metricas
covid
Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Locoregional relapse after sparing mastectomies and immediate reconstruction in ...
Información de la revista
Vol. 101. Núm. 2.
Páginas 97-106 (febrero 2023)
Visitas
243
Vol. 101. Núm. 2.
Páginas 97-106 (febrero 2023)
Original
Acceso a texto completo
Locoregional relapse after sparing mastectomies and immediate reconstruction in women with breast cancer
Recaídas locorregionales tras mastectomías preservadoras y reconstrucción inmediata en mujeres con cáncer de mama
Visitas
243
Benigno Acea-Nebrila, Alejandra García-Novoaa,
Autor para correspondencia
malejandragarcianovoa@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, Mónica Torres Díaza, Alberto Bouzón Alejandroa, Carlota Díaz Carballadab, Carmen Conde Iglesiasb, Inmaculada Díaz Martínezc, Carme Martínez Arribasc, Lourdes Calvo Martínezd, Silvia Antolin Novoad, Paz Santiago Freijanese, Joaquín Mosquera Osesf
a Servicio de Cirugía General, Unidad de Mama, Hospital Universitario de A Coruña, La Coruña, Spain
b Servicio de Ginecología, Unidad de Mama, Hospital Universitario de A Coruña, La Coruña, Spain
c Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Unidad de Mama, Centro Oncológico de Galicia, La Coruña, Spain
d Servicio de Oncología Médica, Unidad de Mama, Hospital Universitario de A Coruña, La Coruña, Spain
e Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Unidad de Mama, Hospital Universitario de A Coruña, La Coruña, Spain
f Servicio de Radiología, Unidad de Mama, Hospital Universitario de A Coruña, La Coruña, Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (2)
Abstract
Introduction

In recent years, cultural changes in today's society and improved risk assessment have increased the indication for mastectomies in women with breast cancer. Various studies have confirmed the oncological safety of sparing mastectomies and immediate reconstruction. The objective of this study is to analyze the incidence of locoregional relapses of this procedure and its impact on reconstruction and overall survival.

Patients and methods

Prospective study of patients with breast carcinoma who underwent a sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. Locoregional relapses and their treatment and their impact on survival were analyzed.

Results

The study group is made up of 271 women with breast carcinoma treated with a skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. The mean follow-up was 7.98 years and during the same 18 locoregional relapses (6.6%) were diagnosed: 72.2% in the mastectomy flap and 27.8% lymph node. There were no significant differences in the pathological characteristics of the primary tumor between patients with and without locoregional relapse, although the percentage of women with hormone-sensitive tumors was higher in the group without relapse. Patients with lymph node relapse had larger tumors (80% T2-T3) and 60% had axillary metastases at diagnosis, compared to 7.7% of women with skin relapse (p = 0.047). All patients operated on for locoregional relapse preserved their reconstruction. The incidence of metastases and deaths was significantly higher in patients with a relapse, causing a non-significant decrease in overall survival.

Conclusion

Locoregional relapses are a rare event in women with a sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. Most patients with locoregional relapse can preserve their initial reconstruction through local resection of the tumor and adjuvant and / or neoadjuvant therapies.

Keywords:
Skin sparing mastectomy
Nipple-skin sparing mastectomy
Immediate reconstruction
Locoregional relapse
Lymph node relapse
Resumen
Introducción

Durante los últimos años los cambios culturales de la sociedad actual y la mejora en la valoración del riesgo han incrementado la indicación de las mastectomías en mujeres con cáncer de mama. Diversos estudios han confirmado la seguridad oncológica de la mastectomías preservadoras y reconstrucción inmediata. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar la incidencia de recaídas locorregionales de este procedimiento y su impacto en la reconstrucción y la supervivencia global.

Pacientes y Métodos

Estudio prospectivo de pacientes con un carcinoma de mama que realizaron una mastectomía preservadora y reconstrucción inmediata. Se analizaron las recaídas locorregionales, el tratamiento de las mismas y la capacidad de preservar la reconstrucción, así como su impacto en la supervivencia.

Resultados

El grupo a estudio lo constituyen 271 mujeres con carcinoma mamario tratadas mediante una mastectomía ahorradora de piel y reconstrucción inmediata. El seguimiento medio fue de 7,98 años y durante el mismo se diagnosticaron 18 recaídas locorregionales (6,6%): 72,2% en el colgajo de la mastectomía y 27,8% ganglionares. No se evidenciaron diferencias significativas en las características patológicas del tumor primario entre las pacientes con y sin una recaída locorregional, aunque el porcentaje de mujeres con tumores hormonosensibles fue superior en el grupo sin recaída. Las pacientes con recaída ganglionar presentaban tumores de mayor tamaño (el 80% T2-T3) y el 60% tenían metástasis axilares al diagnóstico, frente al 7,7% de las mujeres con recaída en piel (p = 0,047). Todas las pacientes intervenidas de una recaída locorregional preservaron su reconstrucción. La incidencia de metástasis y muertes fue significativamente mayor en las pacientes con una recaída, causando una disminución no significativa de la supervivencia global.

