4.5 Article

Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy

期刊

BREAST
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 179-185

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.02.006

关键词

Oncoplastic; Therapeutic mammoplasty; Recurrence; Wide excision; Mastectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Support for the oncological safety of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (OBCS) is mostly based on evidence comparing recurrence rates after OBCS to wide local excision (WLE). However, OBCS is often indicated for larger cancers and oncological results should also be compared to patients treated with mastectomy. In this study we compared recurrence and survival following OBCS, mastectomy and WLE. Methods: Patients treated with OBCS between 2009 and 2012 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. For comparison, consecutive patients treated with WLE or mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction (Ms +/- IR) over the same time period were identified. Histological variables of patients were compared using Fisher Exact or Chi squared tests, and recurrence and survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analysis. Results: 980 patients' data were analysed (OBCS: n = 104; WLE: n = 558; Ms +/- IR: n = 318). Tumour size, grade, nodal status, ER, and PR expression of patients treated with OBCS were all significantly more adverse compared with patients treated with WLE (p < 0.001). These histological variables were similar in patients treated with Ms IR and OBCS. 5 -year local recurrence rates were similar in all three groups (WLE: 3.4 per cent, OBCS: 2 per cent, Ms +/- IR: 2.6 per cent; log rank = 0.973), while distant recurrence rates were higher after Ms +/- IR and OBCS (Ms +/- IR:13.1 per cent, OBCS:7.5 per cent, WLE:3.3 per cent; log rank: p < 0.001). Conclusion: OBCS is oncologically safe in patients even when histological results are similar to patients treated with Ms +/- IR. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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