehensive discussion of axillary surgical management in neoadjuvant chemotherapy is beyond the scope of this review. Many patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy who present with node-positive breast cancer will require axillary lymph node dissection for definitive staging and regional control of disease. However, NCCN guidelines support the option of omitting axillary lymph node dissection in patients with needle biopsy–proven nodal disease whose axilla has been proven to be downstaged following neoadjuvant chemotherapy through a targeted axillary dissection involving dual-agent (blue dye and radiotracer) lymphatic mapping, resection of more than two sentinel nodes, and radiographic confirmation that the original biopsied/clip-marked lymph node has been removed.
• It may provide patients with an additional window of time during which they can seek genetic counseling/testing, as well as contemplate their individual preferences regarding lumpectomy vs mastectomy.
Several international studies have confirmed the safety of reversing the conventional breast cancer treatment sequence, so that chemotherapy precedes surgery (Table 1). Overall survival is the same within each study for the two randomization arms, definitively demonstrating that survival is not compromised by modest delays in performing surgery while chemotherapy is delivered preoperatively. These studies also confirm that the neoadjuvant approach increases the volume of patients who are eligible for breast-conserving surgery.
Candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy must be carefully vetted to ensure that all necessary cancer-related information is available to the care team prior to initiating treatment. A radio-opaque clip must be left in place within the tumor bed for subsequent lumpectomy targeting. Mammograms showing microcalcifications may be used as inherent tumor localization markers. Patients who are fortunate enough to achieve a complete clinical response but who have neither marker clips nor calcifications to identify the tumor bed must undergo mastectomy after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients who have diffuse microcalcifications or multiple widely spaced tumors at the time of diagnosis should be informed that they must undergo mastectomy regardless of how well they respond to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with several tumors should have multiple biopsies to completely characterize biomarker expression, since this information will determine individual eligibility for endocrine therapy and targeted therapy with anti–human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) agents.
Breast imaging should be repeated after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, to assess the patient’s response to treatment and facilitate surgical planning. Occasionally, patients will have unmasking of previously obscured microcalcifications that might influence their eligibility for lumpectomy. The standard of care at this time is for patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy to routinely undergo definitive breast surgery; ongoing research and clinical trials (including the NRG Oncology trial NRG-BR005) will explore the prospect of avoiding surgery in the subset of patients appearing to be “exceptional responders”—that is, cases in which clinical evaluation, postchemotherapy core needle biopsies, and breast imaging are consistent with a complete pathologic response.
Bulky cancers that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative are less likely to have a brisk response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and are generally triaged toward primary surgery unless they are associated with biopsy-proven nodal disease or are unresectable. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy is an alternative option for this phenotype, but clinical response tends to be relatively slow and complete pathologic responses are uncommon.[4-7] Improved eligibility for lumpectomy is therefore less well documented compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy delivered for triple-negative breast cancer (ie, tumors that are estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, and HER2–negative) or cancers that overexpress the HER2 protein.
1. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, et al. Invasive breast cancer version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14:324-54.
2. Mamounas EP. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on locoregional surgical treatment of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1425-33.
3. King TA, Morrow M. Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:335-43.
4. Loibl S, Denkert C, von Minckwitz G. Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer: clinical and research perspective. Breast. 2015;24(suppl 2):S73-S77.
5. Spring LM, Gupta A, Reynolds KL, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:1477-86.
6. Haddad TC, Goetz MP. Landscape of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1408-15.
7. Agrawal LS, Mayer IA. Optimizing the use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Curr Oncol Rep. 2015;17:33.
8. Bendifallah S, Werkoff G, Borie-Moutafoff C, et al. Multiple synchronous (multifocal and multicentric) breast cancer: clinical implications. Surg Oncol. 2010;19:e115-e123.
9. Kurtz JM, Jacquemier J, Amalric R, et al. Breast-conserving therapy for macroscopically multiple cancers. Ann Surg. 1990;212:38-44.
10. Leopold KA, Recht A, Schnitt SJ, et al. Results of conservative surgery and radiation therapy for multiple synchronous cancers of one breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989;16:11-6.
11. Wilson LD, Beinfield M, McKhann CF, Haffty BG. Conservative surgery and radiation in the treatment of synchronous ipsilateral breast cancers. Cancer. 1993;72:137-42.
12. Ataseven B, Lederer B, Blohmer JU, et al. Impact of multifocal or multicentric disease on surgery and locoregional, distant and overall survival of 6,134 breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1118-27.
13. Shah C, Tendulkar R, Smile T, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy in early-stage breast cancer: evidence-based options. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3880-90.
14. Whelan TJ, Pignol JP, Levine MN, et al. Long-term results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:513-20.
15. Hopwood P, Haviland JS, Sumo G, et al. Comparison of patient-reported breast, arm, and shoulder symptoms and body image after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: 5-year follow-up in the randomised Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:231-40.
16. Haviland JS, Owen JR, Dewar JA, et al. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1086-94.
17. Vicini F, Shah C, Tendulkar R, et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation: an update on published level I evidence. Brachytherapy. 2016;15:607-15.
18. Vaidya JS, Wenz F, Bulsara M, et al. Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial. Lancet. 2014;383:603-13.
19. Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Maisonneuve P, et al. Intraoperative radiotherapy versus external radiotherapy for early breast cancer (ELIOT): a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1269-77.
20. Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R, et al. Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:822-8.
21. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Bellon JR, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2382-7.
22. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Berry D, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women 70 years of age or older with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:971-7.
23. Kunkler IH, Williams LJ, Jack WJ, et al. Breast-conserving surgery with or without irradiation in women aged 65 years or older with early breast cancer (PRIME II): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:266-73.
24. Clough KB, Benyahi D, Nos C, et al. Oncoplastic surgery: pushing the limits of breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2015;21:140-6.
25. Yiannakopoulou EC, Mathelin C. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and oncological outcome: systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:625-30.
26. Mauriac L, Durand M, Avril A, Dilhuydy JM. Effects of primary chemotherapy in conservative treatment of breast cancer patients with operable tumors larger than 3 cm: results of a randomized trial in a single centre. Ann Oncol. 1991;2:347-54.
27. Mauriac L, MacGrogan G, Avril A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm: a unicentre randomized trial with a 124-month median follow-up. Institut Bergonie Bordeaux Groupe Sein (IBBGS). Ann Oncol. 1999;10:47-52.
28. Scholl SM, Asselain B, Palangie T, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1991;27:1668-71.
29. Scholl SM, Fourquet A, Asselain B, et al. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial: S6. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A:645-52.
30. Scholl SM, Pierga JY, Asselain B, et al. Breast tumour response to primary chemotherapy predicts local and distant control as well as survival. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:1969-75.
31. Powles TJ, Hickish TF, Makris A, et al. Randomized trial of chemoendocrine therapy started before or after surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:547-52.
32. Makris A, Powles TJ, Ashley SE, et al. A reduction in the requirements for mastectomy in a randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:1179-84.
33. Makris A, Powles TJ, Dowsett M, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in primary breast carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res. 1997;3:593-600.
34. Cleator SJ, Makris A, Ashley SE, et al. Good clinical response of breast cancers to neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy is associated with improved overall survival. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:267-72.
35. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2483-93.
36. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2672-85.
37. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001;(30):96-102.
38. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:778-85.
39. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4224-37.
40. Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W, et al. First report of the European Cooperative Trial in Operable Breast Cancer (ECTO): effects of primary systemic therapy (PST) on local-regional disease. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2002;21:34a, abstr 132.
41. Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W, et al. Feasibility and tolerability of sequential doxorubicin/paclitaxel followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil and its effects on tumor response as preoperative therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:8715-21.
42. Jakesz R, for the ABCSG. Comparison of pre- vs. postoperative chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: four-year results of Austrian Breast and Colorectal Study Group (ABCSG) trial 7. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001;20:32a, abstr 125.
43. Hartsell WF, Recine DC, Griem KL, et al. Should multicentric disease be an absolute contraindication to the use of breast-conserving therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;30:49-53.
44. Nos C, Bourgeois D, Darles C, et al. [Conservative treatment of multifocal breast cancer: a comparative study.] Bulletin du Cancer. 1999;86:184-8.
45. Cho LC, Senzer N, Peters GN. Conservative surgery and radiation therapy for macroscopically multiple ipsilateral invasive breast cancers. Am J Surg. 2002;183:650-4.
46. Kaplan J, Giron G, Tartter PI, et al. Breast conservation in patients with multiple ipsilateral synchronous cancers. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:726-9.
47. Okumura S, Mitsumori M, Yamauchi C, et al. Feasibility of breast-conserving therapy for macroscopically multiple ipsilateral breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:146-51.
48. Gentilini O, Botteri E, Rotmensz N, et al. Conservative surgery in patients with multifocal/multicentric breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113:577-83.
49. Lim W, Park EH, Choi SL, et al. Breast conserving surgery for multifocal breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;249:87-90.
50. Chung AP, Huynh K, Kidner T, et al. Comparison of outcomes of breast conserving therapy in multifocal and unifocal invasive breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:137-46.
51. Lynch SP, Lei X, Hsu L, et al. Breast cancer multifocality and multicentricity and locoregional recurrence. Oncologist. 2013;18:1167-73.