Patients with early stage invasive cancer with close or positive margins treated with conservative surgery and radiation have an increased risk of breast recurrence that is delayed by adjuvant systemic therapy

被引:219
作者
Freedman, G
Fowble, B
Hanlon, A
Nicolaou, N
Fein, D
Hoffman, J
Sigurdson, E
Boraas, M
Goldstein, L
机构
[1] Fox Chase Canc Ctr, Dept Surg Oncol, Philadelphia, PA 19111 USA
[2] Fox Chase Canc Ctr, Dept Med Oncol, Philadelphia, PA 19111 USA
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS | 1999年 / 44卷 / 05期
关键词
breast cancer; conservative surgery and radiation; radiation therapy; ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence; surgical margins; chemotherapy; tamoxifen;
D O I
10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00112-1
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: The association between a positive resection margin and the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after conservative surgery and radiation is controversial. The width of the resection margin that minimizes the risk of IBTR is unknown. While adjuvant systemic therapy mag decrease the risk of an IBTR in all patients, its impact on patients with positive or close margins is largely unknown. This study examines the interaction between margin status, margin width, and adjuvant systemic therapy on the 5- and 10-year risk of IBTR after conservative surgery and radiation. Methods and Materials: A series of 1,262 patients with clinical Stage I or II breast cancer were treated by breast-conserving surgery, axillary node dissection, and radiation between March 1979 and December 1992. The median follow-up was 6.3 years (range 0.1-15.6). The median age was 55 years (range 24-89). Clinical size was T1 in 66% and T2 in 34%. Seventy-three percent of patients were node-negative. Only 5% of patients had tumors that were EIC-positive. Forty-one percent had a single excision, and 59% had a reexcision. The final margins were negative in 77%, positive in 12%, and close (less than or equal to 2 mm) in 11%. The median total dose to the tumor bed was 60 Gy with negative margins, 64 Gy with close margins, and 66 Gy with positive margins. Chemotherapy +/- tamoxifen was used in 28%, tamoxifen alone in 20%, and no adjuvant systemic therapy in 52%. Results: The 5-year cumulative incidence (CI) of IBTR was not significantly different between patients with negative (4%), positive (5%), or close (7%) margins. However, by 10 years, a significant difference in IBTR became apparent (negative 7%, positive 12%, close 14%,p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in IBTR when a close or positive margin was involved by invasive tumor or DCIS. Reexcision diminished the IBTR rate to 7% at 10 years if the final margin was negative; however, the highest risk was observed in patients with persistently positive (13%) or close (21%) (p = 0.02) margins. The median interval to failure was 3.7 years after no adjuvant systemic therapy, 5.0 years after chemotherapy +/- tamoxifen, and 6.7 gears after tamoxifen alone. This delay to IBTR was observed in patients with close or positive margins, with little impact on the time to failure in patients with negative margins. The 5-year CI of IBTR in patients with close or positive margins was 1% with adjuvant systemic therapy and 13% with no adjuvant therapy. However, by 10 years, the CI of IBTR was similar (18% vs. 14%) due to more late failures in the patients who received adjuvant systemic therapy. Conclusion: A negative margin (> 2 mm) identifies patients with a very low risk of IBTR (7% at 10 Sears) after conservative surgery and radiation. Patients with a close margin (less than or equal to 2 mm) are at an equal or greater risk of IBTR as with a positive margin, especially following a reexcision. A margin involved by DCIS or invasive tumor has the same increased risk of IBTR. A reexcision of an initially close or positive margin that results in a negative final margin reduces the risk of IBTR to that of an initially negative margin. A close or positive margin is associated with an increased risk of IBTR even in patients who are EIC-negative or receiving higher boost doses of radiation. The median time to IBTR is delayed; however, the CI is not significantly decreased by adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with close or positive margins-the 5 year results in these patients underestimate their ultimate risk of recurrence. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:1005 / 1015
页数:11
相关论文
共 65 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1997, AJCC CANC STAG MAN
  • [2] LOCAL FAILURE AND MARGIN STATUS IN EARLY-STAGE BREAST-CARCINOMA TREATED WITH CONSERVATION SURGERY AND RADIATION-THERAPY
    ANSCHER, MS
    JONES, P
    PROSNITZ, LR
    BLACKSTOCK, W
    HEBERT, M
    REDDICK, R
    TUCKER, A
    DODGE, R
    LEIGHT, G
    IGLEHART, JD
    ROSENMAN, J
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1993, 218 (01) : 22 - 28
  • [3] Anthony Paul, 1996, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, V36, P274, DOI 10.1016/S0360-3016(97)85572-1
  • [4] ARMITAGE P, 1973, STATISTICAL METHODS, P135
  • [5] Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: Patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data
    Arriagada, R
    Le, MG
    Rochard, F
    Contesso, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1996, 14 (05) : 1558 - 1564
  • [6] THE IMPACT OF TUMOR SIZE AND HISTOLOGY ON LOCAL-CONTROL AFTER BREAST-CONSERVING THERAPY
    BARTELINK, H
    BORGER, JH
    VANDONGEN, JA
    PETERSE, JL
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 1988, 11 (04) : 297 - 303
  • [7] Blichert-Toft M, 1992, J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, P19
  • [8] RISK-FACTORS IN BREAST-CONSERVATION THERAPY
    BORGER, J
    KEMPERMAN, H
    HART, A
    PETERSE, H
    VANDONGEN, J
    BARTELINK, H
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1994, 12 (04) : 653 - 660
  • [9] BREAST CONSERVATION - LONG-TERM AUSTRALIAN DATA
    BOYAGES, J
    BOSCH, C
    LANGLANDS, AO
    BILOUS, AM
    BARRACLOUGH, B
    GEBSKI, VJ
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1992, 24 (02): : 253 - 260
  • [10] CONSERVATIVE THERAPY OF BREAST-CANCER IN QUEENSLAND
    BURKE, MF
    ALLISON, R
    OBST, D
    TRIPCONY, L
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1995, 31 (02): : 295 - 303