Surgical Management of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Chapter

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for only 15–20% of invasive breast cancers overall, but it generates substantial research and clinical attention because of its inherently aggressive nature biologically. The disproportionate contribution of this phenotype to breast cancer morbidity and mortality generates questions regarding optimal surgical management of the breast and axilla. This chapter will review the existing data confirming the safety of breast-conserving therapy (lumpectomy and radiation), immediate reconstruction, and lymphatic mapping/sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients diagnosed with TNBC. Finally, the potential benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for TNBC will be summarized, including the prospects for improving breast-conserving therapy and reducing likelihood of the patient undergoing axillary lymph node dissection.

Keywords

Triple-negative breast cancer Breast conservation therapy Postmastectomy radiation Locoregional recurrence Axillary surgery 

References

  1. 1.
    Hudis CA, Gianni L. Triple-negative breast cancer: an unmet medical need. Oncologist. 2011;16(Suppl 1):1–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Newman LA, Reis-Filho JS, Morrow M, Carey LA, King TA. The 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology Susan G. Komen for the Cure Symposium: triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(3):874–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network Version 1.2017, 03/10/17 at https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Last accessed 29 March 2017.
  4. 4.
    Newman LA. Decision making in the surgical management of invasive breast cancer-part 1: lumpectomy, mastectomy, and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Oncology. 2017;31(5):359–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lowery AJ, Kell MR, Glynn RW, Kerin MJ, Sweeney KJ. Locoregional recurrence after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review by receptor phenotype. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(3):831–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gangi A, Chung A, Mirocha J, Liou DZ, Leong T, Giuliano AE. Breast-conserving therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):252–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Rorke MA, Murray LJ, Brand JS, Bhoo-Pathy N. The value of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival and recurrence in triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 5507 patients. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;47:12–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morrow M. Personalizing extent of breast cancer surgery according to molecular subtypes. Breast. 2013;22(Suppl 2):S106–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pilewskie M, King TA. Age and molecular subtypes: impact on surgical decisions. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(1):8–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    King TA, Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Optimal surgical management for high-risk populations. Breast. 2015;24(Suppl 2):S91–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen F, Pu F. Role of postmastectomy radiotherapy in early-stage (T1-2N0-1M0) triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review. Onco Targets Ther. 2017;10:2009–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joyce DP, Murphy D, Lowery AJ, et al. Prospective comparison of outcome after treatment for triple-negative and non-triple-negative breast cancer. Surgeon. 2017;15:272–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radosa JC, Eaton A, Stempel M, et al. Evaluation of local and distant recurrence patterns in patients with triple-negative breast cancer according to age. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:698–704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):395–408.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clemens MW, Kronowitz SJ. Current perspectives on radiation therapy in autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2015;4(3):222–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bhoo-Pathy N, Verkooijen HM, Wong FY, et al. Prognostic role of adjuvant radiotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: a historical cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2015;137:2504–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morigi C. Highlights from the 15th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 15-18 March, 2017, Vienna: tailored treatments for patients with early breast cancer. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:732.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Penault-Llorca F, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(Suppl 6):vi7–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Recht A, Comen EA, Fine RE, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: an American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(36):4431–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(15 Pt 1):4429–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plasilova ML, Hayse B, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Chagpar AB, Lannin DR. Features of triple-negative breast cancer: analysis of 38,813 cases from the national cancer database. Medicine. 2016;95(35):e4614.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Metzger-Filho O, Sun Z, Viale G, et al. Patterns of Recurrence and outcome according to breast cancer subtypes in lymph node-negative disease: results from international breast cancer study group trials VIII and IX. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(25):3083–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hernandez-Aya LF, Chavez-Macgregor M, Lei X, et al. Nodal status and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2628–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang XX, Jiang YZ, Li JJ, Song CG, Shao ZM. Effect of nodal status on clinical outcomes of triple-negative breast cancer: a population-based study using the SEER 18 database. Oncotarget. 2016;7:46636–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Giuliano AE, Ballman K, McCall L, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: long-term follow-up from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (Alliance) ACOSOG Z0011 Randomized Trial. Ann Surg. 2016;264(3):413–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Roozendaal LM, Smit LH, Duijsens GH, et al. Risk of regional recurrence in triple-negative breast cancer patients: a Dutch cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(3):465–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mamtani A, Patil S, Van Zee KJ, et al. Age and receptor status do not indicate the need for axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3481–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Newman LA. Decision making in the surgical management of invasive breast cancer-part 2: expanded applications for breast-conserving surgery. Oncology. 2017;31(5):415–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(8):2329–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1275–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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(14):1455–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):609–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Deurzen CH, Vriens BE, Tjan-Heijnen VC, et al. Accuracy of sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(18):3124–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kelly AM, Dwamena B, Cronin P, Carlos RC. Breast cancer sentinel node identification and classification after neoadjuvant chemotherapy-systematic review and meta analysis. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(5):551–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xing Y, Foy M, Cox DD, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, Cormier JN. Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93(5):539–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alliance 11202-comparison of axillary lymph node dissection with axillary radiation for patients with node-positive breast cancer treated with chemotherapy. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01901094. Last accessed 30 May 2017.
  40. 40.
    Ihemelandu CU, Naab TJ, Mezghebe HM, et al. Basal cell-like (triple-negative) breast cancer, a predictor of distant metastasis in African American women. Am J Surg. 2008;195(2):153–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parker CC, Ampil F, Burton G, Li BD, Chu QD. Is breast conservation therapy a viable option for patients with triple-receptor negative breast cancer? Surgery. 2010;148(2):386–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Adkins FC, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Lei X, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer is not a contraindication for breast conservation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3164–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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(21):2852–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ly B, Kwon D, Reis I, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes in early stage triple negative breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(3S):S259–60.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang J, Xie X, Wang X, et al. Locoregional and distant recurrences after breast conserving therapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Oncol. 2013;22(4):247–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zumsteg ZS, Morrow M, Arnold B, et al. Breast-conserving therapy achieves locoregional outcomes comparable to mastectomy in women with T1-2N0 triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3469–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen QX, Wang XX, Lin PY, et al. The different outcomes between breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy in triple-negative breast cancer: a population-based study from the SEER 18 database. Oncotarget. 2017;8(3):4773–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Billar JA, Dueck AC, Stucky CC, et al. Triple-negative breast cancers: unique clinical presentations and outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(Suppl 3):384–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jones T, Neboori H, Wu H, et al. Are breast cancer subtypes prognostic for nodal involvement and associated with clinicopathologic features at presentation in early-stage breast cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(9):2866–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Howland NK, Driver TD, Sedrak MP, et al. Lymph node involvement in immunohistochemistry-based molecular classifications of breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2013;185(2):697–703.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Henry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Henry Ford Cancer InstituteDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations