Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Editorial: Management Based on Risk: Individualizing the Care of the Breast Cancer Patient

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  1. Attai D. Presidential address—What are we missing? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5309-x.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ataseven B, von Minckwitz G. The impact of neoadjuvant treatment on surgical options and outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5364-3.

    Google Scholar 

  3. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1796–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jeruss JS, Mittendorf EA, Tucker SL, et al. Combined use of clinical and pathologic staging variables to define outcomes for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:246–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mittendorf EA, Jeruss JS, Tucker SL, et al. Validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1956–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Abdelsattar JM, Al-Hilli Z, Hoskin TL, Heins CN, Boughey JC. Validation of the CPS + EG staging system for disease-specific survival in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5324-y.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mittendorf EA, Vila J, Tucker SL, et al. The Neo-Bioscore update for staging breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: incorporation of prognostic biologic factors into staging after treatment. JAMA Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1001/jamaonc.2015.6478.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yi M, Mittendorf EA, Cormier JN, et al. Novel staging system for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention: time to modify the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4654–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2005–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ramsey SD, Barlow WE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Integrating comparative effectiveness design elements and endpoints into a phase III, randomized clinical trial (SWOG S1007) evaluating oncotypeDX-guided management for women with breast cancer involving lymph nodes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Piccart M, Rutgers E, van’t Veer L, et al. Primary analysis of the E ORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT study: A prospective, randomized study evaluating the clinical utility of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) combined with common clinical-pathological criteria for selection of patients for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive nodes. American Association for Cancer Research. 2016.

  12. Adjuvant Online. https://www.adjuvantonline.com/.

  13. Olson JA, Jr, Budd GT, Carey LA, et al. Improved surgical outcomes for breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy: results from a multicenter phase II trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:906–14; discussion 915–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Boughey JC, McCall LM, Ballman KV, et al. Tumor biology correlates with rates of breast-conserving surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: findings from the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260:608–14; discussion 614–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 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  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy proven node positive breast cancer: The SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:258–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boughey JC, Ballman KV, Le-Petross HT, et al. Identification and resection of clipped node decreases the false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node-positive breast cancer (T0–T4, N1–N2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2016;263:802–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Factors affecting sentinel lymph node identification rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients enrolled in ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2015;261:547–52.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Caudle AS, Yang WT, Mittendorf EA, et al. Selective surgical localization of axillary lymph nodes containing metastases in patients with breast cancer: a prospective feasibility trial. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:137–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Boneti C, Korourian S, Bland K, Cox K, Adkins LL, Henry-Tillman RS, Klimberg VS. Axillary reverse mapping: mapping and preserving arm lymphatics may be important in preventing lymphedema during sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:1038–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ferguson CM, Swaroop MN, Horick N, et al. Impact of ipsilateral blood draws, injections, blood pressure measurements, and air travel on the risk of lymphedema for patients treated for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:691–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dietz J, Hieken TJ. Nipple-sparing mastectomy indications and contraindications, risks and benefits and techniques for NSM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5370-5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, Kundt G, Reimer T. The oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction: an extended follow-up study. Ann Surg. 2009;249:461–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sakurai T, Zhang N, Suzuma T, Umemura T, Yoshimura G, Yang Q. Long-term follow-up of nipple-sparing mastectomy without radiotherapy: a single center study at a Japanese institution. Med Oncol 2013;30:481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim HJ, Park EH, Lim WS, et al. Nipple areola skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure: a single center study. Ann Surg. 2010;251:493–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Krajewski AC, Boughey JC, Degnim AC, Jakub JW, Jacobson SR, Hoskin TL, Hieken TJ. Expanded indications and improved outcomes for nipple-sparing mastectomy over time. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3317–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Piper ML, Esserman LJ, Sbitany H, Peled AW. Outcomes following oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(Suppl 3):S222–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Carter S, et al. Operative and oncologic outcomes in 9861 patients with operable breast cancer: single institution analysis of breast conservation with oncoplastic reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5407-9.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cordeiro E, et al. Complications of oncoplastic breast surgery versus breast conserving surgery: An analysis of the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016.

  30. Simmons R, Ballman K, Carp N, et al. A Phase II trial exploring the success of cryoablation therapy in the treatment of invasive breast carcinoma: Results from ACOSOG (Alliance) Z1072. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2438–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Plichta J. Application of the 2015 ACS and ASBS Screening Mammography Guidelines: risk assessment is critical for women ages 40–44. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016.

  32. Skaane P. Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer. 2016. doi:10.1007/s12282-016-0699-4.

  33. Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED. Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer: Analysis from ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(4):djv367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Throckmorton A, Dickson Witmer D. Dense breasts: what do our patients need to be told and why. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5400-3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O’Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology. 2011;258:106–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307:1394–404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Maxwell KN, Hart SN, Vijai J, et al. Evaluation of ACMG-Guideline-based variant classification of cancer susceptibility and non-cancer-associated genes in families affected by breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;98:801–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Judy C. Boughey MD

  2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Case Western Reserve, University Hospitals, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Jill R. Dietz MD

Authors
  1. Judy C. Boughey MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jill R. Dietz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy C. Boughey MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boughey, J.C., Dietz, J.R. Editorial: Management Based on Risk: Individualizing the Care of the Breast Cancer Patient. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 3083–3087 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5371-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5371-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation