Annals of surgical oncology · 2016
Operative and Oncologic Outcomes in 9861 Patients with Operable Breast Cancer: Single-Institution Analysis of Breast Conservation with Oncoplastic Reconstruction.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carter Stacey A, Lyons Genevieve R, Kuerer Henry M, Bassett Roland L, Oates Scott, Thompson Alastair, Caudle Abigail S, Mittendorf Elizabeth A, Bedrosian Isabelle, Lucci Anthony, DeSnyder Sarah M, Babiera Gildy, Yi Min, Baumann Donald P, Clemens Mark W, Garvey Patrick B, Hunt Kelly K, Hwang Rosa F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic reconstruction is an approach that enables patients with locally advanced or adversely located tumors to undergo breast conserving surgery (BCS). The objectives were to identify the use of BCS with oncoplastic reconstruction (BCS + R) and determine the operative and oncologic outcomes compared with other breast surgical procedures for breast cancer.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study interrogated a single institution's prospectively maintained databases to identify patients who underwent surgery for breast cancer between 2007 and 2014. Surgeries were categorized as BCS, BCS + R, total mastectomy (TM), or TM with immediate reconstruction (TM + R). Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: There were 10,607 operations performed for 9861 patients. Median follow-up was 3.4 years (range, 0-9.1 years). The use of BCS + R had a nearly fourfold increase in the percentage of all breast cancer surgeries during the study period; 75 % of patients who underwent BCS + R had a T1 or T2 tumor. There was no difference in the use of BCS + R compared with BCS for any quadrant of the breast except the lower outer quadrant (11.1 vs. 6.8 %; p < .0001). BCS + R had a lower rate of seroma formation (13.4 vs. 18 %; p = .002) and positive or close margins compared with BCS (5.8 vs. 8.3 %; p = .04). There was no difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival when comparing BCS and BCS + R.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing BCS + R are not disadvantaged in terms of complications and short-term (3-year) outcomes compared with BCS patients or patients who underwent TM.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study interrogated a single institution's prospectively maintained databases to identify patients who underwent surgery for breast cancer between 2007 and 2014. Surgeries were categorized as BCS, BCS + R, total mastectomy (TM), or TM with immediate reconstruction (TM + R). Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: There were 10,607 operations performed for 9861 patients. Median follow-up was 3.4 years (range, 0-9.1 years). The use of BCS + R had a nearly fourfold increase in the percentage of all breast cancer surgeries during the study period; 75 % of patients who underwent BCS + R had a T1 or T2 tumor. There was no difference in the use of BCS + R compared with BCS for any quadrant of the breast except the lower outer quadrant (11.1 vs. 6.8 %; p < .0001). BCS + R had a lower rate of seroma formation (13.4 vs. 18 %; p = .002) and positive or close margins compared with BCS (5.8 vs. 8.3 %; p = .04). There was no difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival when comparing BCS and BCS + R.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing BCS + R are not disadvantaged in terms of complications and short-term (3-year) outcomes compared with BCS patients or patients who underwent TM.