World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1364–1374 | Cite as

Surgical Outcomes of Primary Versus Post-Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Breast Conservation Surgery: A Comparative Study from a Developing Country

  • Gaurav Agarwal
  • Chaitra Sonthineni
  • Sabaretnam Mayilvaganan
  • Anjali Mishra
  • Punita Lal
  • Vinita Agrawal
Original Scientific Report
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

In India and other developing countries, breast conservation surgery (BCS) rates in breast cancer patients are low due to advanced disease at presentation and misconceptions about BCS outcomes. Many patients presenting with large or locally advanced breast cancers (LABC) can be offered post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) BCS, safety of which is not as well established as that of primary BCS. This retrospective study compared pathological and surgical outcome parameters in patients undergoing primary and post-NACT BCS.

Methods

All non-metastatic breast cancer patients undergoing BCS during 2011–2015 with 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters in form of margin infiltration, ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rates and IBTR-free survival were compared between primary and post-NACT BCS patients groups.

Results

One hundred and twenty-nine patients underwent BCS; 95 underwent primary and 34 post-NACT BCS. Patients in both groups underwent similar multimodality treatment as per institutional protocols. Post-NACT patients more frequently required oncoplastic volume displacement or replacement surgery (p = 0.002). Re-excision of infiltrated margins was needed more frequently in primary BCS compared with post-NACT BCS group (14.4 vs. 8.8%; p = 0.40). IBTR (Mean follow-up = 30.7 months) was seen in 8.8% post-NACT patients compared with 2.1% primary BCS (p = 0.114). IBTR-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups in stage-wise comparison.

Conclusion

Post-NACT BCS is safe even in large tumors and LABC, though many require oncoplastic procedures for satisfactory cosmesis. In a developing country where many patients present with large breast cancers or LABC, the benefits of BCS can be offered to a majority with the help of NACT, without compromising the chances of cure.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the patients, nurses and paramedics who cared for them, and the resident and consultant doctors and in the departments of Endocrine and Breast surgery, Radiation Oncology, and Pathology at the SGPGIMS Lucknow for their role in treatment and follow-up the patients and maintaining various components of the database and electronic medical records.

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1233–1241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1227–1232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS et al (2000) Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European organization for research and treatment of cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1143–1150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parmar V, Krishnamurthy A, Hawaldar R et al (2006) Breast conservation treatment in women with locally advanced breast cancer—experience from a single centre. Int J Surg 4(2):106–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitzal F, Riedl O, Mittlböck M et al (2011) Oncologic safety of breast conserving surgery after tumour downsizing by neoadjuvant therapy: a retrospective single centre cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(1):121–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leong SPL, Shen ZZ, Liu TJ (2010) Is breast cancer the same disease in Asian and Western countries? World J Surg 34(10):2308–2324.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0683-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wishart GC, Greenberg DC, Britton PD et al (2008) Screen-detected vs symptomatic breast cancer: Is improved survival due to stage migration alone? Br J Cancer 98(11):1741–1744CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agarwal G, Ramakant P (2008) Breast cancer care in India: current situation and challenges for the future. Breast Care 3:21–27CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agarwal G, Rajan S, Gambhir S et al (2016) A comparative validation of primary surgical versus post-neo-adjuvant chemotherapy sentinel lymph node biopsy for stage III breast cancers. World J Surg 40(7):1583–1589.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3222-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aggarwal V, Agarwal G, Lal P (2008) Feasibility study of safe breast conservation in large and locally advanced cancers with use of radiopaque markers to mark pre-neoadjuvant chemotherapy tumor margins. World J Surg 32(12):2562–2569.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9289-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E et al (1997) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-18. J Clin Oncol 15(7):2483–2493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Dignam JJ et al (2012) Predictors of locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from combined analysis of national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 30(32):3960–3966CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agarwal G, Pradeep PV, Aggarwal V et al (2007) Spectrum of breast cancer in Asian women. World J Surg 31:1031–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0585-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen K, Li S, Li Q (2016) Breast-conserving surgery rates in breast cancer patients with different molecular subtypes: an observational study based on surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(8):e2593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hiotis K, Ye W, Sposto R et al (2005) The importance of location in determining breast conservation rates. Am J Surg 190(1):18–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deshmukh SP, Mane AD, Zade BP et al (2014) Retrospective analysis of clinicopathological factors and outcome in breast cancer in young women in a tertiary care hospital in India. Indian J Cancer 51:594–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raina V, Bhutani M, Bedi R et al (2005) Clinical features and prognostic factors of early breast cancer at a major cancer center in North India. Indian J Cancer 42(1):40–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chandra D, Suresh P, Sinha R et al (2016) Eight year survival analysis of patients with triple negative breast cancer in India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 17(6):2995–2999PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deo SV, Samaiya A, Shukla NK et al (2005) Breast conservation therapy for breast cancer: patient profile and treatment outcome at a tertiary care cancer centre. Natl Med J India 18(4):178–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agarwal G, Nanda G, Lal P et al (2016) Outcomes of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) compared with non-TNBC: Does the survival vary for all stages? World J Surg 40(6):1362–1372.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3422-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Agarwal G, Ramakant P, Sánchez Forgach ER (2009) Breast cancer care in developing countries. World J Surg 33(10):2069–2076.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0150-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beriwal S, Schwartz GF, Komarnicky L (2006) Breast-conserving therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: long-term results. Breast J 12(2):159–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shen J, Valero V, Buchholz TA et al (2004) Effective local control and long-term survival in patients with T4 locally advanced breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 11(9):854–860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen AM, Meric-Bernstam F, Hun KK et al (2004) Breast conservation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: the M.D. Anderson cancer center experience. J Clin Oncol 22(12):2303–2312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ishitobi M, Ohsumi S, Inaji H et al (2012) Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in patients with operable breast cancer who undergo breast-conserving treatment after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: risk factors of IBTR and validation of the MD Anderson prognostic index. Cancer 118(18):4385–4393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akay CL, Meric-Bernstam F, Hunt KK et al (2012) Evaluation of the MD Anderson prognostic index for local-regional recurrence after breast conserving therapy in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 19(3):901–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP et al (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European organization for research and treatment of cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 19(22):4224–4237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boughey JC, Peintinger F, Meric-Bernstam F et al (2006) Impact of preoperative versus postoperative chemotherapy on the extent and number of surgical procedures in patients treated in randomized clinical trials for breast cancer. Ann Surg 244(3):464–470PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rouzier R, Extra JM, Carton M et al (2001) Primary chemotherapy for operable breast cancer: incidence and prognostic significance of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. J Clin Oncol 19(18):3828–3835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Endocrine and Breast SurgerySanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical SciencesLucknowIndia
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologySanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical SciencesLucknowIndia
  3. 3.Department of PathologySanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical SciencesLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations