Breast-Conserving Therapy for Breast Cancer: Targets for Investigation to Improve Results

  • Barbara Lee Bass
  • Marc Garbey


Molecular characteristics of breast tumors are linked to their clinical behavior, with estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR) expressing tumors, showing a less aggressive pattern of growth and metastasis, while ER/PR negative tumors behave in a more aggressive biologic fashion [1]. Expression of the EGF receptor-like moiety HER2-neu is also associated with adverse clinical behavior. The definition of tumor molecular signatures and clinical phenotype is undergoing redefinition with the description of luminal and basal-like categories [2]. Characteristic clinical behaviors and responsiveness to hormonal and chemotherapeutic definitions is predictable based on these features and continued definition of molecular targets for therapy is an important ongoing area of investigation. As the molecular pathways that govern tumor initiation, growth and metastasis are defined, it is certain that new effective targeted therapies will be developed to fundamentally direct our methods for treating breast cancer.

At the present time, the management of breast cancer is based on the coordinated therapeutic modalities of surgery, anti-tumor medications, and radiation therapy. The goals of each modality are based on the current biological hypothesis of breast cancer as a systemic disease. This hypothesis states that breast cancer is a systemic disease at the time of tumor initiation. It is presumed that circulating tumor cells are shed by the primary tumor, modulated by specific molecular characteristics of the malignancy, from the time when the tumor first develops [3]. Initially cleared by immunologic mechanisms, occult systemic metastases develop by entrapment and implantation of circulating tumor cells in remote organs. Cellular features of the tumor, including high cytological grade and rapid proliferative rate, are predictive of greater risk for metastasis, but the most reliable predictor of metastatic disease is the amount of tumor that has spread to the primary regional lymph node basin of the breast, the axillary nodal basin [4]. Breast cancer is graded by stage based on the American Joint Commission on Cancer staging system (AJCC) [5]. The disease of each patient with breast cancer is graded according to the tumor size (T), the presence and degree of node metastasis (N), and the presence or absence of detectable metastases (M). The TNM grades are then summated to establish a Stage for each patient with breast cancer. Stage I and II are considered early stage breast cancers, with 5-year survival rates of 98 and 85% respectively, while Stage III disease carries a 5-year survival rate of 55–65%. Stage IV is characterized by the presence of metastatic disease and survival rates are 20–30% at 5 years. Hence early detection and effective treatment of early stage breast cancer offers excellent opportunities for long-term survival and “cure.”


Breast Cancer Circulate Tumor Cell Early Stage Breast Cancer Reflectance Confocal Microscopy Breast Mound 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Miyoshi Y, Murase K, Oh K (2008) Basal-like subtype and BRCA1 dysfunction in breast cancers. Int J Clin Oncol 13:395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang E, Cheng S, Dressman H, et al (2003) Gene expression predictors of breast cancer outcomes. Lancet 361:1590–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Querci della Riovere G, Benson J (2002) Ipsilateral local recurrence of breast cancer: determinant or indicator of poor prognosis? Lancet Oncol 3:183–187Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 347:1227–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Joint Commission on Cancer USA (2005) AJCC staging manual, 7th edn. Am Joint Commission on Cancer USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benson J, Jatoi I, Keisch M, Esteva F, Makris A, Jordan M (2009) Early breast cancer. Lancet 373:1463–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (1998) tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 351:1451–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 347:1233–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (2005) Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15 year survival: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 366:2087–2106Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morrow M, Harris J (2007) Practice guidelines for breast conserving therapy in the management of invasive breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 205:362–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hata T, Takahashi H, Watanabe K, et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: a comparative study with mammography and Ultrasonography. J Am Coll Surg 198:190–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bajaj A, Kon P, Oberg K, Miles D (2004) Aesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy for the treatment of localized breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(6):1442–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Munshi A, Kakkar S, Bhutani R, Jalali R, Budrukkar A, Dinshaw K (2009) Factors influencing cosmetic outcome in breast conservation. Clin Oncol 21:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cochrane R, Valasiadou P, Wilson A, et al (2003) Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast conserving surgery correlates with percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg 90:1505–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taylor M, Perez C, Halverson K, et al (1995) Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:753–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Behranwala K, Dua R, Ross G, et al (2006) The influence of radiotherapy on capsule formation and aesthetic outcome after immediate breast reconstruction using biodimensional anatomical expander implants. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59:1043–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vicini F, Beitch P, Quiet C, et al (2008) Three-year analysis of treatment efficacy, cosmesis, and toxicity by the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite Breast Brachytherapy Registry Trial in patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation (ABPI). Cancer 112:758–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keisch M, Vicini F, Kuske R, et al (2003) Initial clinical experience with the MammoSite breast brachytherapy applicator in women with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55:289–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Veronesi U, Orrechia R, Luini A, et al (2001) A preliminary report of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in limited-stage breast cancers that are conservatively treated. Eur J Cancer 37:2178–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaidya J, Baum M, Tobias J, et al (2001) Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy (Targit): an innovative Methodist of treatment for early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 12:1075–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kestin L, Sharpe M, Frazier R, et al (2000) Intensity modulation to improve dose uniformity with tangential breast radiotherapy: initial clinical experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:1559–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Budrukkar A, Sarin R, Shrivastava S, Deshpande D, Dinshaw K (2007) Cosmesis, late sequelae and local control after breast-conserving therapy: influence of type of tumour bed boost and adjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Oncol 19:596–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pleijhuis RG, Graafland M, de Vries J, Bart J, de Jong JS, van Dam GM (2009) Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol 16:2717–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobs L (2008) Positive margins: the challenge continues for breast surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1271–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schiller D, Le L, Cho B, Youngson B, McCready D (2007) Factors associated with negative margins of lumpectomy specimen: potential use in selecting patients for intraoperative radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 15(3):833–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Enderling H, Vaidya JS (2008) Mathematical modelling of breast carcinogenesis, treatment with surgery and radiotherapy, and local recurrence, selected topics in cancer modeling. Birkhauser Boston, Cambridge, MA, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ribba R, Colin T, Schnell S (2006) A Multiscale mathematical model of cancer and its use in analyzing irradiation therapies. Theor Biol Med Model 3:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marchionni I, Wilson R, Wolff A, et al (2008) Systematic review: gene expression profiling assays in early stage breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 148:358–369Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hwang E, Kinkel K, Esserman L, et al (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma-in-situ: value in the diagnosis of residual disease, occult invasion, and multicentricity. Ann Surg Oncol 10:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bickford LR, Agollah G, Drezek R, Yu TK (2009 May 6) Silica-gold nanoshells as potential intraoperative molecular probes for HER2-overexpression in ex vivo breast tissue using near-infrared reflectance confocal microscopy. Breast Cancer Res Treat [Epub ahead of print])Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haka A, Volynskaya Z, Gardecki J, Nazemi J, Lyons J, Hicks D, Fitzmaurice M, Dasari R, Crowe J, Feld M (2006) In vivo margin assessment during partial mastecotmy breast surgery using Raman spectroscopy. Cancer Res 66(6):3317–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Methodist Hospital Research InstituteHoustonUSA
  2. 2.University of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations