Breast-conserving surgery versus modified radical mastectomy in T1-2N3M0 stage breast cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

IF 4 3区医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Breast Cancer Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1007/s12282-024-01611-4

Yunbo Luo, Xiaomei Chen, Ruibo Lv, Qingyun Li, Shuangqiang Qian, Xia Xu, Lingmi Hou, Wei Deng

{"title":"Breast-conserving surgery versus modified radical mastectomy in T1-2N3M0 stage breast cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.","authors":"Yunbo Luo, Xiaomei Chen, Ruibo Lv, Qingyun Li, Shuangqiang Qian, Xia Xu, Lingmi Hou, Wei Deng","doi":"10.1007/s12282-024-01611-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy and mastectomy exhibit highly comparable prognoses for early-stage breast cancer; however, the safety of BCS for T1-2N3M0 breast cancer remains unclear. This study compared long-term survival for BCS versus (vs.) modified radical mastectomy (MRM) among patients with T1-2N3M0 breast cancer.Methods: Data of patients with T1-2N3M0 breast cancer were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Eligible patients were divided into 2 groups, BCS and MRM; Pearson's chi-squared test was used to estimate differences in clinicopathological features. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the effects of surgical methods and other factors on breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).Results: In total, 2124 patients were included; after PSM, 596 patients were allocated to each group. BCS exhibited the same 5-year BCSS (77.9% vs. 77.7%; P = 0.814) and OS (76.1% vs. 74.6%; P = 0.862) as MRM in the matched cohorts. Multivariate survival analysis revealed that BCS had the same BCSS and OS as MRM (hazard ratios [HR] 0.899 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.697-1.160], P = 0.413 and HR 0.858 [95% CI 0.675-1.089], P = 0.208, respectively); this was also seen in most subgroups. BCS demonstrated better BCSS (HR 0.558 [95% CI 0.335-0.929]; P = 0.025) and OS (HR 0.605 [95% CI 0.377-0.972]; P = 0.038) than MRM in those with the triple-negative subtype.Conclusions: BCS has the same long-term survival as MRM in T1-2N3M0 breast cancer and may be a better choice for triple-negative breast cancer.","PeriodicalId":56083,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-024-01611-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy and mastectomy exhibit highly comparable prognoses for early-stage breast cancer; however, the safety of BCS for T1-2N3M0 breast cancer remains unclear. This study compared long-term survival for BCS versus (vs.) modified radical mastectomy (MRM) among patients with T1-2N3M0 breast cancer.

Methods: Data of patients with T1-2N3M0 breast cancer were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Eligible patients were divided into 2 groups, BCS and MRM; Pearson's chi-squared test was used to estimate differences in clinicopathological features. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the effects of surgical methods and other factors on breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).

Results: In total, 2124 patients were included; after PSM, 596 patients were allocated to each group. BCS exhibited the same 5-year BCSS (77.9% vs. 77.7%; P = 0.814) and OS (76.1% vs. 74.6%; P = 0.862) as MRM in the matched cohorts. Multivariate survival analysis revealed that BCS had the same BCSS and OS as MRM (hazard ratios [HR] 0.899 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.697-1.160], P = 0.413 and HR 0.858 [95% CI 0.675-1.089], P = 0.208, respectively); this was also seen in most subgroups. BCS demonstrated better BCSS (HR 0.558 [95% CI 0.335-0.929]; P = 0.025) and OS (HR 0.605 [95% CI 0.377-0.972]; P = 0.038) than MRM in those with the triple-negative subtype.

Conclusions: BCS has the same long-term survival as MRM in T1-2N3M0 breast cancer and may be a better choice for triple-negative breast cancer.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

T1-2N3M0 期乳腺癌的保乳手术与改良根治性乳房切除术：倾向评分匹配分析。

目的：保乳手术（BCS）加放疗和乳房切除术对早期乳腺癌的预后非常相似；然而，BCS对T1-2N3M0乳腺癌的安全性仍不清楚。本研究比较了T1-2N3M0乳腺癌患者BCS与改良根治性乳房切除术（MRM）的长期生存率：方法：从监测、流行病学和最终结果数据库中提取 T1-2N3M0 乳腺癌患者的数据。将符合条件的患者分为 BCS 和 MRM 两组；采用皮尔逊卡方检验估计临床病理特征的差异。倾向评分匹配（PSM）用于平衡基线特征。进行单变量和多变量分析，研究手术方法和其他因素对乳腺癌特异性生存率（BCSS）和总生存率（OS）的影响：共纳入2124名患者，经过PSM后，596名患者被分配到各组。在匹配队列中，BCS的5年BCSS（77.9% vs. 77.7%；P = 0.814）和OS（76.1% vs. 74.6%；P = 0.862）与MRM相同。多变量生存分析显示，BCS 的 BCSS 和 OS 与 MRM 相同（危险比 [HR] 分别为 0.899 [95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.697-1.160]，P = 0.413 和 HR 0.858 [95% CI 0.675-1.089]，P = 0.208）；在大多数亚组中也是如此。在三阴性亚型患者中，BCS的BCSS（HR 0.558 [95% CI 0.335-0.929]; P = 0.025）和OS（HR 0.605 [95% CI 0.377-0.972]; P = 0.038）均优于MRM：在T1-2N3M0乳腺癌患者中，BCS的长期生存率与MRM相同，可能是三阴性乳腺癌患者的更好选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Breast Cancer ONCOLOGY-OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

CiteScore

6.70

自引率

2.50%

发文量

105

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Breast Cancer, the official journal of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society, publishes articles that contribute to progress in the field, in basic or translational research and also in clinical research, seeking to develop a new focus and new perspectives for all who are concerned with breast cancer. The journal welcomes all original articles describing clinical and epidemiological studies and laboratory investigations regarding breast cancer and related diseases. The journal will consider five types of articles: editorials, review articles, original articles, case reports, and rapid communications. Although editorials and review articles will principally be solicited by the editors, they can also be submitted for peer review, as in the case of original articles. The journal provides the best of up-to-date information on breast cancer, presenting readers with high-impact, original work focusing on pivotal issues.