Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Jun;45(6):976-982.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.02.010. Epub 2019 Feb 11.

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

Laura Niinikoski  1 , Marjut H K Leidenius  2 , Päivi Vaara  2 , Aleksandar Voynov  2 , Päivi Heikkilä  3 , Johanna Mattson  4 , Tuomo J Meretoja  2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Laura Niinikoski et al. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Breast conserving surgery; Local recurrence; Reoperations; Surgical margins.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types