ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Non palpable breast tumors are increasingly diagnosed because of screening programs, and their localization during surgery is essential to ensure an adequate resection. Little is known regarding which techniques are used in "real world". MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national web-based survey, with a 21-items questionnaire, was conducted among Breast Centers (BCs) in Italy in 2023. RESULTS: Among 153 BCs, 110 (72 %) participated. Wire-guided localization was reported to be the most used technique, regardless of the volume of malignant tumors treated by each Center (N = 36, 33 %). However, newer techniques such as Radioactive occult lesion localization and magnetic seeds, were reported to be employed in 34 (31 %) BCs, and more often among high-volume BCs (>300 cases/year) (N = 32, 29 % vs. N = 13, 12 %; p = 0.02). Logistic problems of localization were reported to cause delays to the scheduled surgery at least once or in multiple occasions in 26 (24 %) and in 4 (3.5 %) BCs, respectively. Although the majority of BCs declared they were satisfied (N = 48, 44 %) or somewhat satisfied (N = 41, 37 %) with the procedure used in their center, responders stated that they would change their technique, or that they were strongly considering this possibility in 24 (22 %) and in 38 (35 %) cases, respectively. The main barrier to introducing a new technique was associated with procedure costs (90 BCs, 82 %). CONCLUSIONS: There are several critical issues regarding localization techniques at a national level. This should be recognized as a priority because of its impact on both patients and clinical practices.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), oncological and survival outcomes based on locoregional treatment are poorly understood. In particular, the safety of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for TNBC has been questioned. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), and overall survival (OS) rates in patients with TNBC who had breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy. Estimates were pooled in random-effects analysis. The effect of study-level co-variables was assessed by univariable metaregression. RESULTS: Fourteen studies, including 19 819 patients operated for TNBC met the inclusion criteria; 9828 patients (49.6 per cent) underwent BCS and 9991 (50.4 per cent) had a mastectomy. Patients with smaller tumours were more likely to be selected for BCS (pooled odds ratio (OR) for T1 tumours 1.95, 95 per cent c.i. 1.64 to 2.32; P < 0.001). The pooled OR for LRR was 0.64 (0.48 to 0.85; P = 0.002), indicating a statistically significantly lower odds of LRR among women who had BCS relative to mastectomy. The pooled OR for DM was 0.70 (0.53 to 0.94; P = 0.02), indicating a lower odds of DM among women who had BCS; however, this difference diminished with increasing study-level age and follow-up time. A pooled hazard ratio of 0.78 (0.69 to 0.89; P < 0.001) showed a significantly lower hazard for all-cause mortality among women undergoing BCS versus mastectomy. CONCLUSION: These results should be interpreted cautiously owing to likely differences in selection for BCS or mastectomy in the included studies. Patients with TNBC selected for BCS do not, however, have a worse prognosis than those treated with mastectomy, and breast conservation can be offered when feasible clinically.
