Underuse of Postoperative Radiation After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Standard Radiation Indications

IF 2.2 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Wesley J. Talcott MD, MBA , Gustavo N. Marta MD, PhD , Meena S. Moran MD
{"title":"Underuse of Postoperative Radiation After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Standard Radiation Indications","authors":"Wesley J. Talcott MD, MBA ,&nbsp;Gustavo N. Marta MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Meena S. Moran MD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2024.101569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Nipple areola complex-sparing surgeries, such as nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), are increasingly used for women with early-stage breast cancer. In the postoperative setting, 2 major indications for postoperative radiation (PORT) with/without regional nodal irradiation (RNI) are: positive margins (margin+) and pathologically involved lymph nodes (pN+). The frequency of these adverse pathologic features and the rate of PORT utilization following NSM for these 2 indications are unknown. We determined the frequency of margin+ and pN+ following NSM compared with nipple-sparing lumpectomy/breast-conserving surgery [BCS] and identified trends in appropriate PORT administration for these standard indications in the NSM setting.</p></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><p>Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), women diagnosed with cT1 to cT3,N0M0 invasive carcinoma between 2004 and 2017 who underwent NSM were compared with those who underwent BCS (with nipple preservation). The frequencies of margin+ and pN+ by surgical subtype and use of PORT with/without RNI were assessed by cohort to determine if the type of surgery was associated with radiation delivery. Overall survival between the 2 cohorts was also compared. We performed univariable/multivariable logistic and Cox regression with ORs to control for confounders.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 624,075 women included, 611,907 underwent BCS, and 12,168 underwent NSM. The surgical margin+ rate was significantly higher for NSM at 4.5% (n = 544) than for BCS at 3.7% (n = 22,449) (<em>P</em> &lt; .001) and remained significant on multivariable analysis (MVA; OR, 1.13; CI, 1.03-1.25; <em>P</em> = .012). Use of PORT for margins+ was significantly lower by MVA after NSM (OR, 0.07; CI, 0.06-0.09; <em>P</em> &lt; .001). Similarly, pN+ rate was significantly higher for NSM at 22.5% (n = 2740) versus BCS at 13.5% (n = 82,288) (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), retaining significance on MVA (OR, 1.12; CI, 1.06-1.19; <em>P</em> &lt; .001). For pN+ undergoing NSM, PORT with RNI was delivered significantly less often on MVA (OR, 0.73; CI, 0.67-0.81; <em>P</em> &lt; .001). Neither high-risk subgroup had differences in overall survival on MVA.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>NSM is associated with a higher rate of margin+ and pN+ compared with BCS. Radiation is underused after NSM for these standard indications. Our results highlight the need to further refine patient selection for NSM and the importance of communicating the higher potential for adverse pathologic features (and thus, the potential need for radiation) to patients undergoing NSM.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"9 9","pages":"Article 101569"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109424001325/pdfft?md5=01c5de86b1891fdf19575a41b5e164c5&pid=1-s2.0-S2452109424001325-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109424001325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Nipple areola complex-sparing surgeries, such as nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), are increasingly used for women with early-stage breast cancer. In the postoperative setting, 2 major indications for postoperative radiation (PORT) with/without regional nodal irradiation (RNI) are: positive margins (margin+) and pathologically involved lymph nodes (pN+). The frequency of these adverse pathologic features and the rate of PORT utilization following NSM for these 2 indications are unknown. We determined the frequency of margin+ and pN+ following NSM compared with nipple-sparing lumpectomy/breast-conserving surgery [BCS] and identified trends in appropriate PORT administration for these standard indications in the NSM setting.

Methods and Materials

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), women diagnosed with cT1 to cT3,N0M0 invasive carcinoma between 2004 and 2017 who underwent NSM were compared with those who underwent BCS (with nipple preservation). The frequencies of margin+ and pN+ by surgical subtype and use of PORT with/without RNI were assessed by cohort to determine if the type of surgery was associated with radiation delivery. Overall survival between the 2 cohorts was also compared. We performed univariable/multivariable logistic and Cox regression with ORs to control for confounders.

Results

Of 624,075 women included, 611,907 underwent BCS, and 12,168 underwent NSM. The surgical margin+ rate was significantly higher for NSM at 4.5% (n = 544) than for BCS at 3.7% (n = 22,449) (P < .001) and remained significant on multivariable analysis (MVA; OR, 1.13; CI, 1.03-1.25; P = .012). Use of PORT for margins+ was significantly lower by MVA after NSM (OR, 0.07; CI, 0.06-0.09; P < .001). Similarly, pN+ rate was significantly higher for NSM at 22.5% (n = 2740) versus BCS at 13.5% (n = 82,288) (P < .001), retaining significance on MVA (OR, 1.12; CI, 1.06-1.19; P < .001). For pN+ undergoing NSM, PORT with RNI was delivered significantly less often on MVA (OR, 0.73; CI, 0.67-0.81; P < .001). Neither high-risk subgroup had differences in overall survival on MVA.

Conclusions

NSM is associated with a higher rate of margin+ and pN+ compared with BCS. Radiation is underused after NSM for these standard indications. Our results highlight the need to further refine patient selection for NSM and the importance of communicating the higher potential for adverse pathologic features (and thus, the potential need for radiation) to patients undergoing NSM.

乳头保留乳房切除术后标准放射适应症的术后放射利用率不足
目的乳头乳晕复合体保留手术,如乳头乳晕保留乳房切除术(NSM),越来越多地用于早期乳腺癌女性患者。在术后环境中,术后放射(PORT)与/或区域结节照射(RNI)的两个主要适应症是:边缘阳性(边缘+)和病理受累淋巴结(pN+)。这些不良病理特征的发生频率以及 NSM 后针对这两种适应症使用 PORT 的比例尚不清楚。我们确定了与保留乳头的肿块切除术/保乳手术[BCS]相比,NSM术后出现margin+和pN+的频率,并确定了在NSM术中针对这些标准适应症适当使用PORT的趋势。方法和材料利用国家癌症数据库(NCDB),将2004年至2017年间诊断为cT1至cT3、N0M0浸润性癌并接受NSM术的女性与接受BCS术(保留乳头)的女性进行了比较。按手术亚型和有/无RNI的PORT使用情况评估了边缘+和pN+的频率,以确定手术类型是否与放射剂量有关。我们还比较了两个队列的总生存率。结果 在纳入的 624,075 名女性中,611,907 人接受了 BCS,12,168 人接受了 NSM。NSM的手术切缘+率为4.5%(n = 544),明显高于BCS的3.7%(n = 22,449)(P < .001),并且在多变量分析(MVA;OR,1.13;CI,1.03-1.25;P = .012)中仍然显著。在 NSM 之后的 MVA 中,PORT 对 margins+ 的使用率明显降低(OR,0.07;CI,0.06-0.09;P <;.001)。同样,NSM 的 pN+ 率为 22.5%(n = 2740),明显高于 BCS 的 13.5%(n = 82288)(P <.001),而 MVA 的 pN+ 率仍然显著(OR, 1.12; CI, 1.06-1.19; P <.001)。对于接受 NSM 的 pN+ 患者,在 MVA 中使用 RNI 的 PORT 频率显著降低(OR,0.73;CI,0.67-0.81;P < .001)。结论与 BCS 相比,NSM 的边缘+和 pN+ 率更高。对于这些标准适应症,NSM术后未充分利用放射治疗。我们的研究结果凸显了进一步完善 NSM 患者选择的必要性,以及向接受 NSM 的患者告知不良病理特征的可能性较高(因此可能需要放疗)的重要性。
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
Advances in Radiation Oncology
Advances in Radiation Oncology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
208
审稿时长
98 days
期刊介绍: The purpose of Advances is to provide information for clinicians who use radiation therapy by publishing: Clinical trial reports and reanalyses. Basic science original reports. Manuscripts examining health services research, comparative and cost effectiveness research, and systematic reviews. Case reports documenting unusual problems and solutions. High quality multi and single institutional series, as well as other novel retrospective hypothesis generating series. Timely critical reviews on important topics in radiation oncology, such as side effects. Articles reporting the natural history of disease and patterns of failure, particularly as they relate to treatment volume delineation. Articles on safety and quality in radiation therapy. Essays on clinical experience. Articles on practice transformation in radiation oncology, in particular: Aspects of health policy that may impact the future practice of radiation oncology. How information technology, such as data analytics and systems innovations, will change radiation oncology practice. Articles on imaging as they relate to radiation therapy treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信