Re-Excision Rates in Breast-Conserving Surgery for Invasive Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with and without the Use of a Radiopaque Tissue Transfer and X-ray System.
Breast cancer
Breast-conserving surgery
Klinitray™
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Re-excision rate
Specimen radiography
Journal
Breast care (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1661-3791
Titre abrégé: Breast Care (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101254060
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
entrez:
5
12
2019
pubmed:
5
12
2019
medline:
5
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Significant re-excision rates in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy may result from difficulties in defining the surgical target particularly in cases with excellent treatment response. Devices allowing an exact topographic localisation of the lesion in the resected tissue could reduce re-excision rates by optimising the intraoperative detection of involved margins. 80 patients with invasive breast cancer receiving BCS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included in this non-randomized case-control study. 40 patients with specimen radiography performed in a standard approach (control group) were compared to 40 patients with use of a radiopaque tissue transfer system (study group). 19/80 (23.75%) patients required re-excision because of involved margins; among those, 14/40 (35%) were in the control group and 5/40 (12.5%) in the study group. The association between the use of the radiopaque tissue transfer system and the lower re-excision rate was statistically significant (p = 0.023). Our analysis provides a rationale for the routine use of a radiopaque tissue transfer system for specimen radiography in BCS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer in order to reduce re-excision rates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Significant re-excision rates in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy may result from difficulties in defining the surgical target particularly in cases with excellent treatment response. Devices allowing an exact topographic localisation of the lesion in the resected tissue could reduce re-excision rates by optimising the intraoperative detection of involved margins.
METHODS
METHODS
80 patients with invasive breast cancer receiving BCS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included in this non-randomized case-control study. 40 patients with specimen radiography performed in a standard approach (control group) were compared to 40 patients with use of a radiopaque tissue transfer system (study group).
RESULTS
RESULTS
19/80 (23.75%) patients required re-excision because of involved margins; among those, 14/40 (35%) were in the control group and 5/40 (12.5%) in the study group. The association between the use of the radiopaque tissue transfer system and the lower re-excision rate was statistically significant (p = 0.023).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis provides a rationale for the routine use of a radiopaque tissue transfer system for specimen radiography in BCS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer in order to reduce re-excision rates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31798390
doi: 10.1159/000493017
pii: brc-0014-0302
pmc: PMC6883442
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
302-307Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no relevant conflict of interest with regard to the presented work.
Références
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2011 Jun;40(4):314-22
pubmed: 21349659
Am J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun;28(3):289-94
pubmed: 15923803
J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Jun;206(6):1116-21
pubmed: 18501808
Ann Surg Oncol. 2002 Dec;9(10):994-8
pubmed: 12464592
J Surg Oncol. 2015 Sep;112(4):443-8
pubmed: 26374088
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19(1):27-39
pubmed: 29242041
Breast Care (Basel). 2017 Jul;12(3):172-183
pubmed: 28785186
Breast. 2001 Feb;10(1):28-34
pubmed: 14965555
Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Sep;14(9):2485-9
pubmed: 17541694
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(6):1003-7
pubmed: 21808866
J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Sep;26(3):323-7
pubmed: 17987790
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Feb;155(3):513-9
pubmed: 26872902
Radiol Med. 2007 Apr;112(3):366-76
pubmed: 17440696
Eur J Radiol. 2011 Aug;79(2):245-9
pubmed: 20303687
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 1;88(3):553-64
pubmed: 24521674
Am J Surg. 2008 Oct;196(4):483-9
pubmed: 18809049
N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 17;347(16):1233-41
pubmed: 12393820
Am J Surg. 2013 Jun;205(6):703-10
pubmed: 23465329
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Apr;37(4):357-63
pubmed: 21292434
Am J Surg. 2004 Oct;188(4):433-6
pubmed: 15474443
Eur J Cancer. 2003 Oct;39(15):2192-9
pubmed: 14522378
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Jul;42(7):986-93
pubmed: 27211343
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 May;19(5):1508-16
pubmed: 22193884
Am J Surg. 2007 Oct;194(4):467-73
pubmed: 17826057
Ann Surg. 2001 Jun;233(6):761-8
pubmed: 11371734
World J Surg. 2005 Mar;29(3):369-74
pubmed: 15706446
Breast J. 2006 Jul-Aug;12(4):331-7
pubmed: 16848842
Am J Surg. 2002 Nov;184(5):383-93
pubmed: 12433599
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012 Nov;93(11):871-7
pubmed: 23021868
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Nov;124(1):133-40
pubmed: 20697801
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 1;27(19):3185-91
pubmed: 19364972
Surg Clin North Am. 2013 Apr;93(2):493-9
pubmed: 23464698
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Dec;42(12):1834-1840
pubmed: 27591938
Am J Surg. 2008 Oct;196(4):556-8
pubmed: 18809063
Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Mar;16(3):697-702
pubmed: 19132447