4.5 Article

Conservative surgery in patients with multifocal/multicentric breast cancer

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 113, 期 3, 页码 577-583

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-008-9959-7

关键词

Conservative surgery; Breast cancer; Quadrantectomy; Multifocal; Multicentric

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Many physicians recommend mastectomy in case of multifocal (MF) or multicentric (MC) breast cancer due to a theoretical risk of poor local control with less extensive surgery. We retrospectively evaluate outcome of patients with MF/MC cancers who had breast conservation with specific attention on local control and predictive factors of recurrence. Patients and methods Four hundred and seventy six patients with either MF (n = 421) or MC (n = 55) breast cancer, underwent breast-conserving surgery between 1997 and 2002 in a single institution. Median follow up was 73 months (range 11-118). Results Median age was 53 years (range 23-86). Invasive lobular carcinoma was found in 88 patients (18.5%) and mixed ductal-lobular cancer in 27 (5.7%) patients. Two hundred and sixty-seven patients (76.7%) had two identified tumor foci, 55 patients (15.3%) had three and 29 patients (8.0%) had four or more. Two hundred and sixty-one patients (55.3%) had nodal involvement. The 5-year cumulative incidence of local relapse was 5.1%. At the multivariate analysis, over-expression of HER2/neu and lack of both estrogen and progesterone receptors (HR: 3.2, 95% C.I. 1.01-10.0, and HR: 2.7, 95% C.I. 1.06-7.7, respectively) were associated with a higher ipsilateral breast cancer reappearance rate. Involvement of four or more lymph nodes and lack of estrogen and progesterone receptors (HR: 2.7, 95% C.I. 1.06-6.7, and HR: 4.7, 95% C.I. 2.1-10.4, respectively) were associated with poorer overall survival. Conclusions In selected patients with MF/MC breast cancer, wide conservative surgery is not associated with poor local disease control and can be considered whenever acceptable cosmetic results can be achieved.

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