4.7 Article

The Influence of Repeat Surgery and Residual Disease on Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Study

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 -, 页码 S476-S485

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4707-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. The Danish Cancer Society [R72-A4448, R90-A5856] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. A significant proportion of women who have breast-conserving surgery (BCS) subsequently undergo re-excision or proceed to mastectomy. This study aimed to identify factors associated with residual disease after repeat surgery and to determine their effect on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and survival. Methods. The study cohort was identified within the national population-based registry of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, including women who underwent BCS for unilateral invasive breast cancer between 2000 and 2009. Results. The study investigated 12,656 women. Within 2 months after initial BCS, 1342 (11 %) of these women had a re-excision, and 756 (6 %) of the women had a mastectomy. Residual disease was found in 20 % of re-excisions and 59 % of mastectomies. In adjusted analysis, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) outside the invasive tumor, positive initial margin, and age younger than 50 years were associated with increased risk of residual disease. In the adjusted analysis, patients with residual disease after re-excision had an increased risk of IBTR regardless whether residual findings were invasive carcinoma [hazard ratio (HR), 2.97; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.57-5.62] or DCIS (HR, 2.58; 95 % CI 1.50-4.45). However, no difference was seen in overall survival comparing patients receiving one excision with those having repeat surgery with or without residual disease (p = 0.96). Conclusion. A higher risk of IBTR seen after re-excision was associated with residual disease. Overall survival was similar regardless of repeat surgery and residual findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据