Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Lobar Approach to Breast Ultrasound pp 307–324Cite as

Lobar Surgery for Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 844 Accesses

Abstract

Breast conservation treatment (BCT) is appropriate surgical therapy for breast malignancies where clear margins and acceptable cosmetic outcomes can be achieved. Conventionally, the goal of a ‘lumpectomy’ is the attainment of a gross concentric margin of about 10 mm, resulting in a resection pattern approximating a sphere. Such an approach neither takes into account the anatomy of the breast nor the distribution of disease. It has been shown that breast parenchyma has a lobar anatomy, and disease conforms to a pattern referred to as ‘the sick lobe’. Preoperative mapping with imaging and tumour resection respecting these anatomic and pathologic proclivities optimise excision of disease segments, as well as facilitate parenchymal closure for good cosmetic results, and can increase BCT rates when appropriately applied. These objectives form the basis of lobar surgery for breast cancer, and the technical manoeuvres which take cues from the sick lobe theory to achieve optimal treatment outcomes are discussed in this chapter.

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

References

  1. Tot T. The theory of the sick lobe and the possible consequences. Int J Surg Pathol. 2007;15(4):369–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tot T. Subgross morphology, the sick lobe hypothesis, and the success of breast conservation. Int J Br Cancer. 2011;2011:8. https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/634021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Amy D, Durante E, Tot T. The lobar approach to breast ultrasound imaging and surgery. J Med Ultrason. 2015;42:331–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. 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 

  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. 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;149(3):267–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg2013.3049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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(3):803–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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;28:2038–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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;14:157–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;41(10):1417–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2015.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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;2012:9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/127854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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;22(Supplement 3):522–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4626-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. George WD. Management of early breast cancer. Langenbecks Arch Chir. 1977;345:111–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Baildam AD. Oncoplastic surgery of the breast. Br J Surg. 2001;89:532–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eichler C, Kolsch M, Sauerwald A, Bach A, Gluz O, Warm M. Lumpectomy versus mastopexy–a post-surgery patient survey. Anticancer Res. 2013;33:731–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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;42(1):71–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2015.08.160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Clough KB, Benyahi D, Nos C, Charles C, Sarfati I. Oncoplastic surgery: pushing the limits of breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2015;21:140–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tan M. Toward a reductionist approach to the surgical treatment of breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:967.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosen PP, Fracchia AA, Urban JA, Schottenfeld D, Robbins GF. “residual” mammary carcinoma following simulated partial mastectomy. Cancer. 1975;35:739–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lagios MD. Multicentricity of breast carcinoma demonstrated by routine correlated serial subgross and radiographic examination. Cancer. 1977;40:1726–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Holland R, Veling SHJ, Mravunac M, Hendriks JHCL. Histologic multifocality of Tis, T1-2 breast carcinomas: implications for clinical trials of breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 1985;56:979–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tot T, Gere M. Radiologically unifocal invasive breast carcinomas: large section histopathology correlate and impact on surgical management. J Cancer Sci Ther. 2016;8:050–4. https://doi.org/10.4172/1948-5956.1000389.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Iacconi C, Galman L, Zheng J, et al. Multicentric cancer detected at breast MR imaging and not ar mammography: important or not? Radiology. 2015;25:150796.

