Part VIII · Therapeutic foundations · Chapter 42

Surgery and reconstruction

A century of removing less, and what each retreat actually traded away.

1 · Breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy

The randomised evidence that settled this question is old, large and unambiguous. It is worth knowing precisely, because the modern argument is about which patients rather than about whether.

In NSABP B-06, 1851 women were randomised to total mastectomy, lumpectomy alone, or lumpectomy with breast irradiation, and followed for 20 years¹. The hazard ratio for death with lumpectomy alone against mastectomy was 1.05, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.90 to 1.23. With lumpectomy and irradiation it was 0.97, with an interval of 0.83 to 1.14. Ipsilateral breast recurrence was the outcome that separated the arms, at 14.3% with irradiation and 39.2% without it.

The Milan trial reached the same conclusion by a different route. Among 701 women randomised to quadrantectomy with radiotherapy or to radical mastectomy, 20-year all-cause mortality was 41.7% and 41.2%². Ipsilateral breast recurrence was 8.8% against 2.3%.

Three further trials agreed. At the Institut Gustave-Roussy, 179 women with tumours up to 20 mm were randomised, and survival, distant metastasis and locoregional recurrence did not differ at 15 years³. In the Danish trial, recurrence-free and overall survival did not differ among 793 correctly randomised patients followed for a median of 19.6 years⁴. EORTC 10801 randomised 868 women with stage I or II disease, and at 20 years time to distant metastasis and time to death did not differ significantly, with hazard ratios of 1.13 and 1.11⁵.

The overview of all local-therapy trials explains why these trials found no survival difference while the radiotherapy trials did⁶. Comparisons that changed five-year local recurrence by less than 10% changed 15-year breast cancer mortality little. Where the difference was larger, 7% against 26%, 15-year breast cancer mortality was 44.6% against 49.5%. About one breast cancer death was avoided for every four local recurrences avoided.

Registry comparisons since then have tended to favour conservation. In United States registry data, breast-conserving therapy was associated with higher breast cancer-specific survival than mastectomy^7,8. A Norwegian registry of 13,015 women found survival better or equal after conservation in every stage and age group⁹. Early complications point the same way. In a national surgical quality database of 6682 lumpectomies and 3339 simple mastectomies, wound complications, bleeding and infection were all more frequent after mastectomy¹⁰. These are observational comparisons, and the choice of operation was not randomised.

Age is the argument most often raised against conservation, and the data do not support it. In a Danish population cohort of 9,285 women younger than 50, survival after breast-conserving therapy matched survival after radical mastectomy in every age band, despite more local recurrence¹¹. Young age does predict in-breast recurrence^12,13. In-breast recurrence is in turn associated with later distant metastasis, and whether it is a marker or a cause remains unclear¹⁴. Germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants were found in 9% of unselected young women undergoing conservation¹⁵, which bears on the operation when the result is available in time.

The inference is the Fisher hypothesis and it is the intellectual foundation of everything that follows. The extent of local surgery determines local control. It does not determine systemic outcome, because distant disease is established or not established before the operation. The history of how that idea displaced the centrifugal model is in Halsted, the centrifugal model, and the logic of radical surgery and Fisher, the alternative hypothesis, and the birth of the randomized trial.

Mastectomy remains the right operation for multicentric disease, for an unfavourable ratio of tumour to breast volume, for inability to receive radiation, and for patients who prefer it. None of those indications rests on a survival argument, and it is worth being explicit with patients that mastectomy is not the safer cancer operation.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy has the weakest survival case of all. In registry data it was associated with better breast cancer-specific survival only in women aged 18 to 49 with stage I or II ER-negative disease¹⁶. Its association with lower non-cancer mortality was stronger still, which points to selection rather than benefit¹⁷. A decision model put the absolute 20-year survival gain below 1% in every group it modelled¹⁸. A meta-analysis found that it reduced contralateral cancer without improving survival in women with familial or genetic risk¹⁹. An accompanying editorial summarised the position as caveat emptor²⁰.

2 · Margins, re-excision, and the evidence for less

A margin is a property of the specimen and of how the pathologist sampled its surface. It is not a property of the tumour. The surface being assessed was created by the operation, and the tissue on the other side of it is still in the patient.

The consensus standard for invasive disease is no ink on tumour. It was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 studies including 28,162 patients^21,22. Positive margins roughly doubled the risk of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence. Wider clear margins did not reduce that risk further. The absence of additional benefit held in young patients, in lobular cancers and in tumours with an extensive intraductal component.

Ductal carcinoma in situ has a different standard, and the difference is instructive rather than arbitrary. A parallel consensus based on 20 studies including 7883 patients set 2 mm as the threshold, because narrower negative margins carried higher recurrence and wider ones did not carry lower²³. In situ disease spreads along ducts in a pattern that a two-dimensional margin assessment samples poorly, which is why the empirical threshold sits further out.

Adopting the invasive standard changed practice measurably. At one centre, re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for stage I or II invasive disease fell from 21.4% to 15.1% after the guideline was adopted²⁴. That is a single-institution before-and-after comparison and should be read as one.

The reason a narrow margin is acceptable is not that residual disease is absent. It is that residual microscopic disease is the target of the radiation and the systemic therapy that follow. A margin policy is therefore a statement about the whole treatment package rather than about the operation alone.

3 · Axillary staging and the long retreat from dissection

Each step in this retreat removed information rather than treatment, and understanding that is what makes the sequence coherent.

Dissection was standard because the node count set the stage. At least ten uninvolved nodes were needed to call a patient node-negative with confidence^25,26. In a national database, omitting dissection from breast conservation was associated with worse survival, an effect its authors judged not solely due to understaging²⁷.

Sentinel node biopsy replaced dissection for staging. NSABP B-32 randomised 5611 women, and 3989 of them had pathologically negative sentinel nodes²⁸. In that group the hazard ratio for overall survival comparing sentinel biopsy alone with biopsy plus dissection was 1.20, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.96 to 1.50. Eight-year overall survival was 91.8% and 90.3%. The trial had been designed with a standardised sentinel technique so that survival and regional control could be compared directly²⁹. The first randomised comparison, in 516 women in Milan, had shown sentinel node status to be 96.9% accurate against full dissection³⁰. None of the 167 women spared dissection there had developed overt axillary disease at that first report. At a median follow-up of 79 months, one had, against eight expected³¹. Breast cancer events numbered 18 after dissection and 16 after sentinel biopsy alone, and five-year overall survival did not differ significantly.

Dissection was then dropped for limited sentinel node involvement. ACOSOG Z0011 randomised 891 women with one or two involved sentinel nodes, all treated by lumpectomy and whole-breast radiation³². Ten-year overall survival was 86.3% without dissection and 83.6% with it, against a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.3 on the hazard ratio. At the first report, five-year overall survival had been 92.5% and 91.8%³³. Ten-year locoregional recurrence was 5.3% without dissection and 6.2% with it^34,35.

IBCSG 23-01 made the same step for micrometastases. It randomised 934 patients with one or more sentinel micrometastases, and omitting dissection had no adverse effect on survival³⁶.

AMAROS asked whether radiation could replace dissection rather than whether treatment could be dropped. Among 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, the 10-year cumulative incidence of axillary recurrence was 0.93% after dissection and 1.82% after axillary radiotherapy^37,38. The hazard ratio was 1.71 with a wide interval of 0.67 to 4.39. There was no difference in overall or disease-free survival. Lymphoedema at five years was 24.5% after dissection and 11.9% after radiotherapy. OTOASOR made the same comparison with regional nodal irradiation in place of completion dissection. Axillary recurrence was 2.0% after dissection and 1.7% after irradiation³⁹.

SENOMAC extended the omission to larger tumours and to macrometastases. Among 2540 patients analysed per protocol, estimated five-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% with sentinel biopsy only and 88.7% with completion dissection⁴⁰. The hazard ratio was 0.89 with an interval of 0.66 to 1.19.

SOUND removed axillary surgery altogether in small tumours with a negative axillary ultrasound. Among 1405 women, five-year distant disease-free survival was 97.7% with sentinel biopsy and 98.0% with no axillary surgery⁴¹. Nodal involvement was present in 13.7% of the patients who had surgery, so the trial did not avoid nodal disease. It declined to measure it.

INSEMA asked the same question in breast-conserving surgery for clinically node-negative disease of 5 cm or less, and it is the largest of the three. Its design is the one to notice. It randomised three to one against surgery, which buys precision where the uncertainty actually sits.

The reason this sequence was possible is that the value of nodal information fell. Adjuvant systemic therapy is now selected largely by tumour biology and by genomic assays Genomic assays and the decision to omit chemotherapy, so counting nodes changes the plan less often than it once did. Occult sentinel metastases found only by immunohistochemistry were not associated with overall survival in Z0010⁴².

Preoperative imaging can take over part of the staging. In a prospective study of 100 patients, ultrasound-guided aspiration had a sensitivity of 79.4% and a positive predictive value of 100%⁴³. Its authors estimated that it could avoid sentinel biopsy in 54% of cases.

4 · Axillary management after neoadjuvant therapy

Chemotherapy changes the axilla, and that creates a staging problem that does not exist before treatment. Lymphatic channels are disrupted and residual disease is patchy, so the sentinel node represents the axilla less reliably.

ACOSOG Z1071 measured the size of the problem. Among 525 patients with biopsy-proven node-positive disease who had two or more sentinel nodes removed after chemotherapy, the false-negative rate was 12.6%, with a 90% Bayesian credible interval of 9.85% to 16.05%⁴⁴. Nodal pathological complete response occurred in 41.0% of evaluable patients, which is why the question matters at all.

SENTINA found the same order of magnitude and located the failure more precisely. In the cohort that converted from clinically node-positive to clinically node-negative, the detection rate was 80.1% and the false-negative rate was 14.2%⁴⁵. The rate was 24.3% when a single node was removed and 18.5% when two were removed. Repeating sentinel biopsy after chemotherapy in patients who had already had one before it performed badly, with a detection rate of 60.8% and a false-negative rate of 51.6%.

Technique therefore matters more here than anywhere else in axillary surgery. Dual tracer, retrieval of three or more nodes, and clipping the biopsy-proven node so it can be targeted all lower the false-negative rate.

Each fix has been measured. With immunohistochemistry mandatory and isolated tumour cells counted as positive, the SN FNAC study found a false-negative rate of 8.4%⁴⁶. In ACOSOG Z1071, when the clipped node was retrieved within the sentinel specimen, the rate was 6.8%⁴⁷. Targeted axillary dissection, removing the marked node with the sentinel nodes, gave a false-negative rate of 2.0% in 85 patients who also had a completion dissection⁴⁸.

The question then moved from surgery to radiation. In NSABP B-51, 1641 patients with biopsy-proven nodal disease who reached ypN0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were randomised to regional nodal irradiation or not, and 1556 were included in the primary-event analysis⁴⁹. Freedom from invasive recurrence or breast cancer death did not differ, with a hazard ratio of 0.88 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.60 to 1.28. Five-year point estimates were 92.7% and 91.8%.

5 · Oncoplastic surgery

Oncoplastic surgery combines tumour excision with reshaping, either by displacing local tissue into the defect or by importing tissue from elsewhere. The claim it makes is geometric rather than biological. It widens the range of tumours that can be removed with an acceptable cosmetic result, and it does not alter the disease.

The techniques are classified by excision volume. Below about 20% of breast volume, local reshaping is enough, and above it a mammoplasty is needed⁵⁰. Volume-displacement techniques borrowed from reduction surgery extend conservation to complex cases⁵¹, including central tumours once treated by mastectomy⁵². In a prospective comparison of 30 oncoplastic operations with 30 quadrantectomies, the oncoplastic excisions removed more tissue and achieved negative margins more often, in 25 against 17⁵³.

For a medical oncologist the consequences are downstream and practical. Tissue rearrangement moves the tumour bed away from the skin scar, so surgical clips placed at the time of excision become the only reliable record of where the tumour was. Radiation boost targeting and partial-breast planning both depend on that record Whole-breast, partial-breast, and chest wall irradiation.

Re-excision is harder after rearrangement, because the original cavity no longer exists as a discrete space. That raises the cost of a positive margin and makes intraoperative margin assessment more valuable in these operations than in a simple lumpectomy.

The evidence base is observational. No randomised trial compares oncoplastic with standard breast-conserving surgery for disease outcome, and the comparison would be difficult to design because the populations differ by construction. Claims that oncoplastic technique improves oncological outcome should be read with that in mind.

6 · Reconstruction options and aesthetic outcomes

The choice is between implant-based and autologous reconstruction, and between immediate and delayed timing. The techniques themselves are described in surgical reviews^54,55,56,57. Patient-reported outcome data are now good enough to quote.

One prospective multicentre cohort followed 2013 women undergoing immediate reconstruction, of whom 1217 completed questionnaires at two years⁵⁸. Autologous reconstruction scored higher than implant reconstruction on the BREAST-Q scales after adjustment for baseline characteristics. The adjusted differences were 7.94 points for satisfaction with breasts, 3.27 for psychosocial well-being and 5.53 for sexual well-being, each on a 0 to 100 scale.

Radiation changes the calculation rather than adding to it uniformly. In the same consortium, at least one breast complication occurred by two years in 38.9% of irradiated implant patients and 25.6% of irradiated autologous patients⁵⁹. The corresponding figures without radiation were 21.8% and 28.3%. Among irradiated patients, autologous reconstruction carried lower odds of complication, at 0.47 with an interval of 0.27 to 0.82. Among unirradiated patients the two approaches did not differ.

Older series point the same way. In one institution's 1,037 patients, radiation raised the major complication rate of expander-implant reconstruction from 21.2% to 45.4% and did not change it for autologous reconstruction⁶⁰. Immediate free flap reconstruction followed by radiation produced late complications in 87.5%, against 8.6% when reconstruction waited until radiation was complete⁶¹. A review found implant complication rates above 40% with post-mastectomy radiation, and recommended delayed autologous reconstruction, or a temporary expander when radiation is uncertain⁶². A small series of irradiated pedicled flaps reported no flap losses at 18 months⁶³. A prospective study identified three factors that predicted failure of immediate expander-implant reconstruction followed by radiotherapy⁶⁴.

The interaction also runs from reconstruction to radiation. An immediate reconstruction compromised the radiation plan in 52% of patients in one analysis, most in left-sided cancers⁶⁵.

Patient factors carry their own risk. Smoking, obesity, hypertension and age over 65 were independent risk factors for complications of expander-implant reconstruction⁶⁶. After skin-sparing mastectomy with an immediate implant, implants were lost in 32% of obese smokers and 27% of women with larger breasts⁶⁷. Breast size, previous irradiation and repeated implants were independent risk factors for expander infection⁶⁸. Acellular dermal matrix added seroma and reconstructive failure in some series^69,70, and gave a low complication rate in selected single-stage reconstructions in another⁷¹.

Skin-sparing mastectomy has now been followed long enough to judge. Local recurrence was 5.5% among 565 cancers in one series⁷², 4.5% at a median of 73 months in another⁷³, and 6.2% in a third, where most recurrences were palpable skin-flap masses⁷⁴. An early series of 50 patients had none⁷⁵. In locally advanced disease, local recurrence was 4% in a prospective cohort and 2.6% in a retrospective one^76,77. Against modified radical mastectomy, local recurrence at 101 months was 10.4% after skin-sparing, 11.7% after nipple-sparing and 11.5% after conventional mastectomy⁷⁸.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy adds the question of occult nipple involvement. One review put occult nipple malignancy at 11.5%, more likely within 2 cm of the nipple, and nipple recurrence at 0.9%⁷⁹. A systematic review of 3,331 total skin-sparing mastectomies found locoregional recurrence of 2.8% where follow-up reached two years, and some nipple necrosis in 9.1%⁸⁰. At one European centre, 1,001 nipple-sparing mastectomies with nipple radiotherapy produced no recurrences in the nipple⁸¹. Early single-centre experience and reviews reached similar conclusions, and patients reported little nipple sensation afterwards^82,83,84.

Reconstruction should not delay treatment. Among low-income women with late-stage disease, an interval of 60 days or more between diagnosis and first treatment was associated with worse overall and breast cancer-specific survival⁸⁵.

7 · Functional morbidity and surgical de-escalation

Every de-escalation in this chapter was made for a reason, and the reason is in this section. If a trial reports non-inferior cancer outcomes and does not measure function, it has answered half the question it was asked.

Lymphoedema is the dominant morbidity. In a systematic review of 72 studies the pooled incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer was 16.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 13.6% to 20.2%⁸⁶. That figure pools all 72 studies. Restricted to the 30 prospective cohorts the estimate rose to 21.4%, with an interval of 14.9% to 29.8%. That restricted estimate is what supports the authors' own headline that more than one in five women who survive breast cancer develop arm lymphoedema. The two are cuts of one review rather than competing numbers. The framing used elsewhere in this book is the prospective-cohort cut Lymphedema and shoulder dysfunction. The estimate also depended heavily on how lymphoedema was defined and measured, reaching 28.2% in studies using more than one diagnostic method. Incidence after axillary dissection was about 19.9% against about 5.6% after sentinel node biopsy.

Randomised data give the same contrast within a single trial. In ALMANAC, 1031 women were randomised to sentinel node biopsy or standard axillary treatment, and at 12 months the relative risk of lymphoedema was 0.37, with absolute rates of 5% and 13%⁸⁷. Sensory loss showed the same relative risk, at 11% against 31%. Arm functioning and quality of life scores were better throughout the first year. At 18 months, substantial arm swelling was reported by 14% after standard treatment and 7% after sentinel biopsy⁸⁸.

The other trials agree. In B-32, an arm volume difference of 10% or more at 36 months occurred in 14% after dissection and 8% after sentinel biopsy alone⁸⁹. Patient-reported arm symptoms were worse after dissection, and mostly resolved over time⁹⁰. The SNAC trial and a Danish prospective cohort found less arm morbidity with sentinel-based management^91,92. In Z0011, adverse surgical effects were reported in 70% after dissection and 25% after sentinel biopsy alone⁹³. Arm oedema is not only an axillary complication. In B-04 it was recorded at least once in 39.1% of women treated by total mastectomy alone⁹⁴.

Substituting radiation for dissection reduces but does not abolish the problem. AMAROS reported lymphoedema at five years in 24.5% after dissection and 11.9% after axillary radiotherapy³⁸.

8 · Can surgery be omitted after exceptional response

This is the last surgical de-escalation and it is not yet established. The logic is the same as elsewhere in Part VIII. If neoadjuvant therapy has eradicated the tumour, the operation removes nothing.

The best available evidence is a single-arm phase 2 trial. Fifty patients with triple-negative or HER2-positive disease had a residual imaging lesion smaller than 2 cm after neoadjuvant therapy⁹⁵. Each underwent image-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy of the tumour bed with a minimum of 12 cores. No residual invasive or in situ disease was found in 31 patients, which is 62% with a 95% confidence interval of 47.2% to 75.4%. Those 31 patients had radiotherapy and no breast surgery, and at a median follow-up of 26.4 months none had an ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence.

Four limitations should travel with that result. The denominator for the recurrence finding is 31 patients. The follow-up is short relative to the recurrence risk in these subtypes. Selection was narrow, covering unicentric disease with a small residual lesion in two chemosensitive subtypes. And the result rests on a specific biopsy protocol rather than on the idea of biopsy.

Answering it requires a randomised comparison with an explicit non-inferiority margin, in a population where the event rate is low. The design problem that creates is developed in Designing de-escalation trials and the non-inferiority margin problem, and the conditions under which the neoadjuvant setting can support such a design are in Response-adapted and de-escalation designs.

References

All 95 references

1. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002 347:1233-1241. PMID 12393820
2. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002 347:1227-1232. PMID 12393819
3. Arriagada R, Lê MG, Rochard F, Contesso G. Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data. Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 1996 14:1558-64. PMID 8622072
4. Blichert-Toft M, Nielsen M, Düring M, et al. Long-term results of breast conserving surgery vs. mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of the Danish randomized DBCG-82TM protocol. Acta Oncol 2008 47:672-81. PMID 18465335
5. Litière S, Werutsky G, Fentiman IS, et al. Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I-II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2012 13:412-9. PMID 22373563
6. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005 366:2087-106. PMID 16360786
7. Agarwal S, Pappas L, Neumayer L, Kokeny K, Agarwal J. Effect of breast conservation therapy vs mastectomy on disease-specific survival for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 2014 149:267-74. PMID 24429935
8. Hwang ES, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, Fowble B, Clarke CA. Survival after lumpectomy and mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: the effect of age and hormone receptor status. Cancer 2013 119:1402-11. PMID 23359049
9. Hartmann-Johnsen OJ, Kåresen R, Schlichting E, Nygård JF. Survival is Better After Breast Conserving Therapy than Mastectomy for Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Registry-Based Follow-up Study of Norwegian Women Primary Operated Between 1998 and 2008. Ann Surg Oncol 2015 22:3836-45. PMID 25743325
10. Chatterjee A, Pyfer B, Czerniecki B, Rosenkranz K, Tchou J, Fisher C. Early postoperative outcomes in lumpectomy versus simple mastectomy. J Surg Res 2015 198:143-8. PMID 26070497
11. Kroman N, Holtveg H, Wohlfahrt J, et al. Effect of breast-conserving therapy versus radical mastectomy on prognosis for young women with breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004 100:688-93. PMID 14770422
12. Fourquet A, Campana F, Zafrani B, et al. Prognostic factors of breast recurrence in the conservative management of early breast cancer: a 25-year follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989 17:719-25. PMID 2777661
13. Zhou P, Gautam S, Recht A. Factors affecting outcome for young women with early stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007 101:51-7. PMID 16821084
14. Komoike Y, Akiyama F, Iino Y, et al. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving treatment for early breast cancer: risk factors and impact on distant metastases. Cancer 2006 106:35-41. PMID 16333848
15. Golshan M, Miron A, Nixon AJ, et al. The prevalence of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in young women with breast cancer undergoing breast-conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2006 192:58-62. PMID 16769276
16. Bedrosian I, Hu CY, Chang GJ. Population-based study of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and survival outcomes of breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010 102:401-9. PMID 20185801
17. Jatoi I, Parsons HM. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and its association with reduced mortality: evidence for selection bias. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014 148:389-96. PMID 25301088
18. Portschy PR, Kuntz KM, Tuttle TM. Survival outcomes after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a decision analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014 106. PMID 25031308
19. Fayanju OM, Stoll CR, Fowler S, Colditz GA, Margenthaler JA. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy after unilateral breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2014 260:1000-10. PMID 24950272
20. Recht A. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: caveat emptor. J Clin Oncol 2009 27:1347-9. PMID 19224834
21. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014 21:704-716. PMID 24515565
22. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014 32:1507-15. PMID 24516019
23. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2016 34:4040-4046. PMID 27528719
24. Rosenberger LH, Mamtani A, Fuzesi S, et al. Early adoption of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: initial experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Ann Surg Oncol 2016 23:3239-3246. PMID 27411549
25. Axelsson CK, Mouridsen HT, Zedeler K. Axillary dissection of level I and II lymph nodes is important in breast cancer classification. The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Eur J Cancer 1992 28A:1415-8. PMID 1515262
26. Kiricuta CI, Tausch J. A mathematical model of axillary lymph node involvement based on 1446 complete axillary dissections in patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer 1992 69:2496-501. PMID 1568171
27. Bland KI, Scott-Conner CE, Menck H, Winchester DP. Axillary dissection in breast-conserving surgery for stage I and II breast cancer: a National Cancer Data Base study of patterns of omission and implications for survival. J Am Coll Surg 1999 188:586-95; discussion 595-6. PMID 10359351
28. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010 11:927-933. PMID 20863759
29. Krag DN, Julian TB, Harlow SP, et al. NSABP-32: Phase III, randomized trial comparing axillary resection with sentinal lymph node dissection: a description of the trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2004 11:208S-10S. PMID 15023753
30. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003 349:546-53. PMID 12904519
31. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy as a staging procedure in breast cancer: update of a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 2006 7:983-90. PMID 17138219
32. Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017 318:918-926. PMID 28898379
33. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2011 305:569-75. PMID 21304082
34. Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg 2010 252:426-32; discussion 432-3. PMID 20739842
35. Giuliano AE, Ballman K, McCall L, et al. Locoregional Recurrence After Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection With or Without Axillary Dissection in Patients With Sentinel Lymph Node Metastases: Long-term Follow-up From the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (Alliance) ACOSOG Z0011 Randomized Trial. Ann Surg 2016 264:413-20. PMID 27513155
36. Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2013 14:297-305. PMID 23491275
37. Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2014 15:1303-1310. PMID 25439688
38. Bartels SAL, Donker M, Poncet C, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. J Clin Oncol 2023 41:2159-2165. PMID 36383926
39. Sávolt Á, Péley G, Polgár C, et al. Eight-year follow up result of the OTOASOR trial: The Optimal Treatment Of the Axilla - Surgery Or Radiotherapy after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer: A randomized, single centre, phase III, non-inferiority trial. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017 43:672-679. PMID 28139362
40. de Boniface J, Filtenborg Tvedskov T, Ryden L, et al. Omitting axillary dissection in breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases. N Engl J Med 2024 390:1163-1175. PMID 38598571
41. Gentilini OD, Botteri E, Sangalli C, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs no axillary surgery in patients with small breast cancer and negative results on ultrasonography of axillary lymph nodes: the SOUND randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2023 9:1557-1564. PMID 37733364
42. Giuliano AE, Hawes D, Ballman KV, et al. Association of occult metastases in sentinel lymph nodes and bone marrow with survival among women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. JAMA 2011 306:385-93. PMID 21791687
43. Rocha RD, Girardi AR, Pinto RR, de Freitas VA. Axillary ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration in preoperative staging of axillary lymph nodes in patients with invasive breast cancer. Radiol Bras 2015 48:345-52. PMID 26811550
44. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA 2013 310:1455-1461. PMID 24101169
45. Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2013 14:609-618. PMID 23683750
46. Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: the SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol 2015 33:258-64. PMID 25452445
47. Boughey JC, Ballman KV, Le-Petross HT, et al. Identification and Resection of Clipped Node Decreases the False-negative Rate of Sentinel Lymph Node Surgery in Patients Presenting With Node-positive Breast Cancer (T0-T4, N1-N2) Who Receive Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Results From ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg 2016 263:802-7. PMID 26649589
48. Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Improved Axillary Evaluation Following Neoadjuvant Therapy for Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer Using Selective Evaluation of Clipped Nodes: Implementation of Targeted Axillary Dissection. J Clin Oncol 2016 34:1072-8. PMID 26811528
49. Mamounas EP, Bandos H, White JR, et al. Omitting regional nodal irradiation after response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2025 392:2113-2124. PMID 40466065
50. Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Buccimazza I, Sarfati IM. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2010 17:1375-91. PMID 20140531
51. Anderson BO, Masetti R, Silverstein MJ. Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol 2005 6:145-57. PMID 15737831
52. Huemer GM, Schrenk P, Moser F, Wagner E, Wayand W. Oncoplastic techniques allow breast-conserving treatment in centrally located breast cancers. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007 120:390-398. PMID 17632339
53. Kaur N, Petit JY, Rietjens M, et al. Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005 12:539-45. PMID 15889210
54. Ahmed S, Snelling A, Bains M, Whitworth IH. Breast reconstruction. BMJ 2005 330:943-8. PMID 15845976
55. Edlich RF, Winters KL, Faulkner BC, Bill TJ, Lin KY. Advances in breast reconstruction after mastectomy. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2005 15:197-207. PMID 15777171
56. Pennington DG. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: current state of the art. ANZ J Surg 2005 75:454-8. PMID 15943736
57. Chang DW. Breast Reconstruction with Microvascular MS-TRAM and DIEP Flaps. Arch Plast Surg 2012 39:3-10. PMID 22783484
58. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, et al. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2018 153:891-899. PMID 29926096
59. Jagsi R, Momoh AO, Qi J, et al. Impact of radiotherapy on complications and patient-reported outcomes after breast reconstruction. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018 110:157-165. PMID 28954300
60. Berry T, Brooks S, Sydow N, et al. Complication rates of radiation on tissue expander and autologous tissue breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2010 17 Suppl 3:202-10. PMID 20853034
61. Tran NV, Chang DW, Gupta A, Kroll SS, Robb GL. Comparison of immediate and delayed free TRAM flap breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001 108:78-82. PMID 11420508
62. Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009 124:395-408. PMID 19644254
63. Mehta VK, Goffinet D. Postmastectomy radiation therapy after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Breast J 2004 10:118-22. PMID 15009038
64. Cowen D, Gross E, Rouannet P, et al. Immediate post-mastectomy breast reconstruction followed by radiotherapy: risk factors for complications. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010 121:627-34. PMID 20424909
65. Motwani SB, Strom EA, Schechter NR, et al. The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the technical delivery of postmastectomy radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006 66:76-82. PMID 16765534
66. McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Riedel E, et al. Predicting complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction: an outcomes analysis based on preoperative clinical risk. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008 121:1886-1892. PMID 18520873
67. Woerdeman LA, Hage JJ, Hofland MM, Rutgers EJ. A prospective assessment of surgical risk factors in 400 cases of skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with implants to establish selection criteria. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007 119:455-63. PMID 17230076
68. Francis SH, Ruberg RL, Stevenson KB, et al. Independent risk factors for infection in tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009 124:1790-1796. PMID 19952635
69. Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010 125:1606-1614. PMID 20517083
70. Liu AS, Kao HK, Reish RG, Hergrueter CA, May JW, Guo L. Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011 127:1755-1762. PMID 21228744
71. Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B, Medford-Davis L, Hertl C, Austen WG. Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011 128:1170-1178. PMID 22094736
72. Carlson GW, Styblo TM, Lyles RH, et al. The use of skin sparing mastectomy in the treatment of breast cancer: The Emory experience. Surg Oncol 2003 12:265-9. PMID 14998566
73. Medina-Franco H, Vasconez LO, Fix RJ, et al. Factors associated with local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg 2002 235:814-9. PMID 12035037
74. Newman LA, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, et al. Presentation, treatment, and outcome of local recurrence afterskin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 1998 5:620-6. PMID 9831111
75. Toth BA, Forley BG, Calabria R. Retrospective study of the skin-sparing mastectomy in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999 104:77-84. PMID 10597677
76. Foster RD, Esserman LJ, Anthony JP, Hwang ES, Do H. Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study for the treatment of advanced stages of breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2002 9:462-6. PMID 12052757
77. Downes KJ, Glatt BS, Kanchwala SK, et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction is an acceptable treatment option for patients with high-risk breast carcinoma. Cancer 2005 103:906-13. PMID 15651068
78. Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, Kundt G, Reimer T. The oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction: an extended follow-up study. Ann Surg 2009 249:461-8. PMID 19247035
79. Mallon P, Feron JG, Couturaud B, et al. The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013 131:969-984. PMID 23629079
80. Piper M, Peled AW, Foster RD, Moore DH, Esserman LJ. Total skin-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications. Ann Plast Surg 2013 70:435-7. PMID 23486127
81. Petit JY, Veronesi U, Orecchia R, et al. Nipple sparing mastectomy with nipple areola intraoperative radiotherapy: one thousand and one cases of a five years experience at the European institute of oncology of Milan (EIO). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009 117:333-8. PMID 19152026
82. Garcia-Etienne CA, Cody Iii HS, Disa JJ, Cordeiro P, Sacchini V. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: initial experience at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and a comprehensive review of literature. Breast J 2009 15:440-9. PMID 19496781
83. Chung AP, Sacchini V. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: where are we now?. Surg Oncol 2008 17:261-6. PMID 18456492
84. Yueh JH, Houlihan MJ, Slavin SA, Lee BT, Pories SE, Morris DJ. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: evaluation of patient satisfaction, aesthetic results, and sensation. Ann Plast Surg 2009 62:586-90. PMID 19387167
85. McLaughlin JM, Anderson RT, Ferketich AK, Seiber EE, Balkrishnan R, Paskett ED. Effect on survival of longer intervals between confirmed diagnosis and treatment initiation among low-income women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012 30:4493-500. PMID 23169521
86. DiSipio T, Rye S, Newman B, Hayes S. Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013 14:500-515. PMID 23540561
87. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006 98:599-609. PMID 16670385
88. Fleissig A, Fallowfield LJ, Langridge CI, et al. Post-operative arm morbidity and quality of life. Results of the ALMANAC randomised trial comparing sentinel node biopsy with standard axillary treatment in the management of patients with early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006 95:279-93. PMID 16163445
89. Ashikaga T, Krag DN, Land SR, et al. Morbidity results from the NSABP B-32 trial comparing sentinel lymph node dissection versus axillary dissection. J Surg Oncol 2010 102:111-8. PMID 20648579
90. Land SR, Kopec JA, Julian TB, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in sentinel node-negative adjuvant breast cancer patients receiving sentinel-node biopsy or axillary dissection: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project phase III protocol B-32. J Clin Oncol 2010 28:3929-36. PMID 20679600
91. Gill G. Sentinel-lymph-node-based management or routine axillary clearance? One-year outcomes of sentinel node biopsy versus axillary clearance (SNAC): a randomized controlled surgical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2009 16:266-75. PMID 19050973
92. Husted Madsen A, Haugaard K, Soerensen J, et al. Arm morbidity following sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection: a study from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Breast 2008 17:138-47. PMID 17928226
93. Lucci A, McCall LM, Beitsch PD, et al. Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0011. J Clin Oncol 2007 25:3657-63. PMID 17485711
94. Deutsch M, Land S, Begovic M, Sharif S. The incidence of arm edema in women with breast cancer randomized on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project study B-04 to radical mastectomy versus total mastectomy and radiotherapy versus total mastectomy alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008 70:1020-4. PMID 18029105
95. Kuerer HM, Smith BD, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Eliminating breast surgery for invasive breast cancer in exceptional responders to neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2022 23:1517-1524. PMID 36306810