The role of mastectomy in patients with stage I-II breast cancer presenting with gross multifocal or multicentric disease or diffuse microcalcifications

Barbara Fowble, I. Tien Yeh, Delray J. Schultz, Lawrence J. Solin, Ernest F. Rosato, Lori Jardines, John Hoffman, Burton Eisenberg, Marisa C. Weiss, Gerald Hanks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: Women with Stage I-II invasive breast cancer who present with gross multicentric disease or diffuse microcalcifications have a significant risk of breast recurrence when treated with conservative surgery and radiation. The purpose of this report is to present the results of mastectomy in this group of patients. Methods and Materials: Between 1982 and 1989, 88 patients with clinical Stage I-II breast cancer who presented with clinical and mammographic evidence of gross multicentric disease or diffuse microcalcifications underwent modified radical mastectomy. Median followup was 4 years for the 57 patients with gross multicentric disease and 5.6 years for 31 patients with diffuse microcalcifications. At the time of mastectomy, 42% of patients were found to have positive axillary nodes. Following mastectomy, 15 patients received post mastectomy radiation and 35 patients received adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Results: When compared to a group of 1295 patients with unifocal, Stage I-II breast cancer, treated with conservative surgery and radiation during the same time period, patients with gross multicentric disease and diffuse microcalcifications had a significantly higher incidence of ≥ 4 positive nodes, patients with gross multicentric disease had a lower incidence of positive resection margins following mastectomy and patients with diffuse microcalcifications were younger. The 5-year actuarial risk of an isolated local-regional recurrence was 8% for patients with gross multicentric disease or diffuse microcalcifications and 7% for patients with unifocial disease. Patients with gross multicentric disease or diffuse microcalcifications and ≥ 4 positive axillary nodes who did not receive post mastectomy radiation had an increased risk for local regional recurrence. There were no significant differences in the 5-year actuarial overall or relapse-free survival (88% and 73% gross multicentric disease, 97% and 86% diffuse microcalcifications and 90% and 79% unifocal disease), freedom from distant metastasis (76% gross multicentric disease, 90% diffuse microcalcifications, 86% unifocal disease) or incidence of contralateral breast cancer (10% gross multicentric disease, 13% diffuse microcalcifications, 8% unifocal disease) among the three groups. Conclusion: The present study demonstrates no increased risk of local-regional recurrence in patients with gross multicentric disease or diffuse microcalcifications undergoing mastectomy in contrast to the increased risk of breast recurrence in patients with gross multicentric disease undergoing conservative surgery and radiation. Indications for post mastectomy radiation include ? 4 positive nodes or close or positive surgical margins. Despite a significantly higher incidence of ≥ 4 positive nodes, patients with gross multicentric disease and diffuse microcalcifications have a 5-year actuarial overall and relapse-free survival comparable to a group of patients with unifocal disease treated with conservative surgery and radiation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)567-573
Number of pages7
JournalInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
Volume27
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 20 1993
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Diffuse microcalcifications
  • Gross multicentric disease
  • Mastectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiation
  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The role of mastectomy in patients with stage I-II breast cancer presenting with gross multifocal or multicentric disease or diffuse microcalcifications'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this