    Google Scholar 

  28. McLaughlin S, Mittendorf EA, Bleicher RJ, McCready DR, King TA. The 2013 society of surgical oncology Susan G Komen for the cure symposium: MRI in breast cancer: where are we now? Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:28–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Menezes GLG, Knuttel FM, Stehouver BL, Pijnappel RM, van den Bosch MSSJ. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: a literature review and future perspectives. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5:61–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Dershaw DD. Preoperative MRI. Breast J. 2016;22:141–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tan MP. An algorithm for the integration of breast magnetic resonance imaging into clinical practice. Am J Surg. 2009;197:691–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tan MP. The boomerang incision for periareolar breast malignancies. Am J Surg. 2007;194:690–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pezner RD. The oncoplastic breast surgery challenge to the local radiation boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79:963–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gentilini O, Botteri E, Rotmensz N, et al. Conservative surgery in patients with multifocal/multicentric breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113:577–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ustaalioglu BO, Bilici A, Kefeli U, et al. The importance of multifocal/multicentric tumour on the disease-free survival of breast cancer patients. Am J Clin Oncol. 2012;35:580–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lynch SP, Lei XD, Hsu LM, et al. Breast cancer multifocality and multicentricity and locoregional recurrence. Oncologist. 2013;18:1167–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Wolters R, Wockel A, Janni W, et al. Comparing the outcome between multicentric and multifocal breast cancer: what is the impact on survival, and is there a role for guideline-adherent adjuvant therapy? A retrospective multicentre cohort study of 8,935 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142:579–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ataseven B, Lederer B, Blohmer JU, et al. Impact of multifocal of muliticentric disease on surgery and locoregional. Distant and overall survival of 6.134 breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;22(4):1118–27. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4122-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Eaton BR, Losken A, Okwan-Diodu D, et al. Local recurrence patterns in breast cancer patients treated with oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty and radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:93–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Nijenhuis MV, Rutgers EJ. Conservative surgery for multifocal/multicentric breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24:S96–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jochelson MS, Lampen-Sachar K, Gibbons G, et al. Do MRI and mammography reliably identify candidates for breast conservation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1490–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Clough KB, Gouveia PF, Benyahi D, et al. Positive margins after oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:4247–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dolfin G. The surgical approach to the ‘sick lobe’. In: Francescatti DS, Silverstein MJ, editors. Breast cancer: a new era in management. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 113–32.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Silverstein MJ. Radical mastectomy to radical conservation (extreme oncoplasty): a revolutionary change. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Savalia NB, Silverstein MJ. Oncoplastic breast reconstruction: patient selection and surgical techniques. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113(8):875–82. doi: 10.1002/jso.24212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kapoor NM, Chung A, Huynh K, Giuliano AE. Preliminary results: double lumpectomies for multicentric breast cancer. Am Surg. 2012;78:1345–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. NCCN. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp Accessed 25 Feb 2016.

  49. Tan MP. A novel segment classification for multifocal and multicentric breast cancer to facilitate breast-conservation treatment. Breast J. 2015;21:410–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Amy D. Lobar ultrasound of the breast. In: Tot T, editor. Breast cancer. London: Springer-Verlag; 2011. p. 153–62.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tot T. Diffuse invasive breast carcinoma of no special type. Virchows Arch. 2016;468:199–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Balmativola D, Marchio C, Maule M, et al. Pathological non-response to chemotherapy in a neoadjuvant setting of breast cancer: an inter-institutional study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;148:511–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. King TA, Morrow M. Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:335–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 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 

  56. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 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. 2016;122:42–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 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 

  60. Mahmood U, Hanlon AL, Koshy M, et al. Increasing national mastectomy rates for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1436–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 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;16:2697–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 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 

  63. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Esbona K, Li ZH, Wilke LG. Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systemic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3236–45. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2492-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Tan MP, Nadya NY, Sim AS. The value of intraoperative frozen section analysis for margin status in breast conservation surgery in a non-tertiary institution. Int J Breast Cancer. 2014;2014:7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/715404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, Lawrence G, Kearins O, Pereira J, et al. Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;345:e4505. doi: 10.1136bmj.e4505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Woon YY, Chan MYP. Breast conservation surgery-the surgeon factor. Breast. 2005;14:131–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Chan SW, Cheung C, Chan A, Cheung PS. Surgical options for Chinese patients with early invasive breast cancer: data from the Hong Kong breast cancer registry. Asian J Surg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2016.02.003.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Tan MP, Sitoh NY, Sitoh YY. Perspectives of cosmesis following breast conservation for multifocal and multicentric breast cancers. Int J Br Cancer. 2015;2015:9. doi: 10/1155/2015/126793

    Google Scholar 

  72. Vera-Badillo FE, Napoleone M, Ocana A, et al. Effect of multifocality and multicentricity on outcome in early stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146:235–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Neri A, Marellu D, Megha T, et al. Clinical significance of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers and choice of surgical treatment: a retrospective study on a series of 1158 cases. BMC Surg. 2015;15:1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ. Margins in DCIS: does residual disease provide an answer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3423–5. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5255-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Jagsi R, Jiang J, Momoh AO, et al. Complications after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2016;263:219–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MammoCare, Singapore, Singapore

    Mona Tan

Authors
  1. Mona Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mona Tan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Breast Center Department of Radiology, Aix-en-Provence, France

    Dominique Amy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tan, M. (2018). Lobar Surgery for Breast Cancer. In: Amy, D. (eds) Lobar Approach to Breast Ultrasound. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61681-0_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61681-0_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61680-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61681-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation