Cargando…

Systematic review of the impact of breast‐conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers

BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of treating ipsilateral multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancers using breast‐conserving surgery (BCS) compared with the standard of mastectomy is uncertain. Inconsistencies relate to definitions, incidence, staging and intertumoral heterogeneity. T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Winters, Z. E., Horsnell, J., Elvers, K. T., Maxwell, A. J., Jones, L. J., Shaaban, A. M., Schmid, P., Williams, N. R., Beswick, A., Greenwood, R., Ingram, J. C., Saunders, C., Vaidya, J. S., Esserman, L., Jatoi, I., Brunt, A. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6069349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30079385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.53
_version_ 1783343472282959872
author Winters, Z. E.
Horsnell, J.
Elvers, K. T.
Maxwell, A. J.
Jones, L. J.
Shaaban, A. M.
Schmid, P.
Williams, N. R.
Beswick, A.
Greenwood, R.
Ingram, J. C.
Saunders, C.
Vaidya, J. S.
Esserman, L.
Jatoi, I.
Brunt, A. M.
author_facet Winters, Z. E.
Horsnell, J.
Elvers, K. T.
Maxwell, A. J.
Jones, L. J.
Shaaban, A. M.
Schmid, P.
Williams, N. R.
Beswick, A.
Greenwood, R.
Ingram, J. C.
Saunders, C.
Vaidya, J. S.
Esserman, L.
Jatoi, I.
Brunt, A. M.
author_sort Winters, Z. E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of treating ipsilateral multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancers using breast‐conserving surgery (BCS) compared with the standard of mastectomy is uncertain. Inconsistencies relate to definitions, incidence, staging and intertumoral heterogeneity. The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes after BCS versus mastectomy for MF and MC cancers, collectively defined as multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBC). METHODS: Comprehensive electronic searches were undertaken to identify complete papers published in English between May 1988 and July 2015, primarily comparing clinical outcomes of BCS and mastectomy for MIBC. All study designs were included, and studies were appraised critically using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The characteristics and results of identified studies were summarized. RESULTS: Twenty‐four retrospective studies were included in the review: 17 comparative studies and seven case series. They included 3537 women with MIBC undergoing BCS; breast cancers were defined as MF in 2677 women, MC in 292, and reported as MIBC in 568. Six studies evaluated MIBC treated by BCS or mastectomy, with locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates of 2–23 per cent after BCS at median follow‐up of 59·5 (i.q.r. 56–81) months. BCS and mastectomy showed apparently equivalent rates of LRR (risk ratio 0·94, 95 per cent c.i. 0·65 to 1·36). Thirteen studies compared BCS in women with MIBC versus those with unifocal cancers, reporting LRR rates of 2–40 per cent after BCS at a median follow‐up of 64 (i.q.r. 57–73) months. One high‐quality study reported 10‐year actuarial LRR rates of 5·5 per cent for BCS in 300 women versus 6·5 per cent for mastectomy among 887 women. CONCLUSION: The available studies were mainly of moderate quality, historical and underpowered, with limited follow‐up and biased case selection favouring BCS rather than mastectomy for low‐risk patients. The evidence was inconclusive, weakening support for the St Gallen consensus and supporting a future randomized trial.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6069349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60693492018-08-03 Systematic review of the impact of breast‐conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers Winters, Z. E. Horsnell, J. Elvers, K. T. Maxwell, A. J. Jones, L. J. Shaaban, A. M. Schmid, P. Williams, N. R. Beswick, A. Greenwood, R. Ingram, J. C. Saunders, C. Vaidya, J. S. Esserman, L. Jatoi, I. Brunt, A. M. BJS Open Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of treating ipsilateral multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancers using breast‐conserving surgery (BCS) compared with the standard of mastectomy is uncertain. Inconsistencies relate to definitions, incidence, staging and intertumoral heterogeneity. The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes after BCS versus mastectomy for MF and MC cancers, collectively defined as multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBC). METHODS: Comprehensive electronic searches were undertaken to identify complete papers published in English between May 1988 and July 2015, primarily comparing clinical outcomes of BCS and mastectomy for MIBC. All study designs were included, and studies were appraised critically using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The characteristics and results of identified studies were summarized. RESULTS: Twenty‐four retrospective studies were included in the review: 17 comparative studies and seven case series. They included 3537 women with MIBC undergoing BCS; breast cancers were defined as MF in 2677 women, MC in 292, and reported as MIBC in 568. Six studies evaluated MIBC treated by BCS or mastectomy, with locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates of 2–23 per cent after BCS at median follow‐up of 59·5 (i.q.r. 56–81) months. BCS and mastectomy showed apparently equivalent rates of LRR (risk ratio 0·94, 95 per cent c.i. 0·65 to 1·36). Thirteen studies compared BCS in women with MIBC versus those with unifocal cancers, reporting LRR rates of 2–40 per cent after BCS at a median follow‐up of 64 (i.q.r. 57–73) months. One high‐quality study reported 10‐year actuarial LRR rates of 5·5 per cent for BCS in 300 women versus 6·5 per cent for mastectomy among 887 women. CONCLUSION: The available studies were mainly of moderate quality, historical and underpowered, with limited follow‐up and biased case selection favouring BCS rather than mastectomy for low‐risk patients. The evidence was inconclusive, weakening support for the St Gallen consensus and supporting a future randomized trial. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2018-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6069349/ /pubmed/30079385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.53 Text en © 2018 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
Winters, Z. E.
Horsnell, J.
Elvers, K. T.
Maxwell, A. J.
Jones, L. J.
Shaaban, A. M.
Schmid, P.
Williams, N. R.
Beswick, A.
Greenwood, R.
Ingram, J. C.
Saunders, C.
Vaidya, J. S.
Esserman, L.
Jatoi, I.
Brunt, A. M.
Systematic review of the impact of breast‐conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers
title Systematic review of the impact of breast‐conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers
title_full Systematic review of the impact of breast‐conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers
title_fullStr Systematic review of the impact of breast‐conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of the impact of breast‐conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers
title_short Systematic review of the impact of breast‐conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers
title_sort systematic review of the impact of breast‐conserving surgery on cancer outcomes of multiple ipsilateral breast cancers
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6069349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30079385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.53
work_keys_str_mv AT wintersze systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT horsnellj systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT elverskt systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT maxwellaj systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT joneslj systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT shaabanam systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT schmidp systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT williamsnr systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT beswicka systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT greenwoodr systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT ingramjc systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT saundersc systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT vaidyajs systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT essermanl systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT jatoii systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers
AT bruntam systematicreviewoftheimpactofbreastconservingsurgeryoncanceroutcomesofmultipleipsilateralbreastcancers