open access

Vol 71, No 2 (2021)
Review paper
Published online: 2021-04-06
Get Citation

Neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer patients and its impact on surgical treatment and radiotherapy (part 2.)

Zbigniew I. Nowecki, Agnieszka Jagiełło-Gruszfeld, Katarzyna Pogoda, Anna Niwińska, Wojciech P. Olszewski, Paweł Winter, Rafał Matkowski, Wojciech M. Wysocki
DOI: 10.5603/NJO.2021.0021
·
Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology 2021;71(2):79-93.

open access

Vol 71, No 2 (2021)
Review article
Published online: 2021-04-06

Abstract

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasingly applied in patients with initially inoperable breast cancers and, frequently, in those with tumours that are initially operable, too. In most cases, the response to the applied NAT affects the scope of surgical treatment and radiotherapy, and in some situations also the complementary systemic postoperative treatment. The available studies indicate importance of response to NAT within the breast and regional lymph nodes. Assessment of response to treatment allows personalization of treatment and in some cases a change of therapy, which improves long-term outcomes. This article summarizes the current rules of conduct in patients with early breast cancer qualified for neoadjuvant thera­py, paying attention to the practical aspects and possibilities of national health insurance-covered therapies in Poland. It discusses in detail the applied regimens of systemic therapy, surgical techniques, eligibility rules and complementary radiotherapy. Systems for assessing response to neoadjuvant treatment are also presented.

Abstract

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasingly applied in patients with initially inoperable breast cancers and, frequently, in those with tumours that are initially operable, too. In most cases, the response to the applied NAT affects the scope of surgical treatment and radiotherapy, and in some situations also the complementary systemic postoperative treatment. The available studies indicate importance of response to NAT within the breast and regional lymph nodes. Assessment of response to treatment allows personalization of treatment and in some cases a change of therapy, which improves long-term outcomes. This article summarizes the current rules of conduct in patients with early breast cancer qualified for neoadjuvant thera­py, paying attention to the practical aspects and possibilities of national health insurance-covered therapies in Poland. It discusses in detail the applied regimens of systemic therapy, surgical techniques, eligibility rules and complementary radiotherapy. Systems for assessing response to neoadjuvant treatment are also presented.
Get Citation

Keywords

breast cancer; surgery; systemic therapy; neoadjuvant therapy; adjuvant therapy

About this article
Title

Neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer patients and its impact on surgical treatment and radiotherapy (part 2.)

Journal

Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology

Issue

Vol 71, No 2 (2021)

Article type

Review paper

Pages

79-93

Published online

2021-04-06

DOI

10.5603/NJO.2021.0021

Bibliographic record

Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology 2021;71(2):79-93.

Keywords

breast cancer
surgery
systemic therapy
neoadjuvant therapy
adjuvant therapy

Authors

Zbigniew I. Nowecki
Agnieszka Jagiełło-Gruszfeld
Katarzyna Pogoda
Anna Niwińska
Wojciech P. Olszewski
Paweł Winter
Rafał Matkowski
Wojciech M. Wysocki

References (104)
  1. Halsted WS. I. The Results of Operations for the Cure of Cancer of the Breast Performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from June, 1889, to January, 1894. Ann Surg. 1894; 20(5): 497–555.
  2. Ahmed SH. Safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2019; 18(9): 817–827.
  3. Livingston-Rosanoff D, Schumacher J, Vande Walle K, et al. Does Tumor Size Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in the Modern Era of Biologically Driven Treatment? A Nationwide Study of US Breast Cancer Patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019; 19(6): e741–e747.
  4. Kim EY, Do SI, Yun JS, et al. Preoperative evaluation of mammographic microcalcifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 2020; 75(8): 641.e19–641.e27.
  5. Feliciano Y, Mamtani A, Morrow M, et al. Do Calcifications Seen on Mammography After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Always Need to Be Excised? Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24(6): 1492–1498.
  6. Özkurt E, Sakai T, Wong SM, et al. Survival Outcomes for Patients With Clinical Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Is Omitting Surgery an Option? Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(10): 3260–3268.
  7. Heil J, Pfob A, Sinn HP, et al. Abstract GS5-03: Diagnosing residual disease and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients by image-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: Results of a prospective multicenter trial. General Session Abstracts. 2020.
  8. Tasoulis M, Lee HB, Yang W, et al. Abstract GS5-04: Accuracy of post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy image-guided breast biopsy to predict the presence of residual cancer: A multi-institutional pooled analysis. General Session Abstracts. 2020.
  9. Basik M, Cecchini R, Santos J, et al. Abstract GS5-05: Primary analysis of NRG-BR005, a phase II trial assessing accuracy of tumor bed biopsies in predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with clinical/radiological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) to explore the feasibility of breast-conserving treatment without surgery. General Session Abstracts. 2020.
  10. Peeters MJ, Loevezijn Av, Noordaa Mv, et al. Abstract GS5-06: Towards omitting breast surgery in patients with a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant systemic treatment: interim analysis of the MICRA trial (Minimally Invasive Complete Response Assessment). General Session Abstracts. 2020.
  11. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19(1): 27–39.
  12. Werutsky G, Untch M, Hanusch C, et al. Locoregional recurrence risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A pooled analysis of nine prospective neoadjuvant breast cancer trials. Eur J Cancer. 2020; 130: 92–101.
  13. van Bommel A, Spronk P, Mureau M, et al. Breast-Contour-Preserving Procedure as a Multidisciplinary Parameter of Esthetic Outcome in Breast Cancer Treatment in The Netherlands. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(6): 1704–1711.
  14. Chang JM, Kosiorek HE, Dueck AC, et al. Trends in mastectomy and reconstruction for breast cancer; a twelve year experience from a tertiary care center. Am J Surg. 2016; 212(6): 1201–1210.
  15. Kolacinska A, Hodorowicz-Zaniewska D, Bocian A, et al. Landscape of oncoplastic breast surgery across Poland. Pol Przegl Chir. 2017; 89(6): 14–19.
  16. Flanagan MR, Zabor EC, Romanoff A, et al. A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Implant Breast Reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(10): 3133–3140.
  17. Adamson K, Chavez-MacGregor M, Caudle A, et al. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy does not Increase Complications in Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(9): 2730–2737.
  18. Kim EY, Do SI, Yun JS, et al. Preoperative evaluation of mammographic microcalcifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 2020; 75(8): 641.e19–641.e27.
  19. Macdonald S, Oncology R, General M. Breast Cancer Breast Cancer. J R Soc Med. 2016; 70: 515–517.
  20. Wimmer K, Bolliger M, Bago-Horvath Z, et al. Impact of Surgical Margins in Breast Cancer After Preoperative Systemic Chemotherapy on Local Recurrence and Survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020; 27(5): 1700–1707.
  21. Levy A, Borget I, Bahri M, et al. Loco-regional control after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and conservative treatment for locally advanced breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2014; 20(4): 381–387.
  22. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28(8): 1700–1712.
  23. Jamaris S, Akpolat-Basci L, Stephanou M, et al. Re-Excision Rates in Breast-Conserving Surgery for Invasive Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with and without the Use of a Radiopaque Tissue Transfer and X-ray System. Breast Care (Basel). 2019; 14(5): 302–307.
  24. Ataseven B, Lederer B, Blohmer JU, et al. Impact of multifocal or multicentric disease on surgery and locoregional, distant and overall survival of 6,134 breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22(4): 1118–1127.
  25. Ueno NT, Espinosa Fernandez JR, Cristofanilli M, et al. International Consensus on the Clinical Management of Inflammatory Breast Cancer from the Morgan Welch Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Program 10th Anniversary Conference. J Cancer. 2018; 9(8): 1437–1447.
  26. Brzezinska M, Dixon JM. Inflammatory breast cancer: no longer an absolute contraindication for breast conservation surgery following good response to neoadjuvant therapy. Gland Surg. 2018; 7(6): 520–524.
  27. Hansson E, Elander A, Hallberg H, et al. Should immediate breast reconstruction be performed in the setting of radiotherapy? An ethical analysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2020; 54(2): 83–88.
  28. Valero MG, Muhsen S, Moo TA, et al. Increase in Utilization of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: Indications, Complications, and Oncologic Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020; 27(2): 344–351.
  29. Régis C, Le J, Chauvet MP, et al. Variations in the breast reconstruction rate in France: A nationwide study of 19,466 patients based on the French medico-administrative database. Breast. 2018; 42: 74–80.
  30. Sigalove S. Prepectoral breast reconstruction and radiotherapy-a closer look. Gland Surg. 2019; 8(1): 67–74.
  31. Riggio E, Toffoli E, Tartaglione C, et al. Local safety of immediate reconstruction during primary treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant versus expander-based surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019; 72(2): 232–242.
  32. Galimberti V, Morigi C, Bagnardi V, et al. Oncological Outcomes of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Single-Center Experience of 1989 Patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(13): 3849–3857.
  33. Pollom EL, Qian Y, Chin AL, et al. Rising rates of bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Cancer. 2018; 143(12): 3262–3272.
  34. Hwang ES, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, et al. Survival after lumpectomy and mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: the effect of age and hormone receptor status. Cancer. 2013; 119(7): 1402–1411.
  35. Corradini S, Reitz D, Pazos M, et al. Mastectomy or Breast-Conserving Therapy for Early Breast Cancer in Real-Life Clinical Practice: Outcome Comparison of 7565 Cases. Cancers. 2019; 11(2): 160.
  36. Hartmann-Johnsen OJ, Kåresen R, Schlichting E, et al. Survival is Better After Breast Conserving Therapy than Mastectomy for Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Registry-Based Follow-up Study of Norwegian Women Primary Operated Between 1998 and 2008. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22(12): 3836–3845.
  37. Fisher S, Gao H, Yasui Y, et al. Survival in stage I-III breast cancer patients by surgical treatment in a publicly funded health care system. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26(6): 1161–1169.
  38. Hofvind S, Holen Å, Aas T, et al. Women treated with breast conserving surgery do better than those with mastectomy independent of detection mode, prognostic and predictive tumor characteristics. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41(10): 1417–1422.
  39. Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Stankowski RV, et al. Survival Comparisons for Breast Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy Revisited: Community Experience and the Role of Radiation Therapy. Clin Med Res. 2015; 13(2): 65–73.
  40. Chen K, Liu J, Zhu L, et al. Comparative effectiveness study of breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy in the general population: A NCDB analysis. Oncotarget. 2015; 6(37): 40127–40140.
  41. Chen QX, Li JJ, Wang XX, et al. The different outcomes between breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy in triple-negative breast cancer: a population-based study from the SEER 18 database. Oncotarget. 2017; 8(3): 4773–4780.
  42. Abdulkarim BS, Cuartero J, Hanson J, et al. Increased risk of locoregional recurrence for women with T1-2N0 triple-negative breast cancer treated with modified radical mastectomy without adjuvant radiation therapy compared with breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(21): 2852–2858.
  43. Johns N, Dixon JM. Should patients with early breast cancer still be offered the choice of breast conserving surgery or mastectomy? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016; 42(11): 1636–1641.
  44. Agresti R, Sandri M, Gennaro M, et al. Evaluation of Local Oncologic Safety in Nipple-Areola Complex-sparing Mastectomy After Primary Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score-matched Study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017; 17(3): 219–231.
  45. Young WA, Degnim AC, Hoskin TL, et al. Outcomes of > 1300 Nipple-Sparing Mastectomies with Immediate Reconstruction: The Impact of Expanding Indications on Complications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(10): 3115–3123.
  46. Wengler CA, Valente SA, Al-Hilli Z, et al. Determinants of short and long term outcomes in patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol. 2017; 116(7): 797–802.
  47. Adachi Y, Okumura S, Sawaki M, et al. Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on operative adverse events and chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction. Breast Cancer. 2020; 27(4): 716–723.
  48. Vidya R, Berna G, Sbitany H, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a joint consensus guide from UK, European and USA breast and plastic reconstructive surgeons. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019; 13: 927.
  49. Kaplan J, Wagner RD, Braun TL, et al. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2019; 33(4): 236–239.
  50. Chandarana M, Harries S. National Braxon Audit Study Group. Multicentre study of prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. BJS Open. 2020; 4(1): 71–77.
  51. Manrique OJ, Charafeddine A, Abu-Ghname A, et al. Two-Staged Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Long-Term Outcome Study in a Young Population. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019; 55(8).
  52. Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction and Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: Short-Term Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017; 5(12): e1631.
  53. Sinnott CJ, Persing SM, Pronovost M, et al. Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(10): 2899–2908.
  54. Marta GN, Poortmans P, de Barros AC, et al. Multidisciplinary international survey of post-operative radiation therapy practices after nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43(11): 2036–2043.
  55. Papassotiropoulos B, Güth U, Chiesa F, et al. Prospective Evaluation of Residual Breast Tissue After Skin- or Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Results of the SKINI-Trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(5): 1254–1262.
  56. Papassotiropoulos B, Güth U, Dubsky P, et al. ASO Author Reflections: A Call for Surgeon Experience and Surgical Radicality to Prevent Residual Breast Tissue After Skin- and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(Suppl 3): 694–695.
  57. Giannotti DG, Hanna SA, Cerri GG, et al. Analysis of Skin Flap Thickness and Residual Breast Tissue After Mastectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018; 102(1): 82–91.
  58. Herly M, Ørholt M, Larsen A, et al. Efficacy of breast reconstruction with fat grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018; 71(12): 1740–1750.
  59. Gandhi A, Coles C, Makris A, et al. Axillary Surgery Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy - Multidisciplinary Guidance From the Association of Breast Surgery, Faculty of Clinical Oncology of the Royal College of Radiologists, UK Breast Cancer Group, National Coordinating Committee for Breast Pathology and British Society of Breast Radiology. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2019; 31(9): 664–668.
  60. Thill M, Jackisch C, Janni W, et al. AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2019. Breast Care (Basel). 2019; 14(4): 224–245.
  61. Pilewskie M, Zabor EC, Mamtani A, et al. The Optimal Treatment Plan to Avoid Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients Differs by Surgical Strategy and Tumor Subtype. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24(12): 3527–3533.
  62. de Barros AC, de Andrade DA. Extended Sentinel Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer Patients who Achieve Complete Nodal Response with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Eur J Breast Health. 2020; 16(2): 99–105.
  63. Boughey JC. Identifying Residual Nodal Disease in Sentinel Lymph Node Surgery After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(12): 3794–3797.
  64. Barrio AV, Mamtani A, Edelweiss M, et al. How Often Is Treatment Effect Identified in Axillary Nodes with a Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23(11): 3475–3480.
  65. Samiei S, van Nijnatten TJA, de Munck L, et al. Correlation Between Pathologic Complete Response in the Breast and Absence of Axillary Lymph Node Metastases After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy. Ann Surg. 2020; 271(3): 574–580.
  66. Classe JM, Loaec C, Gimbergues P, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy without axillary lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate and safe for selected patients: the GANEA 2 study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019; 173(2): 343–352.
  67. Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Dignam JJ, et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from combined analysis of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(32): 3960–3966.
  68. Kuru B. The Adventure of Axillary Treatment in Early Stage Breast Cancer. Eur J Breast Health. 2020; 16(1): 1–15.
  69. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2018; 29(10): 2153.
  70. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Position Statement on Management of the Axilla in Patients With Invasive Breast Cancer. 2011: 1–4.
  71. Samiei S, van Kaathoven BN, Boersma L, et al. Risk of Positive Sentinel Lymph Node After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Clinically Node-Negative Breast Cancer: Implications for Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(12): 3902–3909.
  72. Di Micco R, Zuber V, Fiacco E, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after primary systemic therapy in node positive breast cancer patients: Time trend, imaging staging power and nodal downstaging according to molecular subtype. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019; 45(6): 969–975.
  73. Nguyen TT, Hoskin TL, Day CN, et al. Decreasing Use of Axillary Dissection in Node-Positive Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(9): 2596–2602.
  74. Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: clinicalguidelines@esmo.org. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol. 2019; 30(8): 1194–1220.
  75. Burstein HJ, Curigliano G, Loibl S, et al. Members of the St. Gallen International Consensus Panel on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2019. Estimating the benefits of therapy for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2019. Ann Oncol. 2019; 30(10): 1541–1557.
  76. Shirzadi A, Mahmoodzadeh H, Qorbani M. Assessment of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in two subgroups: Initially node negative and node positive converted to node negative - A systemic review and meta-analysis. J Res Med Sci. 2019; 24: 18.
  77. Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Axillary Nodal Management Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Review. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3(4): 549–555.
  78. Moo TA, Edelweiss M, Hajiyeva S, et al. Is Low-Volume Disease in the Sentinel Node After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy an Indication for Axillary Dissection? Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(6): 1488–1494.
  79. Moo TA, Edelweiss M, Hajiyeva S, et al. Is Low-Volume Disease in the Sentinel Node After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy an Indication for Axillary Dissection? Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(6): 1488–1494.
  80. Caudle AS, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hunt KK, et al. Predictors of tumor progression during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(11): 1821–1828.
  81. Wu S, Wang Y, Zhang Na, et al. Intraoperative Touch Imprint Cytology in Targeted Axillary Dissection After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Patients with Initial Axillary Metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(11): 3150–3157.
  82. Mamtani A, Barrio AV, King TA, et al. How Often Does Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Avoid Axillary Dissection in Patients With Histologically Confirmed Nodal Metastases? Results of a Prospective Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23(11): 3467–3474.
  83. Laws A, Hughes ME, Hu J, et al. Impact of Residual Nodal Disease Burden on Technical Outcomes of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Node-Positive (cN1) Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26(12): 3846–3855.
  84. Green M, Neamonitou F, Vidya R. Conservative Management of Positive Axilla After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy-The Need for, and Review of, Techniques Used for Lymph Node Localization. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018; 18(5): e739–e742.
  85. Banys-Paluchowski M, Gruber IV, Hartkopf A, et al. Axillary ultrasound for prediction of response to neoadjuvant therapy in the context of surgical strategies to axillary dissection in primary breast cancer: a systematic review of the current literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020; 301(2): 341–353.
  86. Siso C, de Torres J, Esgueva-Colmenarejo A, et al. Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Excision of Axillary Clip in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Therapy (ILINA Trial) : A New Tool to Guide the Excision of the Clipped Node After Neoadjuvant Treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(3): 784–791.
  87. Namura M, Tsunoda H, Kobayashi D, et al. The Loss of Lymph Node Metastases After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Cytology-proven Axillary Node-positive Primary Breast Cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019; 19(4): 278–285.
  88. Caudle AS, Bedrosian I, Milton DR, et al. Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: Practice Patterns of American Society of Breast Surgeons Members. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24(10): 2925–2934.
  89. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Hansen NM, et al. Comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone and completion axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(18): 2946–2953.
  90. Bonneau C, Hequet D, Estevez JP, et al. Impact of axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer who do not fit the Z0011 ACOSOG trial because of three or more metastatic sentinel lymph nodes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41(8): 998–1004.
  91. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(28): 4414–4422.
  92. Pinder SE, Provenzano E, Earl H, et al. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology. 2007; 50(4): 409–417.
  93. Bantema-Joppe EJ, Vredeveld EJ, de Bock GH, et al. Five year outcomes of hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost irradiation in breast conserving therapy; patterns of recurrence. Radiother Oncol. 2013; 108(2): 269–272.
  94. Schubert L, Gondi V, Sengbusch E, et al. Dosimetric comparison of left-sided whole breast irradiation with 3DCRT, forward-planned IMRT, inverse-planned IMRT, helical tomotherapy, and topotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2011; 100(2): 241–246.
  95. Latty D, Stuart KE, Wang W, et al. Review of deep inspiration breath-hold techniques for the treatment of breast cancer. J Med Radiat Sci. 2015; 62(1): 74–81.
  96. Haviland JS, Owen JR, Dewar JA, et al. START Trialists' Group. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(11): 1086–1094.
  97. Haffty BG. Long-Term Results of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly. 2010; 21(3): 267–268.
  98. Valachis A, Mamounas EP, Mittendorf EA, et al. Risk factors for locoregional disease recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: An international collaboration and individual patient meta-analysis. Cancer. 2018; 124(14): 2923–2930.
  99. Gałecki J, Hliniak A, Bujko K, et al. Wczesne wyniki pooperacyjnej radioterapii w skróconym czasie u chorych na raka piersi - Badanie populacyjne. Nowotwory. 2007; 57: 20–28.
  100. Gałecki J, Nagadowska M, Pieńkowski T, et al. i in. Przeżycie i czynniki prognostyczne u chorych na wczesnego raka piersi po leczeniu oszczędzającym w dwóch okresach leczenia: przed i po wprowadzeniu łagodnej hipofrakcyjnej radioterapii i zintensyfikowanej chemioterapii pooperacyjnej. Nowotwory J Oncol. 2012; 62: 85–93.
  101. Recht A, Comen EA, Fine RE, et al. Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: An American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(36): 4431–4442.
  102. Akyurek S, Yavas G. Role of postmastectomy radiation therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Exp Oncol. 2013; 35(4): 267–271.
  103. Francis SR, Frandsen J, Kokeny KE, et al. Outcomes and utilization of postmastectomy radiotherapy for T3N0 breast cancers. Breast. 2017; 32: 156–161.
  104. Johnson ME, Handorf EA, Martin JM, et al. Postmastectomy radiation therapy for T3N0: a SEER analysis. Cancer. 2014; 120(22): 3569–3574.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Wydawcą serwisu jest VM Media sp. z o.o. VM Group sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl