1616-1617 / 1674
University Hospital Erlangen
In-Breast Recurrence
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
3.7
161 vs. 0
21 vs. -
31 vs. -
82 vs. -
EIO, Milan
6.1
57 vs. 133
14 vs. 3
19 vs. 4
85 vs. 70
NIO, Budapest
14
32 vs. 32
28 vs. 16
NR
77 vs. 55
Karolinska Hosp.
6
14 vs. 65
50 vs. 18
33 vs. 12
NR
Dutch Study Group
4.3
20 vs. 229
40 vs. 22
NR
NR
Yale-New Haven Hosp
14
30 vs. 116
7 vs. 7
NR
66 vs. 58
Osaka Med. Center
3.6
30 vs. 11
30 vs. 0
37 vs. 0
90 vs. 91
JCRT, Boston
3.3
16 vs. 123
31 vs. 6
NR
NR vs. 79
Marseille Cancer Inst.
3
34 vs. 36
9 vs. 3
22 vs. 4
NR
Marseille Cancer Inst.
6
52 vs. 0
23 vs. -
21 vs. -
79 vs. -
Marseille Cancer Inst.
4.3
50 vs. 0
32 vs. -
38 vs. -
67 vs. -
Univ. Pennsylvania
3.7
0 vs. 112
- vs. 3
NR
- vs. 86
All patients
3-14
496
vs.
857
23%
vs.
11%
19-38%
vs.
0-12%
66-90%
vs.
55-91%
Results of
2
nd.
Breast conserving surgery (BCS) without RT
versus
modified radical mastectomy (MRM)
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.
3. Re-irradiation after second BCS may decrease the chance of 2
nd.
LR.