Comparative Study of Surgical Margins and Cosmetic Outcome in Lumpectomy versus Segmental Resection in Breast CancerEggemann H.a · Ignatov A.a · Krocker J.b · Neuss K.b · Elling D.b · John J.a · Costa S.-D.a
aDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, and bDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sana-Klinikum Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Objective: The aim of the present retrospective study was to compare two breast-conserving techniques, segmental resection and standard lumpectomy, for the treatment of breast cancer regarding their oncological safety. Quality of life aspects were evaluated by assessing the respective postsurgical cosmetic results. Patients and Methods: 190 women with breast cancer located in the superior and lateral quadrant were included in the study. Sixty patients were treated with segmental resection (group 1), whereas 130 underwent standard lumpectomy (group 2). Tumor sizes were determined and excised tissue specimens were analyzed for positive or negative resection margins. Patients were given a 16-item questionnaire for the postsurgical self-assessment of the cosmetic outcome. Results: No statistically significant difference was found concerning the number of positive resection margins between the groups (25 vs. 30%, p = 0.46). Exceptions were ventral margins, which predominated in group 2 (p = 0.016). Group 1 revealed a significantly larger maximum tumor size with negative margins as compared to group 2 (26.6 vs. 17.0 mm). General satisfaction with the cosmetic results was comparable between groups. Conclusions: Segmental resection surgery, as a method of breast conservation therapy, can be used to treat larger breast lesions as compared to standard lumpectomy.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
- Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM: Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1456–1461.
- Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, et al: Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1233–1241.
- Veronesi U., Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, 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;347:1227–1232.
- Giacalone PL, Roger P, Dubon O, Gareh NE, Rihaoui S, Taourel P, et al: Comparative study of the accuracy of breast resection in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:605–614.
- Kaur N, Petit JY, Rietjens M, Maffini F, Luini A, Gatti G, et al: Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:539–545.
- Noh WC, Paik NS, Kim MS, Yang KM, Cho CK, Choi DW, et al: Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conserving therapy: a comparison of quadrantectomy versus lumpectomy at a single institution. World J Surg 2005;29:1001–1006.
- Veronesi U, Luini A, Galimberti V, Zurrida S: Conservation approaches for the management of stage I/II carcinoma of the breast: Milan Cancer Institute trials. World J Surg 1994;18:70–75.
- Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Constantino J, Poller W, 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;16:441–452.
- Gage I, Schnitt SJ, Nixon AJ, Silver B, Recht A, Troyan SL, et al: Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 1996;78:1921–1928.
- Kestin LL, Goldstein NS, Lacerna MD, Balasubramaniam M, Martinez AA, Rebner M, et al: Factors associated with local recurrence of mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ in patients given breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 2000;88:596–607.
- Leong C, Boyages J, Jayasinghe UW, Bilous M, Ung O, Chua B, et al: Effect of margins on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast conservation therapy for lymph node-negative breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;100:1823–1832.
- Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, Recht A, Connolly J, Gelman R, et al: Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1668–1675.
- da Silva G, dos Santos MA: Stressors in breast cancer post-treatment: a qualitative approach. Rev Latino-Am Enfermagem 2010;18:688–695.
- Waljee JF, Hu ES, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Newman LA, Alderman AKl: Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3331–3337.
- Anderson BO, Masetti R, Silverstein MJ: Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:145–157.
- Rutgers EJ: Guidelines to assure quality in breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:568–576.
- Amano G., Ohuchi N, Ishibashi T, Ishida T, Amari M, Satomi S: Correlation of three- dimensional magnetic resonance imaging with precise histopathological map concerning carcinoma extension in the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;60:43–55.
- Holland R., Hendriks JH, Vebeek AL, Mravunac M, Schuurmans Stekhoven JH: Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 1990;335:519–522.
- Al Ghazal SK, Blamey RW: Cosmetic assessment of breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. Breast 1999;8:162–168.
- Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, Lozza L, Galimberti V, Merson M, et al: Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1991;27:1395–1400.
- Veronesi U., Volterrani F, Luini A, Saccozzi R, Del Vecchio M, Zucali R, et al: Quadrantectomy versus lumpectomy for small size breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1990;26:671–673.
- Steeves RA, Phromratanapongse P, Wolberg WH, Tormey DC: Cosmesis and local control after irradiation in women treated conservatively for breast cancer. Arch Surg 1989;124:1369–1373.
- Touboul E, Belkacemi Y, Lefranc JP, Uzan S, Ozsahin M, Korbas D, et al: Early breast cancer: influence of type of boost (electrons vs iridium-192 implant) on local control and cosmesis after conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 1995;34:105–113.
- Liljegren G., Holmberg L, Westman G: The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with sector resection with or without radiotherapy. Uppsala-Orebro Breast Cancer Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A:2083–2089.
- Hamilton CS, Nield JM, Adler GF, Clingan PR: Breast appearance and function after breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 1990;29:291–295.
- Abner AL, Recht A, Vicini FA, Silver B, Hayes D, Come S, et al: Cosmetic results after surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:331–338.
- Ray GR, Fish VJ, Marmor JB, Rogoway W, Kushlan P, Arnold C, Lee RH, Marzoni F: Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on cosmesis and complications in stages I and II carcinoma of the breast treated by biopsy and radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1984;10:837–841.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.