Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for surgical treatment of breast cancer, 2022 edition

  • Special Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The 2022 revision of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS) Clinical Practice Guidelines for surgical treatment of breast cancer was updated following a systematic review of the literature using the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (MINDS) procedure, which focuses on the balance of benefits and harms for various clinical questions (CQs). Experts in surgery designated by the JBCS addressed five areas: breast surgery, axillary surgery, breast reconstruction, surgical treatment for recurrent and metastatic breast cancer, and other related topics. The revision of the guidelines encompassed 4 CQs, 7 background questions (BQs), and 14 future research questions (FRQs). A significant revision in the 2022 edition pertained to axillary management after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in CQ2. The primary aim of the 2022 JBCS Clinical Practice Guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations to empower patients and healthcare professionals in making informed decisions regarding surgical treatment for breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The raw data required to reproduce the above findings are available to download from https://jbcs.xsrv.jp/guideline/2022/g_index/.

References

  1. Inokuchi M, Kutomi G, Kijima Y, et al. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society clinical practice guidelines for surgical treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2020;27:4–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, et al. Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ—the LORD study. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1497–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:2296–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanbayashi C, Iwata H. Current approach and future perspective for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2017;47:671–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, et al. The COMET (comparison of operative versus monitoring and endocrine therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026797.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Galimberti V, Cole BF, Viale G, et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with breast cancer and sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23–01): 10-year follow-up of a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1385–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Solá M, Alberro JA, Fraile M, et al. Complete axillary lymph node dissection versus clinical follow-up in breast cancer patients with sentinel node micrometastasis: final results from the multicenter clinical trial AATRM 048/13/2000. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:120–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981–22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1303–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sávolt Á, Péley G, Polgár C, et al. Eight-year follow up result of the OTOASOR trial: the optimal treatment of the axilla-surgery or radiotherapy after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer: a randomized, single centre, phase III, non-inferiority trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:672–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Geng C, Chen X, Pan X, Li J. The feasibility and accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy in initially clinically node-negative breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0162605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1455–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:609–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of targeted axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1072–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Eriksen C, Frisell J, Wickman M, et al. Immediate reconstruction with implants in women with invasive breast cancer does not affect oncological safety in a matched cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:439–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Park SH, Han W, Yoo TK, et al. Oncologic safety of immediate breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer patients: a matched case control study. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19:68–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Ryu JM, Paik HJ, Park S, et al. Oncologic outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction following total mastectomy in patients with breast cancer: a matched case-control study. J Breast Cancer. 2017;20:74–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ryu JM, Park S, Paik HJ, et al. Oncologic safety of immediate breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy: short-term outcomes of a matched case-control study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17:204–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baek SH, Bae SJ, Yoon CI, et al. Immediate breast reconstruction does not have a clinically significant impact on adjuvant treatment delay and subsequent survival outcomes. J Breast Cancer. 2019;22:109–19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bjöhle J, Onjukka E, Rintelä N, et al. Post-mastectomy radiation therapy with or without implant-based reconstruction is safe in terms of clinical target volume coverage and survival—a matched cohort study. Radiother Oncol. 2019;131:229–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vieira R, Ribeiro LM, Carrara GFA, et al. Effectiveness and safety of implant-based breast reconstruction in locally advanced breast carcinoma: a matched case-control study. Breast Care (Basel). 2019;14:200–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu ZY, Kim HJ, Lee JW, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction vs conventional mastectomy alone for breast cancer in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. JAMA Surg. 2020;155:1142–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Soran A, Ozbas S, Kelsey SF, Gulluoglu BM. Randomized trial comparing locoregional resection of primary tumor with no surgery in stage IV breast cancer at the presentation (Protocol MF07-01): a study of Turkish Federation of the National Societies for Breast Diseases. Breast J. 2009;15:399–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shien T, Nakamura K, Shibata T, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing primary tumour resection plus systemic therapy with systemic therapy alone in metastatic breast cancer (PRIM-BC): Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1017. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012;42:970–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Badwe R, Hawaldar R, Nair N, et al. Locoregional treatment versus no treatment of the primary tumour in metastatic breast cancer: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1380–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fitzal F, Bjelic-Radisic V, Knauer M, et al. Impact of breast surgery in primary metastasized breast cancer: outcomes of the prospective randomized phase III ABCSG-28 POSYTIVE trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269:1163–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Khan SA, Zhao F, Goldstein LJ, et al. Early local therapy for the primary site in de novo stage IV breast cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial (EA2108). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:978–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Reinhorn D, Mutai R, Yerushalmi R, et al. Locoregional therapy in de novo metastatic breast cancer: systemic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2021;58:173–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Ms. Natsue Uehiro, Ms. Mai Ohnishi, Ms. Yuri Ozaki, Mr. Hiroaki Shima, Ms. Eriko Takahashi, Ms. Mifue Taminato, Mr. Takahiro Tsukioki, Ms. Ai Tsuchiya, Ms. Aya Noro and Ms. Michi Morita for their important help with the systematic review. The authors would also like to thank Ms. Fujimi Kawai and Ms. Natsuki Narita of the Japanese Medical Library Society; Prof. Masahiro Yoshida of the International University of Health and Welfare; and Hitomi Sasaki and Kazuyo Uno at Kanehara Publishing Co., Ltd. for their generous assistance and advice.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan

    Takehiko Sakai

  2. Department of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan

    Goro Kutomi

  3. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan

    Tadahiko Shien

  4. Department of Breast Surgery, Keiyu Hospital, Yokohama, Japan

    Sota Asaga

  5. Department of Breast Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Tomoyuki Aruga

  6. Department of Breast Surgery, Mie University School of Medicine, Mie, Japan

    Makoto Ishitobi

  7. Department of Surgery, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan

    Sayaka Kuba

  8. Department of Breast Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Aichi, Japan

    Masataka Sawaki & Hiroji Iwata

  9. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Akita University Hospital, Akita, Japan

    Kaori Terata

  10. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kindai University, Osaka, Japan

    Koichi Tomita

  11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Shiga General Hospital, Shiga, Japan

    Chikako Yamauchi

  12. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan

    Yutaka Yamamoto

  13. Department of Medical Oncology, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan

    Shigehira Saji

Authors
  1. Takehiko Sakai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Goro Kutomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tadahiko Shien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sota Asaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tomoyuki Aruga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Makoto Ishitobi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sayaka Kuba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masataka Sawaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kaori Terata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Koichi Tomita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Chikako Yamauchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yutaka Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Hiroji Iwata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Shigehira Saji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takehiko Sakai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

T Sakai received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Chugai, Kyowa-Kirin, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Science, Canon, and Ethicon. GK received honoraria from Lilly, Kyowa Kirin, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca Pfizer, and Chugai. T Shien received honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, Chugai, and Lilly. SA received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. TA received honoraria from Pfizer, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca and Kyowa Kirin. MI received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Chugai, Pfizer, Taiho, Novartis and Nihon Kayaku. SK received honoraria from Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Chugai, Astra Zeneca and Kyowa Kirin. MS received honoraria from Chugai, Kyowa Kirin, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Eli Lilly. Kaori Terata received honoraria and payment for expert testimony from Astra Zeneka, Daiichi-Sankyo, Chugai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Taiho. Koichi Tomita received honoraria from Ethicon. CY does not have any Disclosure. YY received research funding and honoraria from Chugai, Kyowa-Kirin, Eisai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Nippon-Kayaku, Taiho, Takeda, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and Takeda, MSD, Sysmex and Exact Science. YU, and he also a member of the Board of Directors in Japanese Breast Cancer Society and Japan Breast Cancer Research Group. HI received Grants and consultant fees from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer and Gilead and honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo, Chugai, Astra, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Taiho, and Kyowa Kirin. SS received Grants and honoraria from Taiho, Eisai, Chugai, Takeda, MSD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Takeda, Daiichi Sankyo Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Taiho, Ono and Nippon Kayaku. He is also an advisory Board of Chugai, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Kyowa Kirin Daiichi Sankyo and MSD and the executive board member of JBCRG, JBCS JSMO, and BIG. The other authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sakai, T., Kutomi, G., Shien, T. et al. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for surgical treatment of breast cancer, 2022 edition. Breast Cancer 31, 1–7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-023-01510-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-023-01510-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation