Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Oncology Manual

  • 924 Accesses

Abstract

Breast cancer is responsible for 26% of all cancers in women and 13% of all cancer-related deaths in women. One in every 8 women is expected to develop breast cancer during her lifetime, and 1 in 31 women will die of breast cancer.

The surgical management of breast cancer requires an understanding of the complete spectrum of breast pathology, both malignant and premalignant. Within this chapter, an overview of this continuum is presented: from high-risk pathologies, through preinvasive disease, to invasive disease and its subtypes. Relevant trials are presented, as are options and considerations for breast reconstruction.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Canadian Cancer Society’s Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian cancer statistics 2017. Toronto: Canadian Cancer Society; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hortobagyi GN, Connolly JL, Edge SB, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sabel M, Collins L. Atypical and lobular carcinoma in situ: high-risk lesions of the breast. In: Chagpar AB, editor. UptoDate; 2017. Retrieved March 23, 2019 from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/atypia-and-lobular-carcinoma-in-situ-high-risk-lesions-of-the-breast.

    Google Scholar 

  4. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Consensus guideline on concordance assessment of image-guided breast biopsies and management of borderline or high-risk lesions. 2016. Retrieved from https://www.breastsurgeons.org/about/statements/PDF_Statements/Concordance_and_High%20RiskLesions.pdf.

  5. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, et al. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:229–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis (Version 3.2018). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf.

  7. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D. Mangetic resonance imaging screening of women at high risk for breast cancer. Warner E, Agbassi C, reviewers. Toronto (ON): Cancer Care Ontario; 2012 Aug 31 [Endorsed 2018 Jan]. Program in Evidence-based Care Evidence-based Guideline No.: 15–11 Version 3 ENDORSED. Accessed March 30, 2019 from https://www.cancercareontario.ca/en/guidelines-advice/types-of-cancer/2051.

  8. Mastracci TL, Tjan S, Bane AL, et al. E-cadherin alterations in atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Mod Pathol. 2015;18(6):741–51.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, et al. Magnitude and laterality of breast cancer risk according to histologic type of atypical hyperplasia: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer. 2007;109:180–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Masannat YA, Bains SK, Pinder SE, et al. Challenges in the management of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast. 2013;22(2):194–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sabel M. Overview of benign breast disease. In: Chagpar AB, editor. UptoDate. 2018. Retrieved March 23, 2019 from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-benign-breast-disease.

  12. Sydnor MK, Wilson JD, Hijaz TA, et al. Underestimation of the presence of breast carcinoma in papillary lesions initially diagnosed at core-needle biopsy. Radiology. 2007;242:58–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Foley NM, Racz JM, Al-Hilli A, et al. An international multicenter review of the malignancy rate of excised papillomatous breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S385–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. James BA, Cranor ML, Rosen PP. Carcinoma of the breast arising in microglandular adenosis. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993;100:507–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Koenig C, Dadmanesh F, Bratthauer GL, et al. Carcinoma arising in microglandular adenosis: an immunohistochemical analysis of 20 intraepithelial and invasive neoplasms. Int J Surg Pathol. 2000;8:303–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Racz JM, Carter JM, Degnim AC. Challenging atypical breast lesions including flat epithelial atypia, radial scar, and intraductal papilloma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(10):2842–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Spanheimer PM, Murray MP, Zabor EC, et al. Long-term outcomes after surgical treatment of malignant/borderline phyllodes tumors of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(7):2136–43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(3):170.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Collins LC, Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, et al. Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer. 2005;103:1778–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, et al. The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer. 2005;103:2481–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond C, et al. Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast project protocol B-06. 10-year pathologic and clinical prognostic discriminants. Cancer. 1993;71:2507–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boland GP, Chan KC, Knox WF, et al. Value of the Van Nuys prognostic index in prediction of recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ after breast-conserving surgery. Br J Surg. 2003;90:426–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani 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(16):1227–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuerer HM, Smith BD, Chavez-MacGregor M, et al. DCIS margins and breast cancer: MD Anderson Cancer Center multidisciplinary practice guidelines and outcomes. J Cancer. 2017;8(14):2653–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(2):441–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(6):478–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Julien JP, Bijker N, Fentiman IS, et al. Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomised phase III trial 10853. Lancet. 2000;355(9203):528–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Donker M, Litière S, Werutsky G, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ: 15-year recurrence rates and outcome after a recurrence, from the EORTC 10853 randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(32):4054–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, et al. Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:21–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wärnberg F, Garmo H, Emdin S, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ: 20 years follow-up in the randomized SweDCIS Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(32):3613–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cutuli B, Bernier J, Poortmans P. Radiotherapy in DCIS, an underestimated benefit? Radiother Oncol. 2014;112(1):1–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD. Treatment selection for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast using the University of Southern California/Van Nuys (USC/VNPI) prognostic index. Breast J. 2015;21(2):127–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hughes LL, Wang M, Page DL, et al. Local excision alone without irradiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5319–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Wong JS, Chen YH, Gadd MA, et al. Eight-year update of a prospective study of wide excision alone for small low- or intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;143(2):343–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Solin LJ, Gray R, Hughes LL, et al. Surgical excision without radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: 12-year results from the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(33):3938–44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Sagara Y, Freedman RA, Vaz-Luis I, et al. Patient prognostic score and associations with survival improvement offered by radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based longitudinal cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(11):1190–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. McCormick B, Winter K, Hudis C, et al. RTOG 9804: a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with observation. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(7):709–15.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Shah C, Vicini FA, Berry S, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: evaluating the role of radiation therapy in the management and attempts to identify low-risk patients. Am J Clin Oncol. 2015;38(5):526–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer. Version 1.2019. 14/03/2019. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2019.

  40. Smith BD, Bellon JR, Blitzblau R, et al. Radiation therapy for the whole breast: executive summary of an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018;8(3):145–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lalani N, Rakovitch E. Improving therapeutic ratios with the Oncotype DX® ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) score. Cureus. 2017;9(4):e1185. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1185.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Evaluation of the DCIS score for decisions on radiotherapy in patients with low/intermediate risk DCIS (DUCHESS). ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine (US). 2016. Identifier NCT02766881. Cited 2018 Jan 27. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02766881.

  43. Klein J, Kong I, Paszat L, et al. Close or positive resection margins are not associated with an increased risk of chest wall recurrence in women with DCIS treated by mastectomy: a population-based analysis. Springerplus. 2015;4:335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1032-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Childs SK, Chen YH, Duggan MM, et al. Impact of margin status on local recurrence after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(4):948–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353:1993–2000.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Allred DC, Anderson SJ, Palk S, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces subsequent breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: a study based on NSABP protocol B-24. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(12):1268–73.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Forbes JF, Sestak I, Howell A, et al. Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10021):866–73.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Anderson C, Meyer AM, Wheeler SB, et al. Endocrine therapy initiation and medical oncologist utilization among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. Oncologist. 2017;22(5):535–41.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Anderson C, Winn AN, Dusetzina SB, Nichols HB. Endocrine therapy initiation among older women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2017;2017:6091709. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6091709.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(33):4040–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Kell MR, Morrow M. An adequate margin of excision in ductal carcinoma in situ. BMJ. 2005;331:789–90.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6(5):287–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(12):3801–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Marinovich ML, Azizi L, Macaskill P, et al. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(12):3811–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Van Zee KJ, Subhedar P, Olcese C, et al. Relationship between margin width and recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 2996 women treated with breast-conserving surgery for 30 years. Ann Surg. 2015;262(4):623–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tadros AB, Smith BD, Shen Y, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ and margins <2 mm: contemporary outcomes with breast conservation. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):150–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853 – a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(21):3381–7. Epub 2006 Jun 26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Collins LC, Achacoso N, Haque R, et al. Risk factors for non-invasive and invasive local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(2):453–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Subhedar P, Olcese C, Patil S, et al. Decreasing recurrence rates for ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 2996 women treated with breast-conserving surgery over 30 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3273–81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Rakovitch E, Gray R, Baehner FL, et al. Refined estimates of local recurrence risks by DCIS score adjusting for clinicopathological features: a combined analysis of ECOG-ACRIN E5194 and Ontario DCIS cohort studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(2):359–69.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Wallis MG, Clements K, Kearins O, et al. The effect of DCIS grade on rate, type and time to recurrence after 15 years of follow-up of screen-detected DCIS. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(10):1611–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Fisher B, Land S, Mamounas E, et al. Prevention of invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: an update of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project experience. Semin Oncol. 2001;28:400–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kong I, Narod SA, Taylor C, et al. Age at diagnosis predicts local recurrence in women treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based outcomes analysis. Curr Oncol. 2014;21(1):e96–e104.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Cronin PA, Olcese C, Patil S, et al. Impact of age on risk of recurrence of DCIS: outcomes of 2996 women treated with breast-conserving surgery over 30 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(9):2816–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA, et al. Salvage treatment for local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery and radiation as initial treatment for mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 2001;91(6):1090–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Resch A, Fellner C, Mock U, et al. Locally recurrent breast cancer: pulse dose rate brachytherapy for repeat irradiation following lumpectomy- a second chance to preserve the breast. Radiology. 2002;225:713–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Arthur DW, Winter KA, Kuerer HM, et al. NRG Oncology-Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Study 1014: 1-year toxicity report from a phase 2 study of repeat breast-preserving surgery and 3-dimensional conformal partial-breast reirradiation for in-breast recurrence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(5):1028–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Harms W, Budach W, Dunst J, et al. DEGRO practical guidelines for radiotherapy of breast cancer VI: therapy of locoregional breast cancer recurrences. Strahlenther Onkol. 2016;192(4):199–208.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Lyman GH, Temin S, Edge SB, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1365–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Hamm C, Tey R, reviewers. Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer. Toronto: Cancer Care Ontario; 2011. Available at: https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fi leId=13868.

  71. Meric F, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, et al. Positive surgical margins and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence predict disease-specific survival after breast-conserving therapy. Cancer. 2003;97:926–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Hanley C, Kessaram R. Quality of diagnosis and surgical management of breast lesions in a community hospital: room for improvement? Can J Surg. 2006;49:185–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Warner E. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen for women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(9):671–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borish B. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1296–316.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257(2):249–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Tan JZY, Waugh J, Kumar B, et al. Mucinous carcinomas of the breast: imaging features and potential for misdiagnosis. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57(1):25–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):717–30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of surgical oncology-american society 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(3):704–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Buchholz TA, Somerfield MR, Griggs JJ, et al. Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1502–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care guidelines on breast cancer genetic counseling and testing. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/bulletins/4381/bul4381a.aspx.

  81. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. Version 3.2019. 18/01/2019. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2019.

  82. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Consensus guideline on genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer. 2019. Retrieved from https://www.breastsurgeons.org/docs/statements/Consensus-Guideline-on-Genetic-Testing-for-Hereditary-Breast-Cancer.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2019.

  83. Steele RJ, Forrest AP, Gibson T, et al. The efficacy of lower axillary sampling in obtaining lymph node status in breast cancer: a controlled randomized trial. Br J Surg. 1985;72:368–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Krag D, Weaver D, Ashikaga T, et al. The sentinel node in breast cancer—a multicenter validation study. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:941–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American society of clinical oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7703–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:599–609.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Oct;8(10):881–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 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(10):927–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Fisher B, Montague E, Redmond C, et al. Findings from NSABP protocol no. B-04-comparison of radical mastectomy with alternative treatments for primary breast cancer. I. Radiation compliance and its relation to treatment outcome. Cancer. 1980;46:1–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Newman LA, Mamounas EP. Review of breast cancer clinical trials conducted by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project. Surg Clin North Am. 2007;87:279–305. Vii.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:426–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. 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(10):918–26. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.11470.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Joslyn SA. Hormone receptors in breast cancer: racial differences in distribution and survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;73:45–59.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Truong PT, Bernstein V, Wai E, et al. Age-related variations in the use of axillary dissection: a survival analysis of 8038 women with T1-ST2 breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:794–803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al. 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 randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366:2087–106.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:665–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Cabanes PA, Salmon RJ, Vilcoq JR, et al. Value of axillary dissection in addition to lumpectomy and radiotherapy in early breast cancer. The Breast Carcinoma Collaborative Group of the Institut Curie. Lancet. 1992;339:1245–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Jagsi R, Chadha M, Moni J, et al. Radiation field design in the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014 Nov 10;32(32):3600–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Galimberti V, Cole BF, Viale G, et al. International breast Cancer Study Group Trial 23-01. 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(10):1385–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, Holloway C, et al. Sentinel node biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy proven node positive breast cancer: the SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):258–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Weaver DL, Ashikaga T, Krag DN, et al. Effect of occult metastases on survival in node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:412–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Altinyollar H, Berberoglu U, Gulben K, et al. The correlation of extranodal invasion with other prognostic parameters in lymph node positive breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2007;95(7):567–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Joseph KA, El-Tamer M, Komenaka I, et al. Predictors of nonsentinel node metastasis in patients with breast cancer after sentinel node metastasis. Arch Surg. 2004;139(6):648–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Gooch J, King TA, Eaton A, et al. The extent of extracapsular extension may influence the need for axillary lymph node dissection in patients with T1-T2 breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(9):2897–903.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Choi AH, Blount S, Perez MN, et al. Size of extranodal extension on sentinel lymph node dissection in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 Trial Era. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(12):1141–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Pilewskie ML, Morrow M. Management of the clinically node-negative axilla: what have we learned from the clinical trials? Oncology (Williston Park). 2014;28(5):371–8.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:111–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Francis PA, Regan MM, Fleming GF, et al. Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:436–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Pagani O, Regan MM, Waley MD, et al. Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:107–18.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Moore HC, Unger JM, Phillips KA, et al. Goserelin for ovarian protection during breast-cancer adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:923–32.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Park WC. Role of ovarian function suppression in premenopausal women with early breast cancer. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19(4):341–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Kwon DS, Kelly CM, Ching CD. Chapter 2 Invasive breast cancer. In: Feig BW, Ching CD, editors. The MD Anderson surgical oncology handbook. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. p. 20–65. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Chia S, Swain SM, Byrd DR, et al. Locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:786–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz MG, Bear HD, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1927–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Colleoni M, Viale G, Zahrieh D, et al. Expression of ER, PgR, HER1, HER2, and response: a study of preoperative chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:465–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Rody A, Karn T, Solbach C, et al. The erbB2+ cluster of the intrinsic gene set predicts tumor response of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide within the GEPARTRIO trial. Breast. 2007;16:235–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Spring L, Greenup R, Niemierko A, et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term outcomes among young women with breast cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15(10):1216–23.

    Google Scholar 

  119. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4224–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001:96–102.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomized trials. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Dignam JJ, et al. 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. 2012;30(32):3960–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Zhou X, Li Y. Local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer – a meta-analysis. Breast Care (Basel). 2016;11(5):345–51.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Fisher CS, Ma CX, Gillanders WE, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved survival compared with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer only after complete pathologic response. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:253–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Sabel MS. Sentinel lymph node biopsy before or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: pros and cons. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2010;19:519–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Geng C, Chen X, Pan X, et al. 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(9):e0162605.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Hunt KK, Yi M, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate and reduces the need for axillary dissection in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250(4):558–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, Ahrendt GM, 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(14):1455–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. 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, multicenter cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):609–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. El Hage CH, Headon H, El Tokhy O, et al. Is sentinel lymph node biopsy a viable alternative to complete axillary dissection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-positive breast caner at diagnosis? An updated meta-analysis involving 3,398 patients. Am J Surg. 2016;212(5):969–81.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Rycaj K, Tang DG. Cancer stem cells and radioresistance. Int J Radiat Biol. 2014;90(8):615–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. 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(4):802–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. 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(10):1072–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Weber JJ, Jochelson MS, Eaton A, et al. MRI and prediction of pathologic complete response in the breast and axilla after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(6):740–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Comparison of axillary lymph node dissection with axillary radiation for patients with node-positive breast cancer treated with chemotherapy. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine (US); 2013. Identifier NCT01901094. 2019 Feb 20 [cited 2019 March 10]. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01901094.

