ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Morbidity after breast cancer surgery remains low with revision surgery below 5%. This retrospective monocentric study investigates whether new methods like neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), oncoplastic surgery (OPS) or intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) affect overall morbidity. In addition, we sought to determine a possible effect of morbidity on oncologic outcome. METHODS: Clinical Data from all breast cancer cases, operated at the OnkoZert"- certified Breast Health Center of the "Sisters of Charity Hospital" in Linz between 2011 and 2014, were evaluated. Age (≤/>70), nCT, IORT, surgical technique and histological subtypes were analyzed concerning their impact on morbidity. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: 829 patients were included, 24% were older than 70y, 19% underwent oncoplasty, 5.5% immediate reconstruction, 17% of the invasive cancers were treated with nCT and 4.1% received IORT. One or more complications occurred in 83 patients (10%), while 62 patients (7.5%) underwent revision surgery. Univariate analysis showed that mastectomy and age >70 doubled the risk of surgical morbidity. Multivariate regression analysis identified age >70 as the only independent prognostic parameter for the occurrence of morbidity (OR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.41-4.1, p = 0,00134). Morbidity was not associated with worse oncologic outcome in terms of OS or DFS. SUMMARY: In our patient collective, modern techniques such as nCT, OPS or IORT did not influence surgical morbidity rates. Those were only increased by patient's age. Additionally, surgical morbidity did not show any significant impact on OS and DFS.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Humans , Mastectomy/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Morbidity , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Axillary ultrasound staging (AUS) is an important tool to guide clinical decisions in breast cancer therapy, especially regarding axillary surgery but also radiation therapy. It is unknown whether biological subtypes influence axillary staging using ultrasound (AUS). METHOD: This is a retrospective single center analysis. All patients with breast cancer, a preoperative axillary ultrasound and a complete surgical axillary staging were included between 1999 and 2014, except patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). The results of the AUS were compared with final pathological results. Biological subtypes were identified by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: 583 women were included in the study. Sensitivity, Specificity, positive and negative predictive value for AUS were 39%, 96%, 91% and 83%. While sensitivity was significantly lower in Luminal A and B patients (25.0%; 39.8%) as compared to non Luminal breast cancer patients (TN 68.8%; Her2+ 71.4%; p = 0.0032), there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to specificity, PPV and NPV. CONCLUSION: Solely regarding sensitivity of AUS, our study could show significant differences between biological subtypes of breast cancer with lower sensitivity in Luminal patients. While PPV was excellent, standing for a low overtreatment rate using AUS for clinical decision making, sensitivity was poor overall, comparable to the results of other studies.
