4.5 Article

Leveraging the increased rates of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer to de-escalate surgical treatments

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 123, 期 1, 页码 71-79

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.26236

关键词

breast neoplasms; de-escalation; neoadjuvant therapy; pathologic complete response; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that achieving a pathologic complete response is beneficial for breast conservative surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy. In selected subgroups, avoiding any axillary surgery after neoadjuvant treatment may be feasible. In cN+ patients, any pathologic complete response is associated with improved survival.
Introduction Breast conservative surgery (BCS) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) is safe and effective for selected patients. This aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of anatomic site of response on outcomes and to assess the real population who may benefit from nonsurgical approaches after NAT. Material and Methods From a prospectively maintained database, patients with T1-4 N0-2 breast cancer undergoing NAT were identified. Clinicopathological and survival rates were compared in relation to response and anatomic site of response. Results Six hundred and forty-six patients were included in the study. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was an independent factor for BCS and SLN. HER2 positive and TN tumors with cN0 achieving a breast pCR remain ypN0 (p = .002). Residual axillary disease was associated with breast residual tumor (p = .05) and subtype (p = .001). With a median follow up of 35.25 months, patients with any pCR had improved survival when compared with partial response, but not significant differences between pCR, axillary pCR, or breast pCR. Conclusion Achieving a pCR increases BCS and SLN. In selected subgroups, sparing any axillary surgery after NAT maybe feasible. In cN+ patients, any pCR was associated with survival, but not the anatomic site of response.

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

4.5
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