4.7 Article

The Feasibility of Breast-Conserving Surgery for Multiple Ipsilateral Breast Cancer: An Initial Report from ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance) Trial

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 2858-2866

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6583-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180790, U10CA180854, U10CA180858]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Historically, multiple ipsilateral breast cancer (MIBC) has been a contraindication to breast-conserving therapy (BCT). We report the feasibility of BCT in MIBC from the ACOSOG Z11102 trial [Alliance], a single arm noninferiority trial of BCT for women with two or three sites of malignancy in the ipsilateral breast. Women who enrolled preoperatively in ACOSOG Z11102 were evaluated for conversion to mastectomy and need for reoperation to obtain negative margins. Characteristics of women who successfully underwent BCT and those who converted to mastectomy were compared. Factors were examined for association with the need for margin reexcision. Of 198 patients enrolled preoperatively, 190 (96%) had 2 foci of disease. Median size of the largest tumor focus was 1.5 (range 0.1-7.0) cm; 49 patients (24.8%) had positive nodes. There were 14 women who underwent mastectomy due to positive margins, resulting in a conversion to mastectomy rate of 7.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-10.6%). Of 184 patients who successfully completed BCT, 134 completed this in a single operation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not identify any factors significantly associated with conversion to mastectomy or need for margin reexcision. Breast conservation is feasible in MIBC with 67.6% of patients achieving a margin-negative excision in a single operation and 7.1% of patients requiring conversion to mastectomy due to positive margins. No characteristic was identified that significantly altered the risk of conversion to mastectomy or need for reexcision. NCT01556243.

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