Conclusión

Las recaídas locorregionales son un evento poco frecuente en las mujeres con una mastectomía preservadora y reconstrucción inmediata. La mayoría de las pacientes con recaída locorregional pueden preservar su reconstrucción inicial mediante la resección local del tumor y las terapias adyuvantes y/o neoadyuvantes.

Palabras clave:
Mastectomía preservadora de piel
Mastectomía preservadora de piel y pezón
Reconstrucción inmediata
Recaída locorregional
Recaída ganglionar
Texto completo
Introduction

Breast-sparing surgery combined with radiotherapy is the standard treatment for early-stage breast carcinoma.1 Studies2–4 have shown that this therapeutic strategy offers overall survival (OS) similar to modified radical mastectomy (MRM). However, 20%-40% of women with breast carcinoma will require mastectomy.1 There have been three developments in recent years that have led to an increase in the indication for mastectomy.5–8 Firstly, improved risk assessment for breast cancer has increased the indication for mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (IR).8 Secondly, the improved cultural level of society and the availability of information has resulted in many women viewing mastectomy as their best option over conservative management.5 Finally, mastectomy and reconstruction procedures, especially prepectoral reconstruction, have evolved to better cosmetic results, less morbidity, greater patient satisfaction and oncological safety similar to MRM.6,7,9–12

In this context, skin-sparing mastectomies (SSM) or skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomies (SNSM) with IR have become the current standard. However, some of these patients will present with locoregional relapse (LRR) during their follow-up, which poses three challenges for the surgeon. The first is to assess the preservation of the reconstruction and its oncological safety. The second is to select a surgical procedure to suit the reconstructed breast and the disease which, together with adjuvant therapies (radiotherapy, chemotherapy), will ensure locoregional control of the process. Finally, the third is to evaluate the impact of relapse on patient survival in the medium and long term.

The aim of this study is to analyse the incidence of LRR after SSM with IR, the preservation of the initial reconstruction, and the impact of recurrence on long-term OS.

Patients and methods

Prospective study of patients with a breast carcinoma who underwent SSM/SNSM and IR between 2008 and 2020 in our centre’s breast unit. Patients with an inflammatory carcinoma or progression during primary systemic therapy (PST) were excluded. All IR procedures were included: implants, muscle flaps and mixed. An analysis was performed of the LRRs and their risk factors, as well as their treatment and impact on OS.

Definitions. LRR was defined as tumour tissue (histologically confirmed) in the chest wall (skin, subcutaneous or muscle) or in ipsilateral lymph node regions. Patients with distant metastases synchronously or prior to diagnosis of LRR were excluded. OS was defined as the time from disease diagnosis to death of any cause. In living patients, OS was defined as the time until the date of the last check-up.

Surgical treatment after diagnosis of breast cancer. All patients were presented to the multidisciplinary committee to decide on the therapeutic plan, based on the relevant clinical guidelines for each period.1,13 The surgeon decided the type of mastectomy and reconstruction, based on the oncological and anatomical criteria of each patient. Intraoperative biopsy of the retroareolar tissue was performed in all SNSMs.

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments after breast cancer diagnosis. Patients with tumours expressing hormone receptors received hormone therapy for five or 10 years. If chemotherapy was required, anthracycline- and taxane-based regimens were used in the main. Trastuzumab was indicated for patients with Her2-overexpressing tumours, and pertuzumab was added in 2017. Radiotherapy was indicated in patients with tumours larger than 4 cm, resection margin involvement and/or axillary metastases. In no case was the internal mammary chain irradiated. In selected cases the multidisciplinary committee decided to only irradiate the chest wall or lymph node chains.

Diagnostic evaluation in patients with LRR. All patients with suspected LRR underwent ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. After histological confirmation, a thoraco-abdomino-pelvic CT scan was performed to rule out systemic disease and a breast MRI for surgical planning.

Surgical treatment after LRR. Patients with relapse in the mastectomy flap were resected with disease-free margins (no tumour on the stain). In patients with implant reconstruction, resection of the relapse was planned by transcapsular access, i.e., from within the implant cavity to avoid visible scarring. Patients with nodal relapse underwent axillary lymphadenectomy.

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments after LRR diagnosis. All patients received targeted systemic therapy according to tumour subtype. Women with Her2-overexpressing or triple-negative tumours received PST. All patients who had not been irradiated received radiotherapy after excision of the LRR.

Statistical method. Quantitative variables are expressed with their mean, standard deviation (SD), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Qualitative variables are expressed as proportions and their respective confidence intervals. We used Fisher's exact or χ2 test to find differences between qualitative variables. The student’s t-test for independent groups was used to analyse differences between quantitative variables. If the t-test conditions were not verified, the Mann-Whitney U-test was used. Kaplan-Meier curves and their comparison by logrank test were used for the incidence of LRR and OS.

Results

During the study period, 1742 patients were treated, of which 271 constituted the study group (87.5% with infiltrating carcinoma and 12.5% with ductal carcinoma in situ). The mean follow-up was 7.98 ± 4.3 years and during this time, 18 LRRs (6.6%) were diagnosed in 17 patients. Of these relapses, 72.2% were located in the mastectomy flap (13 relapses in 12 patients), with an actuarial incidence at 5 and 10 years of 3.6% (95% CI 2.4%-4.8%) and 5.2% (95% CI 3.7%-6.7%), respectively (Fig. 1Fig. 1A). A total of 27.8% were nodal relapses, with a 5-year actuarial incidence of 1.8% (95% CI .9%-2.7%) (Fig. 1B).

Fig. 1.

Actuarial incidence and overall survival curves.

(0.39MB).

Primary tumour characteristics. Table 1 compares the clinicopathological characteristics between patients with and without LRR. The percentage of patients with a genetic mutation was higher in women with LRR (16.7% vs. 9.1%), this difference was not significant. No significant differences were evident in the pathological characteristics of the primary tumour (histological grade, lymphovascular invasion, size, and tumour subtype), although the percentage of women with hormone-sensitive tumours was higher in the group without LRR (73.2% vs. 52.9%).

Table 1.

Clinicopathological features and complementary treatments

  All n 271  Locoregional relapse
    Yes (n 17)  No (n 254)   
Pathological clinical characteristics
Age (years)  46.1 ± 8.5  44.3 ± 9.8  46.2 ± 8.5  .372 
BMI  24.4 ± 4.1  23.5 ± 5.7  24.4 ± 4.0  .250 
Genetic mutation  26 (9.6%)  3 (17.6%)  23 (9.1%)  .215 
SNSM  72 (26.6%)  5 (29.4%)  67 (26.4%) 
Reconstruction type         
Autologous  38 (14.0%)  6 (35.3%)  32 (12.6%)   
Implants  224 (82.4%)  11 (64.7%)  213 (83.9%)  .003 
Autologous + implants  10 (3.7%)  0 (.0%)  10 (3.9%)   
Bilateral mastectomy  95 (35.1%)  8 (47.1%)  87 (34.3%)  .301 
Bilateral tumours  15 (5.5%)  0 (.0%)  15 (5.9%) 
Histological type       
IDC  197 (72.7%)  13 (76.5%)  184 (72.4%)   
CLI  33 (12.2%)  0 (.0%)  33 (13.0%)   
DCIS  34 (12.5%)  4 (23.5%)  30 (11.8%)   
Mucinous  4 (1.5%)  0 (.0%)  4 (1.6%)   
Papillary  2 (.7%)  0 (.0%)  2 (.8%)   
Tubular  1 (.4%)  0 (.0%)  1 (.4%)   
Tumour size (cm)  2.3 ± 2.0  2.6 ± 3.0  2.3 ± 1.9  .728 
Tumour size         
T0 in situ  34 (12.5%)  4 (23.5%)  30 (11.8%)   
T1mic  3 (1.1%)  0 (0%)  3 (1.2%)   
T1a  22 (8.1%)  3 (17.6%)  19 (7.5%)   
T1b  34 (12.5%)  1 (5.9%)  33 (12.9%)   
T1c  73 (26.8%)  1 (5.9%)  72 (28.3%)  .106 
T2  76 (27.9%)  4 (23.5%)  72 (28.3%)   
T3  17 (6.3%)  2 (11.8%)  15 (5.9%)   
T4  2 (.7%)  0 (.0%)  2 (.8%)   
Tx  10 (3.7%)  2 (11.8%)  8 (3.1%)   
Axillary involvement         
No  153 (56.5%)  9 (52.9%)  144 (56.7%)   
Yes  106 (39.1%)  6 (35.3%)  100 (39.4%)  .044 
Not assessable  12 (4.4%)  2 (11.8%)  10 (3.9%)   
Axillary lymphadenectomy  101 (37.3%)  7 (41.1%)  94 (37.0%)  .651 
Tumour subtype         
Luminal A  75 (27.7%)  2 (11.8%)  73 (28.7%)   
Luminal B Her2-  82 (30.3%)  4 (23.5%)  78 (30.7%)   
Luminal B Her2+  38 (14%)  3 (17.6%)  35 (13.8%)  .241 
Her2+  18 (6.6%)  1 (5.9%)  17 (6.7%)   
Triple negative  24 (8.9%)  3 (17.6%)  21 (8.3%)   
Not valid  34 (12.5%)  4 (23.5%)  30 (11.8%)   
Progesterone receptors -  93 (34.3%)  8 (47.1%)  85 (33.5%)  .069 
Hormone receptors +  195 (71.9%)  9 (52.9%)  186 (73.2%)  .071 
Lymphovascular invasion  72 (26.6%)  7 (41.2%)  65 (25.6%)  .222 
High grade  109 (40.2%)  8 (47.1%)  101 (39.8%)  .608 
Complementary treatments
Primary systemic therapy  33 (12.2%)  4 (22.5%)  29 (11.4%)  .139 
Chemotherapy  189 (69.7%)  11 (64.7%)  178 (70.1%)  .647 
Radiotherapy to chest wall  57 (21%)  1 (5.9%)  56 (22%)  .116 
C radiotherapy lymph nodes  61 (22.5%)  2 (11.8%)  59 (23.2%)  .275 
Antibodies  56 (20.7%)  4 (23.5%)  52 (20.5%)  .767 
Hormone therapy  195 (71.9%)  9 (52.9%)  186 (73.2%)  .071 
Events during follow-up
Contralateral cancer  3 (1.1%)  0 (.0%)  3 (1.2%) 
Distant metastasis  22 (8.1%)  4 (23.5%)  18 (7.1%)  .038 
Death  21 (7.7%)  4 (23.5%)  17 (6.7%)  .033 
Other tumours  6 (2.2%)  0 (.0%)  6 (2.4%) 

BMI: body mass index; SNSM: skin and nipple-sparing mastectomy; IDC: infiltrating ductal carcinoma; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ.

*No surgery was performed for progression during neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Figures in bold represent data with statistically significant differences.

There were no statistically significant differences in the complementary treatments administered in both groups (Table 1). Twenty-one percent of the patients received radiotherapy. Most of the women with LRR (83.3%) did not receive chest wall and/or lymph node chain radiotherapy. However, the incidence of LRR was similar in the irradiated patients (3.3%) to that of the patients who did not undergo radiotherapy (7.1%).

Locoregional relapse characteristics and treatment. No significant differences were detected in the anatomopathological characteristics between the patients with lymph node relapse and those with a mastectomy flap relapse (Table 2). However, patients with lymph node relapse had larger tumours (80% T2-T3) and 60% had axillary metastases at diagnosis vs. 7.7% of women with skin relapse (p = .047). After a mean follow-up of 4.9 years from the LRR procedure, only one patient had another local relapse (10 years after the first relapse).

Table 2.

Clinicopathological characteristics of the initial tumour according to location of relapse

  Locoregional relapse n 18  Relapse in skin and chest wall n 13  Relapse in axilla n 5 
Age at diagnosis of 1 st tumour  43.6 ± 9.5  44.5 ± 9.5  41.2 ± 10.7  .520 
Mean time to relapse (years)  4.9 ± 4.1  4.5 ± 3.8  5.1 ± 5.3  .921 
Time of onset
<2 years  2 (11.1%)  2 (15.4%)  0 (0%)  .390 
2-5 years  10 (55.6%)  6 (46.2%)  4 (80%)   
>5 years  6 (33.3%)  5 (38.5%)  1 (20%)   
Neoadjuvant treatment in relapse
Initial tumour type  3 (16.7%)  1 (7.6%)  2 (40%)   
DCIS  4 (22.2%)  3 (23.1%)  1 (20%) 
DCI  14 (77.7%)  10 (76.9%)  4 (80%)   
Tumour size
Tis  4 (22.2%)  3 (23.1%)  1 (20%)  .104 
T1a  3 (16.7%)  3 (23.1%)  0 (0%)   
T1b  2 (11.1%)  2 (15.4%)  0 (0%)   
T1c  2 (11.1%)  2 (15.4%)  0 (0%)   
T2  4 (22.2%)  1 (7.7%)  3 (60%)   
T3  1 (5.6%)  0 (0%)  1 (20%)   
Tx  2 (11.1%)  2 (15.4%)  0 (0%)   
Tumour subtype
Luminal A  2 (11.1%)  1 (7.7%)  1 (20%)   
Luminal B Her2-  5 (27.8%)  4 (30.8%)  1 (20%)  .543 
Luminal B Her2+  2 (11.1%)  2 (15.4%)  0 (0%)   
Her2+  1 (5.6%)  0 (.0%)  1 (20%)   
Triple negative  4 (22.2%)  3 (23.1%)  1 (20%)   
Not assessable  4 (22.2%)  3 (23.1%)  1 (20%)   
Lymph node involvement  4 (22.2%)  1 (7.7%)  3 (60%)  .047 
Treatment initial tumour
Chest wall radiotherapy  1 (5.6%)  0 (0%)  1 (20%) 
Lymph node chain radiotherapy  2 (11.1%)  1 (7.7%)  1 (20%)  .490 
Chemotherapy  11 (61.1%)  7 (53.8%)  4 (80%)  .596 
Hormone therapy  9 (50%)  7 (53.8%)  2 (40%)  .618 
Anti-Her2  3 (16.7%)  2 (15.4%)  1 (20%)  .701 
Relapse diagnostic method
Imaging test  6 (33.3%)  4 (30.8%)  2 (40%) 
Palpation  12 (66.7%)  9 (69.2%)  3 (60%)   

IDC: Invasive ductal carcinoma; DCIS: Ductal carcinoma in situ

Lymph node relapse. Eighty per cent of the lymph node relapses were diagnosed in the first three years (Fig. 1B) and 60% had the same tumour subtype (Table 3). One patient did not undergo surgery for her relapse due to systemic disease progression during PST and died 20 months after the relapse was diagnosed. The remaining four patients underwent axillary lymphadenectomy. All the patients received chemotherapy (primary or adjuvant) and those who had not been irradiated (80%) underwent radiotherapy of the chest wall and lymph node chains.

Table 3.

Characteristics of the patients with lymph node relapse

  Patient A  Patient B  Patient C  Patient D*  Patient E 
Tumour type
Primary  IDC  DCIS  IDC  IDC  IDC 
Relapse  IDC  IDC  IDC  IDC  IDC 
Time to relapse (years)  14  2.4  2.3 
Tumour size (cm)
Primary  4 (ypT2N0)  4 (pTisN0)  3.5 (pT2N1)  8 (ypT3N2)  2.5 (pT2N1mi) 
Axillary surgery in primary tumour  Lymphadenectomy  Sentinel lymph node biopsy  Lymphadenectomy  Lymphadenectomy  Sentinel lymph node biopsy 
Location
Primary  UIQ  UOQ right breast  UIQ right breast  UOQ left breast  UIQ 
Relapse  LD lymph node  Axilla  Rotter  Axilla  Rotter 
Tumour subtype
Primary  Luminal A  Her2+  Luminal B Her2-  Triple negative 
Relapse  Luminal B Her2-  Her2+  Her2+  Luminal B Her2-  Triple negative 
Adjuvant treatment
Primary  nCT + HT  None  CT + Ab  nCT + RT +HT  CT 
Relapse  CT + RT  CT + RT  CT + Ab + RT  nCT+HT  nCT + RT 
Time to metastasis (months) 
Time to death (months)  20 

Ab: Antibodies; CT: Chemotherapy; DCIS: Ductal carcinoma in situ; HT: Hormone therapy; IDC: Invasive ductal carcinoma; LD: Latissimus dorsi; LIQ: Lower inner quadrant; LOQ: Lower outer quadrant; nCT: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; RT: Radiotherapy; UIQ: Upper inner quadrant; UOQ: Upper outer quadrant.

*

Not operated due to progression during neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Mastectomy flap relapse. There was no relapse in the nipple-areola complex (NAC). The mean time to relapse was 4.9 years (± 3.8) (Fig. 1A). Most relapses (83.3%) had a different tumour subtype to the initial tumour (Table 4). One patient did not undergo surgery due to systemic disease progression during PST. The reconstruction of all the patients who underwent surgery was preserved. The patients who did not receive radiotherapy were irradiated.

Table 4.

Characteristics of patients with relapse in skin flap

  Patient F  Patient G  Patient H  Patient I  Patient J  Patient K  Patient L  Patient M  Patient N  Patient O  Patient P  Patient Q 
Tumour type
Primary  IDC  IDC  IDIS  IDC  IDC  IDC  DCIS  IDC  IDC  IDC  DCIS  IDC 
Relapse  IDC  IDIS  IDC  IDC  Tubular  IDCIDC  IDC  IDC  IDC  IDC  IDC  IDC 
Time to relapse (years)  14.7  5.5  5.3  5.2  3.9  2.910  2.6  2.1  .8  .9  3.7  5.3 
Tumour size (cm)
Primary  3 (pT2N0)  .5 (pT1aN0)  1.5 (pTisNx)  0 (ypTxN0)  1 (pT1bN1)  .2 (pT1aN0)  2.5 (pTisN0)  .4 (pT1aNx)  3.2 (pT2N0)  .2 (ypT1aNx)  4 (pTisN0)  .9 (pT1bN0) 
Relapse  1 (pT1b)  1 (pTis)  1 (pT1a)  .5 (pT1a)  .5 (pT1a)  1.1 (pT1c).5 (pT1a)  .5 (pT1a)    1.4 (pT1c)  1 (ypT1b)  .5 (ypT1aN2)  .9 (pT1b) 
Location
Primary  UIQ  LOQ  LOQ  LOQ  LIQ  LIQ  UIQ  Retroareolar  UIQ  LOQ  UOQ  UOQ 
Relapse  UIQ  UIQ  UOQ  UIQ  LIQ  LIQ/LOQLIQ/LOQ  UIQ  UOQ  UIQ  LOQ  UOQ  UOQ 
Tumour subtype
Primary  Luminal B Her2-  Luminal B Her2-  Luminal B Her2+  Luminal B Her2-  Luminal B Her2+  Triple Negative  Luminal A  Triple Negative  Luminal B Her2- 
Relapse  Luminal B Her2-  Her2+  Luminal B Her2-  Luminal A  Triple NegativeTriple Negative  Luminal B Her2-  Luminal B Her2+  Luminal B Her2-  Luminal B Her2-  Luminal B Her2-  Luminal B Her2- 
Adjuvant treatment
Primary  CT + HT  CT + HT  None*  nCT + Ab+HT + RT  HT  CT + Ac +HT  None  None  CT+HT  nCT  None*** 
Relapse  CT + HT + RT  RT  CT + Ab  CT + RT+HT  RT + HT  CT + RTCT  RT + HT  CT + Ab**  CT+HT + RT  nCT + RT  nCT + RT +HT  Ct + RT +HT 
Time to metastasis (months)  56  23  27 
Time to death (months)  Alive  Alive  Alive  30  Alive  Alive  Alive  114  33  Alive  Alive  Alive 

Ab: Antibodies; CT: Chemotherapy; DCIS: Ductal carcinoma in situ; IDC: Infiltrating ductal carcinoma; LIQ: Lower inner quadrant; LOQ: Lower outer quadrant; HT: Hormone therapy; nCT: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; RT: Radiotherapy; Sx: Surgery. UIQ: Upper inner quadrant; UOQ: Upper outer quadrant.

*

Patient with pre-mastectomy tumour treated with conservative surgery and radiotherapy.

**

Systemic progression during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, therefore not operated.

***

The patient refused adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy and hormone therapy.

Events and survival. During follow-up, 22 patients (8.1%) developed distant metastases, a higher incidence than locoregional relapses (6.6%). Twenty-one women (7.7%) died during follow-up (Table 1), 17 (6.3%) from their breast carcinoma, three (1.1%) from another tumour, and one patient (.4%) with bone metastases died of medical causes. Three patients with metastases were alive at the end of follow-up. OS and disease-free survival at 10 years were 88.9% (95% CI 86.3%-91.5%) and 80.4% (95% CI 77.1%-83.7%), respectively. The incidence of metastases (23.5% vs. 7.1%; p = .038) and deaths (23.5% vs. 6.7%; p = .033) was significantly higher in patients with LRR (Table 1), resulting in a non-significant decrease in 10-year OS (87.5% [95% CI: 79.2%-95.8%] vs. 90% [95% CI: 87.5%-92.5%]; p = .061 [Fig. 1C]). All patients with LRR and distant metastases died during follow-up. There was no significant difference in OS according to type of LRR (Fig. 1D).

Discussion

Sparing mastectomies with IR to treat breast cancer have been increasingly used in recent years. Several authors have analysed the oncological safety of these techniques.5–12 Valero et al.6 studied 449 women with SNSMs and after a mean follow-up of 39 months had three LLRs (.7%), none of them in the NAC. Margenthaler et al.7 retrospectively analysed 588 SNSMs and found 1.9% LRRs, none of which were in the NAC. Wu et al.11 analysed 199 SNSMs for ductal carcinoma in situ and during follow-up identified 5% LRR, one of them in the NAC. In the meta-analyses by De la Cruz et al.10 and Lanitis et al.9 there was no difference in the incidence of LLR, in either OS or disease-free survival between MRM and SNSM. Finally, the meta-analysis by Blanckaert et al.12 describes an incidence of LRR between 0% and 8.3%, with an incidence of relapse in the NAC between 0% and 4.1%. Although most of the studies included in these meta-analyses are retrospective or with little follow-up, they all describe an incidence of LRR below 10%,12 which is why the clinical guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 13 have accepted SNSM with IR as a valid option in women with breast cancer in experienced units and multidisciplinary teams. In our study we found an LRR incidence of 6.6% and no relapse in the NAC, similar to that reported in the literature. In fact, the incidence of LRR was lower than the incidence of distant metastases (6.6% vs 8.1%), similar to data presented by other authors such as Van Maaren et al.14 The low incidence of relapse in our study precluded the identification of risk factors for LRR. However, we observed that hormone-sensitive tumours are less frequent in women with LRR. Similar data are described by Wu et al.11 their study determined that the absence of progesterone receptors is an independent risk factor for LRR.

Some authors suggest that radiotherapy may be a method of preventing LRR in women with SSM.15,16 In contrast, the NCCN clinical guidelines13 recommend using the same radiotherapy criteria for SSM as for MRM. Park et al.17 analysed the impact of radiotherapy in women with mastectomy and N1 lymph node involvement. The authors state that the risk of LRR has decreased since the introduction of systemic targeted therapies, therefore the absolute benefit of radiotherapy after mastectomy, even in patients with N1 axillary involvement, is low compared to that reported in older studies.17 They conclude that the indication for radiotherapy after SSM/SNSM should be individualised. The majority of patients with LRR in our study were not treated with radiotherapy on their initial diagnosis, however, our data show no significant difference in the incidence of LRR between women with and without chest wall radiotherapy after SSM/SNSM.

Several authors have described LRR in breast cancer as a heterogeneous disease. However, there are few studies on the prognosis of these relapses in breast-sparing mastectomies. Langstein et al.18 found that chest wall relapses have worse survival than subcutaneous tissue relapses. Similarly, Wu et al.19 found that relapses in the NAC have a lower impact on survival than relapses in subcutaneous tissue, and in turn, these have better survival than lymph node relapses. Our study shows that the behaviour of mastectomy flap relapse differs from that of lymph node relapse. Subcutaneous relapses tend to be late and with a different tumour subtype, suggesting that they may be a new primary in residual glandular tissue. In contrast, lymph node relapses occur in women with locally advanced tumours, they are early and are usually the same tumour subtype, suggesting that this process is progression of the disease. Sekine et al.20 propose a similar theory, suggesting that the cause of lymph node relapse is the inability of systemic therapy to eliminate circulating cells, and thus disease progression. Therefore, disease relapse/progression depends on tumour biology, with Her2+ and triple negative tumours having the highest risk of local relapse and metastasis.21–24 These data support the theory that lymph node relapse is a manifestation of systemic progression, and therefore negatively impacts OS.25–27 In our study, LRR decreased OS, although this was not statistically significant (p = .061). Lymph node relapses are likely to modify OS, but the low incidence of lymph node relapses in our study does not support this theory.

The ideal management of LRR in mastectomy with reconstruction is controversial. The NCCN guidelines13 and Buchholz et al.28 propose that treatment should be multidisciplinary, advocating local resection with free margins with the least permissible morbidity, radiotherapy of the chest wall and/or lymph node chains, if not given previously, and targeted systemic therapy as required according to the tumour subtype. However, there is little literature on the possibility of reconstruction preservation. Mirzabeigi et al.29 reviewed 41 women with LRR after mastectomy and reconstruction, of whom 49% lost reconstruction. Newman et al.30 analysed 372 patients with SSM, showing a 6.2% local relapse rate, with 13% of these women losing their reconstruction. Similar data were published by Wu et al.19 who analysed 128 relapses after mastectomy with reconstruction, with 16% of cases losing their reconstruction. This study found that age older than 50 years, relapse size greater than 2 cm, and multifocality were independent risk factors for loss of reconstruction. They also found that survival was similar in patients with local resection of the relapse versus those with wide resection and loss of reconstruction. In our study, most (88.2%) of the women with a relapse underwent surgery and the reconstruction was preserved in all of them. These good results are probably due to the early detection of relapse (tumours smaller than 2 cm) and the uniformity of the procedure. During follow-up, another local relapse was only detected 10 years after the first relapse. Therefore, as Wu et al.19 argue, local resection while preserving reconstruction appears oncologically safe in selected cases. However, more prospective studies are needed to confirm this theory.

Our study has some limitations. Firstly, the low incidence of LRR prevented the detection of risk factors for these relapses and their real impact on OS. Secondly, the absence of a control group with MRM without reconstruction prevents comparison of the safety of the surgical technique. Finally, the heterogeneity of the sample, determined by the evolutionary changes in the surgical treatment in each period and the participation of more than one surgeon, may hinder the interpretation of some results.

In conclusion, LRR is a rare event in women with SSM/SNSM and IR. Mastectomy flap relapse is a different event from lymph node relapse in terms of its time of onset and histological concordance with the primary tumour. Most patients with LRR can preserve their initial reconstruction by local tumour resection and adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant therapies. Our study shows that the diagnosis of LRR after mastectomy and IR does not significantly worsen long-term survival.

Funding

No funding was received for this paper.

Conflict of interests

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

References
[1]
F. Cardoso, S. Kyriakides, S. Ohno, F. Penault-Llorca, P. Poortmans, I.T. Rubio, et al.
Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.
Annals Oncol., 30 (2019), pp. 1194-1220
[2]
B. Fisher, S. Anderson, J. Bryant, R.G. Margolese, M. Deutsch, E.R. Fisher, 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, 347 (2002), pp. 1233-1241
[3]
R. Arriagada, MG Lë, G. Contesso.
Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with 15 years of follow- up data. Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group.
J Clin Oncol., 14 (1996), pp. 1558-1564
[4]
J.A. van Dongen, A.C. Voogd, I.S. Fentiman, C. Legrand, R.J. Sylvester, D. Tong, et al.
Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial.
J Natl Cancer Inst., 92 (2000), pp. 1143-1150
[5]
J. Gu, G. Groot, C. Boden, A. Busch, L. Holtslander, H. Lim.
Review of Factors Influencing Women’s Choice of Mastectomy Versus Breast Conserving Therapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Clin Breast Cancer., 18 (2018), pp. e539-e554
[6]
M.G. Valero, S. Muhsen, T.A. Moo, E.C. Zabor, M. Stempel, A. Pusic, et al.
Increase in utilization of nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: indications, complications and oncologic outcomes.
Ann Surg Oncol., 27 (2019), pp. 344-351
[7]
J.A. Margenthaler, C. Gan, Y. Yan, A.E. Cyr, M. Tenenbaum, D. Hook, et al.
Oncologic safety and outcomes in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy.
J Am Coll Sur., 230 (2020), pp. 535-541
[8]
A. Liede, M. Cai, T.F. Crouter, D. Niepel, F. Callaghan, D.G. Evans.
Risk-reducing mastectomy rates in the US: a closer examination of the Angelina Jolie effect.
Breast Cancer Res Treat., 171 (2018), pp. 435-442
[9]
S. Lanitis, P.P. Tekkis, G. Sgourakis, N. Dimopoulos, R.A. Mufti, D.J. Hadjiminas.
Comparison of skin-sparing mastectomy versus non-skin-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer. A Meta-Analysis of observational studies.
Ann Surg., 251 (2010), pp. 632-639
[10]
L. De La Cruz, A.M. Moody, E.E. Tappy, S.A. Blankenship, E.M. Hecht.
Overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence and nipple-areolar recurrence in the setting nipple-sparing mastectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Ann Surg Oncol., 22 (2015), pp. 3241-3249
[11]
Z.Y. Wu, H.J. Kim, J.W. Lee, I.Y. Chung, J.S. Kim, S.B. Lee, et al.
Recurrence outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ.
Ann Surg Oncol., 27 (2020), pp. 1627-1635
[12]
M. Blanckaert, J. Vranckx.
Oncological safety of therapeutic ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ followed by reconstruction: a systematic review.
Acta Chir Belg, 121 (2021), pp. 155-163
[13]
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast Cancer. Version 1.2022 del 24 de noviembre de 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf Consultado: 12 de diciembre de 2021.
[14]
M.C. Van Maaren, L. de Munck, L.J.A. Strobbe, G.S. Sonke, P.J. Westenend, M. Smidt, et al.
Ten-year recurrence rates for breast cancer subtypes in the Netherlands: A large population-based study.
Int J Cancer., 144 (2019), pp. 263-272
[15]
H.M. Nielsen, M. Overgaard, C. Grau, A.R. Jensen, J. Overgaaed, Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group.
Study of failure pattern among high-risk breast cancer patients with or without postmastectomy radiotherapy in addition to adjuvant systemic therapy: long-term results from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82 b and c randomized studies.
J Clin Oncol, 24 (2006), pp. 2268-2275
[16]
J.Y. Petit, U. Veronesi, R. Orecchia, P. Rey, S. Martella, F. Didier, et al.
Nipple sparing mastectomy with nipple areola intraoperative radiotherapy: one thousand and one cases of a five years experience at the European institute of oncology of Milan (EIO).
Breast Cancer Res Treat, 117 (2009), pp. 333-338
[17]
S.H. Park, J. Lee, J.E Lee, M.K. Kang, M.Y. Kim, H.Y. Park, et al.
Local and regional recurrence following mastectomy in breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive nodes: implications for postmastectomy radiotherapy volume.
Radiat Oncol J., 36 (2018), pp. 285-294
[18]
H.N. Langstein, M.H. Cheng, S.E. Singletary, G.L. Robb, E. Hoy, T.L. Smith, et al.
Breast cancer recurrence after immediate reconstruction: patterns and significance.
Plast Reconstr Surg., 111 (2003), pp. 712-720
[19]
Z.Y. Wu, H.H. Han, H.J. Kim, J. Lee, Y. Chung, J. Kim, et al.
Locoregional recurrence following nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction: Patterns and prognostic significance.
Eu J Surg Oncol., 47 (2021), pp. 1309-1315
[20]
C. Sekine, S. Nakano, A. Mibu, M. Otsuka, T. Oinuma, H. Takeyama.
Breast cancer hormone receptor negativity, triple-negative type, mastectomy and not receiving adjuvant radiotherapy were associated with axillary recurrence after sentinel lymph node biopsy.
Asian J Surg, 43 (2020), pp. 148-153
[21]
E.E.R. Harris, W.T. Hwang, F. Seyednejad, L.J. Solin.
Prognosis after regional lymph node recurrence in patients with Stage I–II breast carcinoma treated with breast conservation therapy.
Cancer., 98 (2003), pp. 2144-2151
[22]
K.D. Voduc, M.C.U. Cheang, S. Tyldesley, K. Gelmon, T.O. Nielsen, H. Kennecke.
Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse.
J Clin Oncol., 28 (2010), pp. 1684-1691
[23]
S.J. Crabb, M.C.U. Cheang, S. Leung, T. Immonen, T.O. Nielsen, D.D. Huntsman, et al.
Basal breast cancer molecular subtype predicts for lower incidence of axillary lymph node metastases in primary breast cancer.
Clin Breast Cancer., 8 (2008), pp. 249-256
[24]
L. Wiechmann, M. Sampson, M. Stempel, L.M. Jacks, S.M. Patil, T King, et al.
Presenting features of breast cancer differ by molecular subtype.
Ann Surg Oncol, 16 (2009), pp. 2705-2710
[25]
M Yi, TA Buchholz, F Meric-Bernstam, I Bedrosian, RF Hwang, MI Ross, et al.
Classification of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after breast conservation therapy can predict patient prognosis and facilitate treatment planning.
Ann Surg, 253 (2011), pp. 572-579
[26]
T.E. Smith, D. Lee, B.C. Turner, D. Carter, B.G. Haffty.
True recurrence vs. new primary ipsilateral breast tumor relapse: An analysis of clinical and pathologic differences and their implications in natural history, prognoses, and therapeutic management.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys., 48 (2000), pp. 1281-1289
[27]
Y. Belkacemi, N.E. Hanna, C. Besnard, S. Majdoul, J. Gligorov.
Local and Regional Breast Cancer Recurrences: Salvage Therapy Options in the New Era of Molecular Subtypes.
Front Oncol., 8 (2018),
[28]
T.A. Buchholz, S. Ali, K.K. Hunt.
Multidisciplinary Management of Locoregional Recurrent Breast Cancer.
J Clin Oncol., 38 (2020), pp. 2321-2328
[29]
M.N. Mirzabeigi, I.A. Rhemtulla, E.S. McDonald, D.M. Sataloff, S.J. Kovach, L.C. Wu, et al.
Locoregional cancer recurrence after breast reconstruction: Detection, management, and secondary reconstructive strategies.
Plast Reconstr Surg, 143 (2019), pp. 1322-1330
[30]
L.A. Newman, H.M. Kuerer, K.K. Hunt, S.S. Kroll, F.C. Ames, M.I. Ross, et al.
Presentation, treatment, and outcome of local recurrence afterskin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction.
Ann Surg Oncol, 5 (1998), pp. 620-626
Copyright © 2022. AEC
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos