Tratamento Cirúrgico Conservador do Câncer de Mama

Nos últimos 15 anos o tratamento cirúrgico do câncer de mama foi revolucionado por alguns novos conceitos na história natural destes tumores. A impossibilidade de controlar a doença com uma cirurgia alargada, a identificação de tumores cada vez menores com o uso da mamografia, a possibilidade da "paciente atual" participar da escolha do tratamento, criaram as condições para um tratamento conservador. Os resultados retrospectivos e, especialmente, prospectivos, dos estudos sobre o tratamento conservador têm demonstrado que a terapia de combinação pode fornecer um adequado controle local do tumor. O Trial 1 de Milão, comparando a mastectomia de Halsted versus a QUART(quadrantectomia, dissecção axilare radioterapia), forneceu uma importante contribuição mostrando não existir diferenças na sobrevida global, período livre de doença e recidivas locais entre os dois tipos de tratamento

Intraoperative Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer: Technical Notes

Abstract: Interest in intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for breast cancer is increasing as the possible benefits of this technique for the patient become apparent. The rationale for the use of this segmental radiation therapy in place of whole-breast irradiation is based on the finding that approximately 85% of breast relapses are confined to the same quadrant of the breast as the primary tumor. Phase I and II trials have demonstrated no increase in postsurgical complication rates following the use of single-dose IORT in localized breast cancers. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the cosmetic outcome. Clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of IORT in the treatment of breast cancer are currently under way at the European Institute of Oncology (EIO) at the University of Milan, Italy, and at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. Here we report the two different techniques in use in these trials

Uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of patients with breast cancer

The aims of this Oncoplastic Breast Consortium and European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists initiative were to identify uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of early breast cancer and to recommend appropriate strategies to address them. By use of Delphi methods, 15 questions were prioritized by more than 250 breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists from 60 countries. Subsequently, a global virtual consensus panel considered available data, ongoing studies and resource utilization. It agreed that research should no longer be prioritized for standardization of axillary imaging, de-escalation of axillary surgery in node-positive cancer and risk evaluation of modern surgery and radiotherapy. Instead, expert consensus recommendations for clinical practice should be based on current evidence and updated once results from ongoing studies become available. Research on de-escalation of radiotherapy and identification of the most relevant endpoints in axillary management should encompass a meta-analysis to identify knowledge gaps, followed by a Delphi process to prioritize and a consensus conference to refine recommendations for specific trial designs. Finally, treatment of residual nodal disease after surgery was recommended to be assessed in a prospective register

Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy

Purpose Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have broadened to include the risk reducing setting and locally advanced tumors, which resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of NSM. The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on NSM and immediate reconstruction was held to address a variety of questions in clinical practice and research based on published evidence and expert panel opinion. Methods The panel consisted of 44 breast surgeons from 14 countries across four continents with a background in gynecology, general or reconstructive surgery and a practice dedicated to breast cancer, as well as a patient advocate. Panelists presented evidence summaries relating to each topic for debate during the in-person consensus conference. The iterative process in question development, voting, and wording of the recommendations followed the modified Delphi methodology. Results Consensus recommendations were reached in 35, majority recommendations in 24, and no recommendations in the remaining 12 questions. The panel acknowledged the need for standardization of various aspects of NSM and immediate reconstruction. It endorsed several oncological contraindications to the preservation of the skin and nipple. Furthermore, it recommended inclusion of patients in prospective registries and routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Considerable heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice became obvious during the conference. Conclusions In case of conflicting or missing evidence to guide treatment, the consensus conference revealed substantial disagreement in expert panel opinion, which, among others, supports the need for a randomized trial to evaluate the safest and most efficacious reconstruction techniques

Oncoplastic breast consortium recommendations for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy

Aim: Demand for nipple-and skin-sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario. Methods: A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology. Results: The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recom-mendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR. Conclusions: The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BRPeer reviewe

Multicentric Cancer Detected at Breast MR Imaging and Not at Mammography: Important or Not?

PURPOSE: To review the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and pathologic features of multicentric cancer detected only at MR imaging and to evaluate its potential biologic value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant; informed consent was waived. A review of records from 2001 to 2011 yielded 2021 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent biopsy after preoperative MR imaging, 285 (14%) of whom had additional cancer detected at MR imaging that was occult at mammography. In 73 patients (3.6%), MR imaging identified 87 cancers in different quadrants than the known index cancer, constituting the basis of this report. In 62 of 73 patients (85%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 75, 92), one additional cancer was found, and in 11 of 73 (15%; 95% CI: 8, 25), multiple additional cancers were found. A χ(2) test with adjustment for multiple lesions was used to examine whether MR imaging and pathologic features differ between the index lesion and additional multicentric lesions seen only at MR imaging. RESULTS: Known index cancers were more likely to be invasive than MR imaging-detected multicentric cancers (88% vs 76%, P = .023). Ductal carcinoma in situ (21 of 87 lesions [24%]; 95% CI: 15, 36) represented a minority of additional MR imaging-detected multicentric cancers. Overall, the size of MR imaging-detected multicentric invasive cancers (median, 0.6 cm; range, 0.1-6.3 cm) was smaller than that of the index cancer (median, 1.2 cm; range, 0.05-7.0 cm; P = .023), although 17 of 73 (23%) (95% CI: 14, 35) patients had larger MR imaging-detected multicentric cancers than the known index lesion, and 18 of 73 (25%) (95% CI: 15, 36) had MR imaging-detected multicentric cancers larger than 1 cm. MR imaging-detected multicentric cancers and index cancers differed in histologic characteristics, invasiveness, and grade in 27 of 73 (37%) patients (95% CI: 26, 49). In four of 73 (5%) patients (95% CI: 2, 13), MR imaging-detected multicentric cancers were potentially more biologically relevant because of the presence of unsuspected invasion or a higher grade. CONCLUSION: Multicentric cancer detected only at MR imaging was invasive in 66 of 87 patients (76%), larger than 1 cm in 18 of 73 patients (25%), larger than the known index cancer in 17 of 73 patients (23%), and more biologically important in four of 73 women (5%). An unsuspected additional multicentric cancer seen only at MR imaging is likely clinically relevant disease