4.7 Review

Inflammatory Breast Cancer: Is There a Role for Deescalation of Surgery?

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 29, 期 10, 页码 6106-6113

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12138-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare and aggressive type of breast cancer. Trimodality therapy is the current standard treatment for IBC, but there is limited data on reducing lymph node surgery and preserving the breast. The safest oncologic approach for breast reconstruction in IBC would be delayed reconstruction.
Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare and aggressive presentation of breast cancer, characterized by higher propensity for locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis compared with non-IBC. Because of extensive parenchymal and overlying dermal lymphatic involvement by carcinoma, IBC is unresectable at diagnosis. Trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by modified radical mastectomy and adjuvant comprehensive chest wall and regional nodal radiotherapy) has been a well-accepted treatment algorithm for IBC. Over the last few decades, several innovations in systemic therapy have resulted in rising rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in both the affected breast and the axilla. The latter may present an opportunity for deescalation of lymph node surgery in patients with IBC, as those with an axillary pCR may be able to avoid an axillary dissection. To this end, feasibility data are necessary to address this question. There are very limited data on the safety of breast conservation of IBC; therefore, mastectomy remains the standard of care for this disease. There are also no data addressing the safety of immediate reconstruction in patients with IBC. Considering that some degree of deliberate skin-sparing to facilitate immediate breast reconstruction would be expected, given the extensive skin involvement by disease at diagnosis, the safest oncologic strategy to breast reconstruction in IBC would be the delayed approach.

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