  136. ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Standard or comprehensive radiation therapy in treating patients with early-stage breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and surgery. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine (US); 2013. Identifier NCT01872975. 2017 May 16 [cited 2019 March 21]. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01872975.

  137. Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2147–59.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:617–28.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Li BD, Sicard MA, Ampil F, et al. Trimodal therapy for inflammatory breast cancer: a surgeon’s perspective. Oncology. 2010;79:3–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Mamouch F, Berrada N, Aoullay Z, et al. Inflammatory breast cancer: a review. World J Oncol. 2018;9(5–6):129–35.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Dawood S, Merajver SD, Viens P, et al. International expert panel on inflammatory breast cancer: consensus statement for standardized diagnosis and treatment. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(3):515–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Robertson FM, Bondy M, Yang W, et al. Inflammatory breast cancer: the disease, the biology, the treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:351–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Ueno NT, Espinosa Fernandez JR, Cristofanilli M, et al. International consensus on the clinical management of inflammatory breast cancer from the Morgan Welch Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Program 10th Anniversary Conference. J Cancer. 2018;9(8):1437–47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. Hartman EK, Eslick GD. The prognosis of women diagnosed with breast cancer before, during and after pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160:347–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Ruiz R, Herrero C, Strasser-Weippl K, et al. Epidemiology and pathophysiology of pregnancy-associated breast cancer: a review. Breast. 2017;35:136–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Peccatori FA, Lambertini M, Scarfone G, et al. Biology, staging, and treatment of breast cancer during pregnancy: reassessing the evidences. Cancer Biol Med. 2018;15:6–13.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Cordeiro CN, Gemignani ML. Breast cancer in pregnancy: avoiding fetal harm when maternal treatment is necessary. Breast J. 2017;23(2):200–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. Klarenbach S, Sims-Jones N, Lewin G, et al. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. CMAJ. 2018;190(49):E1441–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Nelson HD, Tyne K, et al.; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727–37, W237–42.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Lee SJ, Boscardin WJ, Stijacic-Cenzer I, et al. Time lag to benefit after screening for breast and colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of survival data from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Denmark. BMJ. 2013;346:e8441.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. American Geriatrics Society. Ten things clinicians and patients should question. 2014 [updated 2015 Apr 23]. Choosing Wisely. Accessed May 25, 2019 from https://www.choosingwisely.org/societies/american-geriatrics-society/.

  152. Hind D, Wyld L, Reed MW. Surgery, with or without tamoxifen, vs tamoxifen alone for older women with operable breast cancer: cochrane review. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(7):1025–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Liang S, Hallet J, Simpson JS, et al. Omission of axillary staging in elderly patients with early stage breast cancer impacts regional control but not survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Geriatr Oncol. 2017;8(2):140–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Choosing Wisely. The Socieyt of Surgical Oncology Encourages Doctors, Patients to question specific commonly-used tests and treatments as part of choosing wisely campaign. 2016. Accessed May 25, 2019 from http://www.choosingwisely.org/the-society-of-surgical-oncology-joins-choosing-wisely-campaign/.

  155. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Bellon JR, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2382–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  156. Extermann M, Hurria A. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(14):1824–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Nazari SS, Mukherjee P. An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2018;25(3):259–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, et al. Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):268–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  159. Lee JM, Arao RF, Sprague BL, et al. Performance of screening ultrasonography as an adjunct to screening mammography in women across the spectrum of breast cancer risk. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8372. [Epub ahead of print].

  160. Sabel, M., & Weaver, D. L. (2018) Paget disease of the breast. In: Chagpar AB, Hayes DF, Pierce LJ, editors. UptoDate. Retrieved May 12, 2019 from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/paget-disease-of-the-breast.

  161. Canadian Cancer Society. Breast cancer in men. Accessed March 29, 2019 from http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/breast/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-in-men/.

