APBI 2016

In-Breast Recurrence

Results of 2 nd. Breast conserving surgery (BCS) without RT versus modified radical mastectomy (MRM)

Institute

FUP years

No. of pts. BCS vs . MRM

Crude 2 nd. LR% BCS vs . MRM

5-y 2 nd. LR% BCS vs. MRM

5-y OS% BCS vs. MRM

EIO, Milan EIO, Milan

3.7 6.1

161 vs. 0

21 vs. -

31 vs. -

82 vs. -

57 vs. 133 As consequence: 1. Type of salvage surgery is not an independent predictor of post-recurrence survival. 2. However, pts. subjected to salvage MRM have better local control compared to pts. subjected to repeat BCS without RT. 14 vs. 3 19 vs. 4 85 vs. 70 77 vs. 55 14 32 vs. 32 14 vs. 65 20 vs. 229 30 vs. 116 28 vs. 16 50 vs. 18 40 vs. 22 NR 6 33 vs. 12 NR NR 4.3 NR NR 14 7 vs. 7

NIO, Budapest

Karolinska Hosp.

Dutch Study Group

Yale-New Haven Hosp

66 vs. 58 90 vs. 91 NR vs. 79

Osaka Med. Center

3.6 3.3

30 vs. 11

30 vs. 0 31 vs. 6

37 vs. 0

JCRT, Boston

16 vs. 123 34 vs. 36 52 vs. 0 50 vs. 0 0 vs. 112

NR

Marseille Cancer Inst. Marseille Cancer Inst. Marseille Cancer Inst.

3 6

9 vs. 3

22 vs. 4 21 vs. - 38 vs. -

NR

3. Re-irradiation after second BCS may decrease the chance of 2 nd. LR.

23 vs. - 32 vs. -

79 vs. - 67 vs. - - vs. 86

4.3 3.7

Univ. Pennsylvania

- vs. 3

NR

University Hospital Erlangen 19-38% vs. 0-12%

All patients

3-14

496 vs. 857

23% vs. 11%

66-90% vs. 55-91%