Resection margins and local recurrences of impalpable breast cancer: Comparison between radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and radioactive seed localization (RSL).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study is to compare surgical margins, reoperation rates and local recurrences after breast conserving surgery (BCS) using radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) or radioactive seed localization (RSL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 744 consecutive patients with impalpable primary invasive breast cancer who underwent BCS at Helsinki University Hospital between 2010 and 2012. ROLL was used in our unit until October 31st, 2011; from November 1st we changed localization method to RSL. RESULTS: 318 patients underwent ROLL and 426 RSL. Patients in the RSL group had more often multifocal (p = 0.013) tumours. No statistically significant differences were found regarding tumour size, specimen weight, histology or grade of tumours or lymph node status. 42 (5.6%) patients were reoperated because of insufficient margins, 13 (4.1%) in the ROLL group and 29 (6.8%) in the RSL group. The reoperation rate was not different between the groups either in the univariable analysis (p = 0.112) or in the multivariable binary logistic regression analysis (p = 0.204). Risk factors for reoperations were multifocality of the tumour (p < 0.001), extensive intraductal component (p < 0.001), larger tumour size (p = 0.011), and smaller specimen weight (p = 0.014). The median follow-up time in the ROLL group was 81 (8-94) months and 64 (3-73) months in the RSL group. The five-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) estimates for ROLL and RSL groups were 98.0% and 99.4%, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.323). CONCLUSION: Reoperation rates and LRFS were comparable for ROLL and RSL in patients with impalpable breast cancer treated with BCS.

Resection margins and local recurrences in breast cancer: Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic breast conserving surgery.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study aims to compare surgical margins, reoperations and local recurrences after conventional or oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (BCS). Furthermore, we aim to investigate differences between various oncoplastic techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed 1800 consecutive patients with primary invasive breast cancer (N = 1707) or ductal carcinoma in situ (N = 93) who underwent BCS at Helsinki University Hospital between 2010 and 2012. RESULTS: Conventional BCS was performed in 1189 (66.1%) patients, oncoplastic BCS in 611 (33.9%). Various oncoplastic techniques were used. Patients with oncoplastic BCS had more often multifocal (p < 0.001), larger (p < 0.001), palpable tumours (p < 0.001) with larger resection specimens (p < 0.001). The amount of resected tissue varied substantially depending on the oncoplastic technique. Patients treated with oncoplastic BCS were younger (p < 0.001) and their tumours were more aggressive according to histological grade (p < 0.001), T-stage (p < 0.001), Ki-67 (p < 0.001) and lymph node status (p < 0.001). There was no difference, however, in surgical margins (p = 0.578) or reoperation rates (p = 0.430) between the groups. A total of 152 (8.4%) patients were reoperated because of insufficient margins, 96 (8.1%) in the conventional, 56 (9.2%) in the oncoplastic BCS group. The median follow-up time was 75 (2-94) months. There was no difference in local recurrence-free survival between the conventional and oncoplastic BCS groups (log-rank test, p = 0.172). CONCLUSIONS: Oncoplastic BCS was used for larger, multifocal and more aggressive tumours. Nevertheless, no difference in reoperation rate or local recurrences were found. Oncoplastic BCS is as safe as conventional BCS enabling breast conserving for patients who otherwise were candidates for mastectomy.