  162. Fentiman IS, Fourquet A, Hortobagyi GN. Male breast cancer. Lancet. 2006;367(9510):595–604.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Serdy KM, Leone JP, Dabbs DJ, et al. Male breast Cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 2017;147(1):110–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Pritzlaff M, Summerour P, McFarland R, et al. Male breast cancer in a multi-gene panel testing cohort: insights and unexpected results. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161(3):575–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Block WD, Muradali D. Breast cancer in men. CMAJ. 2013;185(14):1247. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.122056.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. Gradishar WJ, Ruddy KJ. Breast cancer in men. In: Chagpar AB, Hayes DF, editors. UpToDate. 2019. Retrieved April 20, 2019, from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/breast-cancer-in-men.

  167. Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Azim HA Jr, et al. Aromatase inhibitors in male breast cancer: a pooled analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151(1):141–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Greif JM, Pezzi CM, Klimberg VS, et al. Gender differences in breast cancer: analysis of 13,000 breast cancers in men from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3199–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Pockaj BA, Wasif N, Dueck AC, et al. Metastasectomy and surgical resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV breast cancer: time for a second look? Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2419–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Khan SA, Stewart AK, Morrow M. Does aggressive local therapy improve survival in metastatic breast cancer? Surgery. 2002;132:620–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ, et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1771–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Fields RC, Jeffe DB, Trinkaus K, et al. Surgical resection of the primary tumor is associated with increased long-term survival in patients with stage IV breast cancer after controlling for site of metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3345–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Babiera GV, Rao R, Feng L, et al. Effect of primary tumor extirpation in breast cancer patients who present with stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:776–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Blanchard DK, Shetty PB, Hilsenbeck SG, et al. Association of surgery with improved survival in stage IV breast cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2008;247:732–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Neuman HB, Morrogh M, Gonen M, et al. Stage IV breast cancer in the era of targeted therapy: does surgery of the primary tumor matter? Cancer. 2010;116:1226–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Bafford AC, Burstein HJ, Barkley CR, et al. Breast surgery in stage IV breast cancer: impact of staging and patient selection on overall survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115:7–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Hazard HW, Gorla SR, Scholtens D, et al. Surgical resection of the primary tumor, chest wall control, and survival in women with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2008;113:2011–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Ly BH, Vlastos G, Rapiti E, et al. Local-regional radiotherapy and surgery is associated with a significant survival advantage in metastatic breast cancer patients. Tumori. 2010;96:947–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Gnerlich J, Jeffe DB, Deshpande AD, et al. Surgical removal of the primary tumor increases overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer: analysis of the 1988-2003 SEER data. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2187–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Rao R, Feng L, Kuerer HM, et al. Timing of surgical intervention for the intact primary in stage IV breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1696–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Cady B, Nathan NR, Michaelson JS, et al. Matched pair analyses of stage IV breast cancer with or without resection of primary breast site. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:3384–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Dominici L, Najita J, Hughes M, et al. Surgery of the primary tumor does not improve survival in stage IV breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(2):459–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Badwe R, Hawaldar R, Nair N, et al. Locoregional treatment versus no treatment of the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer: an open-label randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(13):1380–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Soran A, Ozmen V, Ozbas S, et al. Randomized trial comparing resection of primary tumor with no surgery in stage IV breast cancer at presentation: protocol MF07-01. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(11):3141–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Khan SA. Early surgery or standard palliative therapy in treating patients with stage IV breast cancer. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01242800. Updated 01 January 2019. Accessed 16 Mar 2019.

  186. Easson AM, McCready DR. Management of local recurrence of breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2004;4:219–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Buchholz TA, et al. Improving local control with breast-conserving therapy: a 27-year single-institution experience. Cancer. 2005;104:20–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Mahvi DA, Liu R, Grinstaff MW, et al. Local cancer recurrence: the realities, challenges, and opportunities for new therapies. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):488–505.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. Recht A, Pierce SM, Abner A, et al. Regional nodal failure after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:988–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Willner J, Kiricuta IC, Kolbl O. Locoregional recurrence of breast cancer following mastectomy: always a fatal event? Results of univariate and multivariate analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37:853–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Hirsch A, Sabel MS, Hayes DF. Management of locoregional recurrence of breast cancer after mastectomy. In: Burstein HJ, editor. UpToDate. 2018. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/management-of-locoregional-recurrence-of-breast-cancer-after-mastectomy.

  192. Campbell EJ, Romics L. Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery: a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2017;9:521–30.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Kaur N, Petit JY, Rietjens M, et al. Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(7):539–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Wolfe AJ, et al. Experience with reduction mammaplasty combined with breast conservation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(3):1102–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Carter SA, Lyons GR, Kuerer HM, 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;23(10):3190–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, et al. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(5):1375–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. Sanidas EE, Schrenk P. Part II: breast conserving oncoplastic techniques: Batwing technique. In: Fitzal F, Schrenk P, editors. Oncoplastic breast surgery, a guide to clinical practice. 2nd ed. Vienna: Springer; 2015. p. 21–5. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Wong SM, Freedman RA, Sagara Y, et al. Growing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy despite no improvement in long-term survival for invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;265(3):581–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, et al. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):891–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  200. Lee CN-H, Deal AM, Huh R, et al. Quality of patient decisions about breast reconstruction after mastectomy. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(8):741–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  201. Rawlani V, Buck DW II, Johnson SA, et al. Tissue expander breast reconstruction using prehydrated human acellular dermis. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:593–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Kim JY, Connor CM. Focus on technique: two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(Suppl 2):104S–15S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. Spear SL, Sher SR, Al-Attar A. Focus on technique: supporting the soft-tissue envelope in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(Suppl 2):89S–94S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  204. Salzberg CA, Dunavant C, Nocera N. Immediate breast reconstruction using porcine acellular dermal matrix (Strattice) long-term outcomes and complications. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:323–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:346–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. Jordan SW, Khavanin N, Fine NA, et al. An algorithmic approach for selective acellular dermal matrix use in immediate two-stage breast reconstruction: indications and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:178–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Corderiro PG, Jazayeri L. Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: an evolution of the conceptual and technical approach over a two-decade period. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  208. Nahabedian MY. Current approaches to prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:871–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  209. Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:287–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:432–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  211. Leberfinger AN, Behar BJ, Williams NC, et al. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: a systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(12):1161–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  212. Nelson JA, Disa JJ. Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy: an update. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5S):60S–8S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  213. Kronowitz SJ. Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction: technical and timing considerations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):463–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  214. Shea-Budgell M, Quan ML, Mehling B, et al. Breast reconstruction following prophylactic or therapeutic mastectomy for breast cancer: recommendations from an evidence-based provincial guideline. Plast Surg. 2014;22(2):103–11.

    Google Scholar 

  215. Zakireh J, Fowble B, Esserman LJ. Application of screening principles to the reconstructed breast. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:173–80.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hyeyoun (Elise) Min contributed equally with all other contributors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Surgical Oncology, Sunnybrook & University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    David W. Lim & Lu Yin

  2. St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Janice R. Mulcahy

  3. Sunnybrook & University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Naama Hermann

  4. Division of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery – Sunnybrook, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Hyeyoun (Elise) Min

  5. Department of Surgery, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Jean-Francois Boileau

  6. Department of Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland

    Mark Corrigan

  7. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Tulin Cil, Alexandra M. Easson, Jaime M. Escallon, Ralph George & Claire Holloway

  8. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Joan E. Lipa

  9. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    David R. McCready

Authors
  1. David W. Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lu Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janice R. Mulcahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naama Hermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hyeyoun (Elise) Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jean-Francois Boileau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mark Corrigan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tulin Cil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alexandra M. Easson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jaime M. Escallon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ralph George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Claire Holloway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Joan E. Lipa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. David R. McCready
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David R. McCready .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Frances C. Wright

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Jaime M. Escallon

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Moises Cukier

  4. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Melanie E. Tsang

  5. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Usmaan Hameed

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lim, D.W. et al. (2020). Breast Cancer. In: Wright, F., Escallon, J., Cukier, M., Tsang, M., Hameed, U. (eds) Surgical Oncology Manual. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48363-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48363-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48362-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48363-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation