Skip to main content

Is there an Ideal Breast Conservation Rate for the Treatment of Breast Cancer?

Abstract

Since the results of randomised controlled trials in the last quarter of the twentieth century were reported, it has been conventionally accepted that breast conservation treatment (BCT) provides equivalent survival to mastectomy for early breast cancer. As expected, there was an initial fall in the use of mastectomy. The first decade of the twenty-first century, however, witnessed a trend of increasing mastectomy rates in some regions. This perplexing circumstance served as an impetus for a relook at survival outcomes with each surgical modality. Recent studies have demonstrated higher survival rates and improved local control associated with BCT. Such findings warrant a re-evaluation of treatment strategies, beginning with whether there is an optimum BCT rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Nariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomised trial comparing mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Poggi MM, Danforth DN, Sciuto LC, et al. Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy. Cancer. 2003;98:697–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    NIH Consensus Conference. (No authors listed). JAMA. 1991;265:391–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P et al. Are mastectomies on the rise? A 13-year trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2683–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hwang ES, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, Foeble B, Clarke CA. Survival after lumpectomy and mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: the effect of age and hormone receptor status. Cancer. 2013;119:1402–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Agarwal S, Pappas L, Neumayer L, et al. Effect of Breast Conservation Therapy vs Mastectomy on Disease-Specific Survival for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014. doi:10.1001/jamasurg2013.3049.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    van Hezewijk M, Bastiaannet E, Putter H et al. Effect of local therapy on locoregional recurrence in postmenopausal women with breast cancer in the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial. Radiother Oncol. 2013;108:190–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Abdulkarim BS, Cuartero J, Hanson J, Deschenes J, Lesniak D, Sabri S. Increased risk of locoregional recurrence for women with T1-2N0 triple-negative breast cancer treated with modified radical mastectomy without adjuvant radiation therapy compared with breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2852–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Keating NL, Landrum MB, Brooks JM et al. Outcomes following local therapy for early-stage breast cancer in non-trial populations. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;125:803–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Schonberg MA, Marcantonio ER, Li DL, et al. Breast cancer among the oldest old: tumour characteristics, treatment choices and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2038–2045.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Martin MA, Meyricke R, O’Neill T, Roberts S. Breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy for survival from breast cancer: the Western Australian Experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:157–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hofvind S, Holen A, Aas T, Roman M, Sebuødegård S, Akslen LA. Women treated with breast conserving surgery do better than those with mastectomy independent of detection mode, prognostic and predictive tumour characteristics. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.07.002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Brooks JM, Chrischilles EA, Landrum MB et al. Survival implications associated with variation in mastectomy rates for early-staged breast cancer. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012; doi: 10.1155/2012/127854.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    van der Heiden-van der Loo M, Siesling S, Wouters MWJM, van Dalen T, Rutgers EJT, Peeters PHM. The value of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence as a quality indicator: hospital variation in the Netherlands. Ann Surg Oncol. (2015). doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4626-9.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wang WV, Tan SM, Chow WL. The impact of mammographic breast cancer screening in Singapore: a comparison between screen-detected and symptomatic women. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:2735–40.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Chang GH, Chan CW, Hartman M. A commentary on delayed presentation of breast cancer in Singapore. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:1635–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Yip CH, Taib NA, Tan GH, et al. Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: is there a role for minimal axillary surgery? World J Surg. 2009;33:54–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Yau TK, Soong IS, Sze H, et al. Trends and patterns of breast conservation treatment in Hong Kong: 1994–2007. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys. 2009;74:98–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Tan MP, Sitoh NY, Sim AS. Evaluation of eligibility and utilisation of breast conservation treatment in an Asian context. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:4683–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, et al. IBCSG 23-01 randomised controlled trial comparing axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel node micrometastases. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:297–305.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Dragun AE, Huang B, Tucker TC, Spanos WJ. Increasing mastectomy rates among all age groups for early stage breast cancer: a 10-year study of surgical choice. Breast J. 2012;18:318–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Soran A, Polat AK, Johnson R, McGuire KP. Increasing trend of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: what are the factors behind this phenomenon? Surgeon. 2014: doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2014.02.005.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Pesce CE, Liederbach E, Czechura T, Winchester DJ, Yao K. Changing trends in young patients with early stage breast cancer, 2003 to 2010: a report from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg 2014;219:19-28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Burke EE, Portschy PR, Tuttle TM. Prophylactic mastectomy: who needs it, when and why. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111:91–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Fisher CS, Martin-Dunlap T, Ruppel MB, Gao F, Atkins J, Margenthaler JA. Fear of recurrence and perceived survival benefit are primary motivators for choosing mastectomy over breast-conservation therapy regardless of age. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3246–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kurian AW, Lichtensztajn DY, Keegan TH, Nelson DO, Clarke CA, Gomez SL. Use of and mortality after bilateral mastectomy compared with other surgical treatments for breast cancer in California, 1998-2011. JAMA. 2014;312:902–14.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Arrington AK, Jarosek SL, Virnig BA, Haberman EB, Tuttle TM. Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2697–2704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hawley ST, Jagsi R, Morrow M, et al. Social and clinical determinants of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:582–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Habermann EB, Thomsen KM, Hicken TJ, Boughey JC. Impact of availability of immediate breast reconstruction on bilateral mastectomy rates for breast cancer across the United States: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3290–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Xia C, Schroeder MC, Weigel RJ, Sugg SL, Thomas A. Rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is influenced by preoperative MRI recommendations. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:4133–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Feigelson HS, James TA, Single RM, et al. Factors associates with the frequency of initial total mastectomy: results of a multi-institutional study. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:966–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Morrow M. Progress in the surgical management of breast cancer: present and future. Breast. 2015;24:s2–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Marescaux J, Diana M. Inventing the future of surgery. World J Surg. 2015;39:615–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Lucas DJ, Sabino J, Shriver CD, Pawlik TM, Singh DP, Vertrees A. Doing more: trends in breast cancer surgery, 2005 to 2011. Am Surg. 2015;81:74–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lim SH, Delaney GP, Descallar J, Sayaloune P, Papadatos G, de Souza P. Outcomes of ethnic minority groups with node-positive, non-metastatic breast cancer in two tertiary referral centres in Sydney, Australia. PLOS One. 2014;9:e95852.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Fung KW, Lau Y, Fielding R, Or A, Yip AWC. The impact of mastectomy, breast-conserving treatment and immediate breast reconstruction on the quality of life of Chinese women. ANZ J Surg. 2001;71:202–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer—bigger is not better. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:79–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, et al. Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2015. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1533–46.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Khan SA. De novo stage IV breast cancer: breast conserving resection of the primary tumour? J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:51–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Bleicher RJ, Ruth K, Sigurdson ER, et al. Breast conservation versus mastectomy for patients with T3 primary tumours (>5 cm): a review of 5685 Medicare patients. Cancer. 2015 doi: 10.1002/cncr.29726.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Redden MH, Fuhrman GM. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Surg Clin N Am. 2013;93:493–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    King TA, Morrow M. Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Golshan M, Cirrincione CT, Sikov WM, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II-III triple negative breast cancer on eligibility for breast-conserving surgery and breast conservation rates. Ann Surg. 2015;262:434–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Bollet MA, Savignoni A, Pierga JY, et al. High rates of breast conservation for large ductal and lobular invasive carcinomas combining multimodality strategies. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:734–41.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Criscitiello C, Azim HA, Agbor-tarh D, et al.. Factors associated with surgical management following neoadjuvant therapy in patients with primary HER2-positive breast cancer: results from the NeoALTTO phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1980–5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Criscitiello C, Azim HA, de Azambuja E & Rubio IT. Factors associated with surgical management following neoadjuvant therapy in patients with primary HER2-positive breast cancer: results from the NeoALTTO phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:910–1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kurtz JM, Jacquemier J, Amalric R et al. Breast-conserving therapy for macroscopically multiple cancers. Ann Surg. 1990;212:38–42.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wilson LD, Beinfield M, McKhamn CF, Haffty BG. Conservative surgery and radiation in the treatment of synchronous ipsilateral breast cancers. Cancer. 1993;72:137–42.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Nijenhuis MV, Rutgers EJ. Conservative surgery for multifocal/multicentric breast cancer. Breast. (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.07.023.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Bauman L, Barth RJ, Rosenkranz KM. Breast Conservation in Women with multifocal-multicentric breast cancer: Is it feasible? Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:S325–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Tan MP, Sitoh NY, Sim AS. Breast conservation treatment for multifocal and multicentric breast cancers in women with small-volume breast tissue. ANZ J Surg. 2014 doi: 10.1111/ans.12942.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    NCCN: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp.

  54. 54.

    Kuhl C. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology. 2007;244:672–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Morris EA. Diagnostic breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Radiol Clin N Am. 2007;45:863–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:563–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Parsyan A, Alqahtani A, Mesurolle B, Meterissian S. Impact of preoperative breast MRI on surgical decision making and clinical outcomes: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2013;37:2134–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Shin HC, Han W, Moon HG, et al. Limited value and utility of breast MRI in patients undergoing breast-conserving cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2572–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Fancellu A, Soro D, Castiglia P, et al. Usefulness of magnetic resonance in patients with invasive cancer eligible for breast conservation: a comparative study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14:114–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Heil J, Rauch G, Szabo AZ, et al. Breast cancer mastectomy trends between 2006 and 2010: association with magnetic resonance imaging, immediate breast reconstruction and hospital volume. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3839–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Molenaar S, Oort F, Sprangers M, Rutgers E Luiten E, Mulder J, de Haes H. Predictors of patients’ choices for breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy: a prospective study. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:2123–30.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Correlates of patient satisfaction and provide trust after breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 2008;112:1679–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Baildum AD. Oncoplastic surgery of the breast. Br J Surg. 2002;89:532–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Clough KB, Benyahi D, Nos C, Charles C, Sarfati I. Oncoplastic surgery: pushing the limits of breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2015;21:140–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Kollias J, Davies G, Bochner MA, Gill PG. Clinical impact of oncoplastic surgery in a specialist breast practice. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:269–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Chatterjee A, Pyfer B, Czerniecki B, Rosenkranz K, Tchou J, Fisher C. Early postoperative outocmes in lumpectomy versus simple mastectomy. J Surg Research. 2015;198:143–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    De Lorenzi F, Hubner G, Rotmensz N, et al. Oncological results of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: Long term follow-up of a large series at a single institution: a matched-cohort analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2015). 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.08.160.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Soceity for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:704–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Rococo E, Mazouni C, Or Z, Mobillion V, Koon Sun Pat M, Bonastre J. Variation in rates of breast cancer surgery: a national analysis based on French hospital episode statistics. J Surg Oncol (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.09.020.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Garcia-Etienne CA, Tomatis M, Heil J, et al. Mastectomy trends for early-stage breast cancer: a report from the EUSOMA multi-institutional European database. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1947–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Fang SY, Shu BC, Chang YJ. The effect of breast reconstruction surgery on body image among women after mastectomy: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;137:13–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Yi M, Hunt KK, Arun BA, et al. Factors impacting the decision of breast cancer patients to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3:1026–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Pyfer B, Chatterjee A, Chen L, et al. Early postoperative outcomes in breast conservation surgery versus simple mastectomy with implant reconstruction: A NSQIP analysis of 11,645 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4770-2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:927–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Rippy EE, Ainsworth R, Sathananthan D, et al. Influences on decision for mastectomy in patients eligible for breast conserving surgery. Breast. 2014;23:273–8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. P. Tan MBBS, FRCS(Ed).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tan, M.P. Is there an Ideal Breast Conservation Rate for the Treatment of Breast Cancer?. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 2825–2831 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5267-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multicentric Breast Cancer
  • Mastectomy Rates
  • Breast Conservation Treatment (BCT)
  • Breast Volume Ratio
  • Healthcare Provider Factors