Controversies in Surgical
Approach to Breast Cancer
Suebwong Chuthapisith MD, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery
Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital , Mahidol University, THAILAND
Controversy 1 : Detecting lesion in dense breast
Controversy 2 : How to deal with positive SLNB?
Controversy 3 :Use of IORT following BCS
Controversies in breast cancer: surgeons’ concern
Controversy 1 : Detecting lesion in dense breast
Controversy 2 : How to deal with positive SLNB?
Controversy 3 :Use of IORT following BCS
Controversies in breast cancer: surgeons’ concern
In screening and detecting of breast cancer,
mammography is a standard and is recommended
(annually) for women age > 40 yrs
Lee et al. J Am Coll Radiol 2010;7:18.
However, detecting small cancer with mammography alone may
not be adequate in women with dense breast composition.
D1
Fatty
D2
Fibroglandular
D3
Heteroge-
nously
D4
Extremely
BIRADS ACR; 5th
Edition: 2013
In the Western women, 70-75% have D1/D2
Percentage breast
density
Relative risk
5-24% 1.79
25-49% 2.11
50-74% 2.92
> 75% 4.64
Mc Cormack VA. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006:15:1159.
• Density: masking effect
– Masking effect of breast density leads to an
increased percentage of interval breast cancer
– Dense breast may make a woman more likely to
be diagnosed with an interval cancer
Breast density and breast cancer risk
Vacek and Geller. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004:13:715.
Bae MS. Radiology 2014;356:227.
• Density as an independent risk factor
– Density refers to the amount of epithelial and
stromal elements of the breast
– The greater amount of epithelial tissue, the
greater chance of breast cancer
– Fourfold increase in the risk of breast cancer in
women with dense breast
Breast density and breast cancer risk
Microscopic difference between dense and
non-dense breast
Breast density in Thai women
Siriraj Experience: Breast densities: 14,770 women
Number %
Fatty breast 287 2.0
Fibrograndular dense 2,357 16.0
Heterogenously dense 10,537 71.3
Extremely dense 1,589 10.7
Total 14,770 100
Korphrapong P et al. Acta Rad 2014;55:903.
Age (yr) Fatty (%)
Fibrograndular
dense (%)
Heterogenously
dense (%)
Extremely
dense (%)
<40 4 (0.2) 90 (6.6) 96 (70.9) 300 (22.1)
40-49 37 (0.6) 681(10.2) 4,998 (75.1) 941(14.1)
50-59 106 (2) 1,067 (20.4) 3,754 (71.7) 309 (5.9)
60-69 95 (7.4) 419 (32.8) 725 (56.8) 38 (2.9)
>70 45 (18.4) 100 (40.8) 99 (40.4) 1 (0.4)
Total 287 (2.0) 2,357 (15.9) 10,537 (71.3) 1,589 (10.8)
Siriraj Experience: 14,770 women by age group
Korphrapong P et al. Acta Rad 2014;55:903.
• US State of legislation regarding breast density
notification started in Connecticut in 2009
Require notification to patients regarding their breast
density and informing them that they may benefit
from supplemental screening tests
Notification Law (year) Bill Introduced Insurance: cover
additional testing
2009: Connecticut
2011: Texas
2012: California, Virginia
2013: Alabama, Maryland,
New York
2014: Arizona, Hawaii,
Minnesota, Nevada,
New Jersey, North
Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Tennesse
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Michigan
Ohio
South Carolina
Washington
Connecticut
Indiana
Illinois
New Jersey
Potential supplemental tests
Whole breast
ultrasound
Automated
whole breast
ultrasound
Digital breast
tomosynthesis
Contrast-
enhanced
mammography
MRI
PEM and BSGI
• Hand-held US (HHUS) and automated US
(ABUS)
• Improve detection of breast cancer, in
particular in non-fatty breast density, range
from 0.3 to 6.8 cancers per 1000 exam
• However, increase rate of biopsy and detect
more non-cancerous lesions
Whole breast ultrasound
Korphrapong P et al. Acta Rad 2014;55:903.
Findings Screening BC_F/U Diagnose
MMG - mass 22% 26% 40%
MMG - microcal 37% 23% 10%
MMG - mass with microcal 19% 19% 30%
Occult lesions (ultrasound
detected)
22% 31% 19%
Breast cancer screening:
Siriraj-Thanyarak experience 2001-2005
69,672 examinations
1,405 breast cancer lesions from 1,268 patients
Angsusinha T et al.
115 cancers from 14,483 women with non-fatty breast
CANCER
(n=115)
Sensitivity (%)
MM / MM+US
CDR per1,000
MM / MM+US
PPV (%)
MM / MM+US
Age group
<40 100 /100 1.4 / 1.4 14.3 / 5.1
40-49 69.6 / 84.8 5.6 / 6.9 29.1 / 14.3
50-59 72.2 / 95.5 6.6 / 8.6 36.4 / 24.6
60-69 88.2 / 94.1 13.5 / 14.4 51.7 / 38.1
>70 83.3 / 100 25 / 30.0 83.3 / 60
Total 74.8 / 91.3 6.5 / 7.9 33.9 / 19.6
Korphrapong P et al. Acta Rad 2014;55:903.
Improved 1.4
per 1000
Decreased
PPV
Mammography is not enough in
detecting small lesions in the
women with dense breast, so
consider supplemental tests
Whole breast
ultrasound
Automated
whole breast
ultrasound
Digital breast
tomosynthesis
Contrast-
enhanced
mammography
Controversy 1 : Detecting lesion in dense breast
Controversy 2 : How to deal with positive SLNB?
Controversy 3 :Use of IORT following BCS
Controversies in breast cancer: surgeon’ s concerns
• Nodal status has been designated as the most
important prognostic factors
• Nodal status influences adjuvant therapy and
treatment outcome
• Sentinel lymph node : the first node or group of node
draining in cancer
• Sentinel lymph node biopsy : is the standard of care in
early breast cancer management
ITC : less than 2 mm or < 200 cells
Macrometastasis : greater than 2mm.Micrometastasis : 0.2-2 mm
• Isolated tumor cells
(ITC) is pathological
N0.
• Treatment is as node
negative.
Micrometastasis : 0.2-2 mm
Boer M et al. N Engl J Med 2009;361:653.
Boer M et al. N Engl J Med 2009;361:653.
N=2707
pNmi was inferior to pN0. Therefore, AD should be considered.
Montagna E et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;118:385.
pNmi was comparable to pN0.
Therefore, AD might be an overtreatment.
Langer I et al.. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:3366.
931 women with clinically node negative
Positive SLNB : micrometastasis
Both BCS and mastectomy (10%) included
Both randomly to AD or no AD
5 yrs OS : 97.9 % for AD and 98% for no AD (p = 0.35)
5 yrs DFS : 87.3 % for AD and 88.4 % for no AD (p = 0.48)
Golimberti V et al. Lancet Oncol 2013;:297-305.
Isolated tumor cells, and even metastases up to 2 mm
(micrometastases) in a single sentinel node, were not
considered to constitute an indication for axillary dissection
regardless of the type of breast surgery carried out.
Goldhirsch A et al. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1736.
Axillary dissection
vs
No further surgery
Macrometastasis : >2mm
ACOSOG Z0011
Giuliano AE et al. JAMA 2011;305:569.
Continue from ACOSOG Z0010
891 sentinel LN positive (only 1-2 nodes)
115 Cancer Center in the US
All had T1-T2
Undergoing BCS with post-op RT
Giuliano AE et al. JAMA 2011;305:569.
Giuliano AE et al. JAMA 2011;305:569.
Can axillary RT replace axillary dissection in positive axillary
LN following SLNB?
Straver M E et al. JCO 2010;28:731-737
AMAROS Trial
2001 to April 2010
4827 patients
35 centers in Europe
Donker et al. Lancet Oncol 2014;1303-10.
Donker et al. Lancet Oncol 2014;1303-10.
Donker et al. Lancet Oncol 2014;1303-10.
Donker et al. Lancet Oncol 2014;1303-10.
Messages from ACOSOG Z0011
and AMAROS trial
Some patients with early breast cancer who had positive
sentinel lymph node biopsy may be avoided from axillary
dissection, in particular patients who undergone breast
conserving surgery
However, those patients who undergone mastectomy (60% in
Siriraj) are still in controversy.
Controversy 1 : Detecting lesion in dense breast
Controversy 2 : How to deal with positive SLNB?
Controversy 3 : Use of IORT following BCS
Controversies in breast cancer: surgeons’ concern
• Breast conserving
therapy (BCT) is the
standard of
treatment for early
breast cancer
• BCT consists of
breast conserving
surgery (BCS) and
whole breast
radiation
• Lumpectomy alone
without RT showed
high recurrent rate
APBI techniques:APBI techniques:
Interstitial brachytherapy Balloon catheter brachytherapy
Skowronek
J Contemp Brachy 2012;4(3):152-164 http://www.mammosite.com
IORT techniques
Low energy 50 Kv
Intrabeam
Electron
Mobetron
IORT : local recur = 3.3 %, 95% CI = 2.3-5.11
WBRT : local recur = 1.3%, 95%CI = 0.7-2.5
Difference =2.0%
IORT : local recur = 4.4 %, 95% CI = 2.7-6.1
WBRT : local recur = 0.4 %, 95%CI = 0.0-1.0
No difference in mortality
Subsequent analysis identified factors
associated with LR in IORT group
Subsequent analysis identified factors
associated with LR in IORT group
On muliti-variated analysis, factors associated with LR were
Factor Hazard ratio 95% CI
Size > 2 cm 2.24 1.03-4.87
Node positive > 4 2.61 0.91-7.50
Poorly diff 2.18 1.00-4.79
Triple negative 2.4 0.94-6.1
The logical conclusion is that
intraoperative radiation therapy with
electrons should be restricted to suitable
patients, once characteristics defining
suitability have been defined.
The logical conclusion is that
intraoperative radiation therapy with
electrons should be restricted to suitable
patients, once characteristics defining
suitability have been defined.
Boost (9 Gy) Single dose (21 Gy)
Invasive breast cancer and age
less than 50 year
Invasive ductal carcinoma and
favorable histology
or Age ≥ 55 year
Invasive breast cancer and tumor
size > 2 cm from imaging
Tumor ≤ 2 cm from imaging or
previous surgery
or Single malignant lesion
Invasive breast cancer and
angiolymphatic invasion evidenced
in core needle biopsy
Estrogen receptor positive
No angiolymphatic invasion or
extensive intraductal component
from previous core biopsy
Node negative
1. Wide excision done.
2. Mobilize breast tissue at least 2 cm around
the cavity and do purse-string suture.
3. Move Mobetron in and do docking.
Characteristics Boost group (N=23) Single group (N=79) Overall (N=102)
Age (yr) : mean 51.2 (33-78) 64.8 (54-90) 61.7 (33-90)
Tumor size (cm) :
mean
1.6 (0.5-4.0) 1.3 (0.3-3.2) 1.4 (0.3-4.0)
Histology
- Invasive ductal
CA
21 (100%) 72 (91.0%) 93 (91.1%)
- Mucinous CA 0 2 (2.5%) 2 (2.0%)
- Invasive papillary
CA
0 5 (6.5%) 5 (4.9%)
ER positive 21 (91.3%) 79 (100%) 100 (98%)
Nodal status
- N0 15 (65.3%) 76(96.2 %) 91 (89.2%)
- N1 7 (30.4%) 3 (3.8 %) 10 (9.8%)
- N2 1 (4.3%) 0 1 (1.0%)
IORT: Result from Siriraj Hospital
Characteristics Boost group (N=23) Single group (N=79) Overall (N=102)
Age (yr) : mean 51.2 (33-78) 64.8 (54-90) 61.7 (33-90)
Tumor size (cm) :
mean
1.6 (0.5-4.0) 1.3 (0.3-3.2) 1.4 (0.3-4.0)
Histology
- Invasive ductal
CA
21 (100%) 72 (91.0%) 93 (91.1%)
- Mucinous CA 0 2 (2.5%) 2 (2.0%)
- Invasive papillary
CA
0 5 (6.5%) 5 (4.9%)
ER positive 21 (91.3%) 79 (100%) 100 (98%)
Nodal status
- N0 15 (65.3%) 76(96.2 %) 91 (89.2%)
- N1 7 (30.4%) 3 (3.8 %) 10 (9.8%)
- N2 1 (4.3%) 0 1 (1.0%)
IORT: Result from Siriraj Hospital
Characteristics Boost group
(N=23)
Single group (N=79) Overall (N=102)
Median follow up
time (days)
1258.5 (401-1523) 634.43 (100-1458) 946.45 (100-1523)
AXLD 10 (43.5%) 0 10 (9.8%)
Op time (mins) 125.9 (72-235) 126.4 (80-194) 126.3 (80-235)
Positive margin 0 2 (4.5%) 2 (3%)
Ipsilat recurrence 1 (4.3%) 1 (1.3%)(axillary) 2 (1.9%)
Contralat recurrence 1 (4.3%) 2 (2.5%) 3 (2.9%)
Systemic recurrence 2 (8.7%) 0 2 (1.9%)
BCA related death 2 (8.7%) 0 2 (1.9%)
Non-BCA death 0 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.0%)
Total save of ERT
procedures
115 1975 2090
IORT: Result from Siriraj Hospital
Controversy 3
IORT following breast conserving surgery has shown higher
ipsilateral recurrence than conventional whole breast
irradiation
However, in some selected patients, the non-inferior result might
be demonstrated.
Controversies in Surgical Approach to Breast Cancer

Controversies in Surgical Approach to Breast Cancer

  • 1.
    Controversies in Surgical Approachto Breast Cancer Suebwong Chuthapisith MD, PhD Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital , Mahidol University, THAILAND
  • 2.
    Controversy 1 :Detecting lesion in dense breast Controversy 2 : How to deal with positive SLNB? Controversy 3 :Use of IORT following BCS Controversies in breast cancer: surgeons’ concern
  • 3.
    Controversy 1 :Detecting lesion in dense breast Controversy 2 : How to deal with positive SLNB? Controversy 3 :Use of IORT following BCS Controversies in breast cancer: surgeons’ concern
  • 4.
    In screening anddetecting of breast cancer, mammography is a standard and is recommended (annually) for women age > 40 yrs Lee et al. J Am Coll Radiol 2010;7:18. However, detecting small cancer with mammography alone may not be adequate in women with dense breast composition.
  • 5.
  • 6.
    Percentage breast density Relative risk 5-24%1.79 25-49% 2.11 50-74% 2.92 > 75% 4.64 Mc Cormack VA. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006:15:1159.
  • 7.
    • Density: maskingeffect – Masking effect of breast density leads to an increased percentage of interval breast cancer – Dense breast may make a woman more likely to be diagnosed with an interval cancer Breast density and breast cancer risk Vacek and Geller. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004:13:715. Bae MS. Radiology 2014;356:227.
  • 8.
    • Density asan independent risk factor – Density refers to the amount of epithelial and stromal elements of the breast – The greater amount of epithelial tissue, the greater chance of breast cancer – Fourfold increase in the risk of breast cancer in women with dense breast Breast density and breast cancer risk
  • 9.
    Microscopic difference betweendense and non-dense breast
  • 10.
  • 11.
    Siriraj Experience: Breastdensities: 14,770 women Number % Fatty breast 287 2.0 Fibrograndular dense 2,357 16.0 Heterogenously dense 10,537 71.3 Extremely dense 1,589 10.7 Total 14,770 100 Korphrapong P et al. Acta Rad 2014;55:903.
  • 12.
    Age (yr) Fatty(%) Fibrograndular dense (%) Heterogenously dense (%) Extremely dense (%) <40 4 (0.2) 90 (6.6) 96 (70.9) 300 (22.1) 40-49 37 (0.6) 681(10.2) 4,998 (75.1) 941(14.1) 50-59 106 (2) 1,067 (20.4) 3,754 (71.7) 309 (5.9) 60-69 95 (7.4) 419 (32.8) 725 (56.8) 38 (2.9) >70 45 (18.4) 100 (40.8) 99 (40.4) 1 (0.4) Total 287 (2.0) 2,357 (15.9) 10,537 (71.3) 1,589 (10.8) Siriraj Experience: 14,770 women by age group Korphrapong P et al. Acta Rad 2014;55:903.
  • 13.
    • US Stateof legislation regarding breast density notification started in Connecticut in 2009 Require notification to patients regarding their breast density and informing them that they may benefit from supplemental screening tests
  • 15.
    Notification Law (year)Bill Introduced Insurance: cover additional testing 2009: Connecticut 2011: Texas 2012: California, Virginia 2013: Alabama, Maryland, New York 2014: Arizona, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennesse Colorado Delaware Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Michigan Ohio South Carolina Washington Connecticut Indiana Illinois New Jersey
  • 16.
    Potential supplemental tests Wholebreast ultrasound Automated whole breast ultrasound Digital breast tomosynthesis Contrast- enhanced mammography MRI PEM and BSGI
  • 17.
    • Hand-held US(HHUS) and automated US (ABUS) • Improve detection of breast cancer, in particular in non-fatty breast density, range from 0.3 to 6.8 cancers per 1000 exam • However, increase rate of biopsy and detect more non-cancerous lesions Whole breast ultrasound Korphrapong P et al. Acta Rad 2014;55:903.
  • 18.
    Findings Screening BC_F/UDiagnose MMG - mass 22% 26% 40% MMG - microcal 37% 23% 10% MMG - mass with microcal 19% 19% 30% Occult lesions (ultrasound detected) 22% 31% 19% Breast cancer screening: Siriraj-Thanyarak experience 2001-2005 69,672 examinations 1,405 breast cancer lesions from 1,268 patients Angsusinha T et al.
  • 19.
    115 cancers from14,483 women with non-fatty breast CANCER (n=115) Sensitivity (%) MM / MM+US CDR per1,000 MM / MM+US PPV (%) MM / MM+US Age group <40 100 /100 1.4 / 1.4 14.3 / 5.1 40-49 69.6 / 84.8 5.6 / 6.9 29.1 / 14.3 50-59 72.2 / 95.5 6.6 / 8.6 36.4 / 24.6 60-69 88.2 / 94.1 13.5 / 14.4 51.7 / 38.1 >70 83.3 / 100 25 / 30.0 83.3 / 60 Total 74.8 / 91.3 6.5 / 7.9 33.9 / 19.6 Korphrapong P et al. Acta Rad 2014;55:903. Improved 1.4 per 1000 Decreased PPV
  • 20.
    Mammography is notenough in detecting small lesions in the women with dense breast, so consider supplemental tests Whole breast ultrasound Automated whole breast ultrasound Digital breast tomosynthesis Contrast- enhanced mammography
  • 21.
    Controversy 1 :Detecting lesion in dense breast Controversy 2 : How to deal with positive SLNB? Controversy 3 :Use of IORT following BCS Controversies in breast cancer: surgeon’ s concerns
  • 22.
    • Nodal statushas been designated as the most important prognostic factors • Nodal status influences adjuvant therapy and treatment outcome • Sentinel lymph node : the first node or group of node draining in cancer • Sentinel lymph node biopsy : is the standard of care in early breast cancer management
  • 26.
    ITC : lessthan 2 mm or < 200 cells Macrometastasis : greater than 2mm.Micrometastasis : 0.2-2 mm
  • 27.
    • Isolated tumorcells (ITC) is pathological N0. • Treatment is as node negative.
  • 28.
  • 29.
    Boer M etal. N Engl J Med 2009;361:653.
  • 30.
    Boer M etal. N Engl J Med 2009;361:653. N=2707 pNmi was inferior to pN0. Therefore, AD should be considered.
  • 31.
    Montagna E etal. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;118:385. pNmi was comparable to pN0. Therefore, AD might be an overtreatment. Langer I et al.. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:3366.
  • 32.
    931 women withclinically node negative Positive SLNB : micrometastasis Both BCS and mastectomy (10%) included Both randomly to AD or no AD 5 yrs OS : 97.9 % for AD and 98% for no AD (p = 0.35) 5 yrs DFS : 87.3 % for AD and 88.4 % for no AD (p = 0.48) Golimberti V et al. Lancet Oncol 2013;:297-305.
  • 33.
    Isolated tumor cells,and even metastases up to 2 mm (micrometastases) in a single sentinel node, were not considered to constitute an indication for axillary dissection regardless of the type of breast surgery carried out. Goldhirsch A et al. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1736.
  • 34.
    Axillary dissection vs No furthersurgery Macrometastasis : >2mm
  • 35.
    ACOSOG Z0011 Giuliano AEet al. JAMA 2011;305:569. Continue from ACOSOG Z0010 891 sentinel LN positive (only 1-2 nodes) 115 Cancer Center in the US All had T1-T2 Undergoing BCS with post-op RT
  • 36.
    Giuliano AE etal. JAMA 2011;305:569.
  • 37.
    Giuliano AE etal. JAMA 2011;305:569.
  • 38.
    Can axillary RTreplace axillary dissection in positive axillary LN following SLNB? Straver M E et al. JCO 2010;28:731-737 AMAROS Trial 2001 to April 2010 4827 patients 35 centers in Europe
  • 39.
    Donker et al.Lancet Oncol 2014;1303-10.
  • 40.
    Donker et al.Lancet Oncol 2014;1303-10.
  • 41.
    Donker et al.Lancet Oncol 2014;1303-10.
  • 42.
    Donker et al.Lancet Oncol 2014;1303-10.
  • 43.
    Messages from ACOSOGZ0011 and AMAROS trial Some patients with early breast cancer who had positive sentinel lymph node biopsy may be avoided from axillary dissection, in particular patients who undergone breast conserving surgery However, those patients who undergone mastectomy (60% in Siriraj) are still in controversy.
  • 44.
    Controversy 1 :Detecting lesion in dense breast Controversy 2 : How to deal with positive SLNB? Controversy 3 : Use of IORT following BCS Controversies in breast cancer: surgeons’ concern
  • 45.
    • Breast conserving therapy(BCT) is the standard of treatment for early breast cancer • BCT consists of breast conserving surgery (BCS) and whole breast radiation • Lumpectomy alone without RT showed high recurrent rate
  • 47.
    APBI techniques:APBI techniques: Interstitialbrachytherapy Balloon catheter brachytherapy Skowronek J Contemp Brachy 2012;4(3):152-164 http://www.mammosite.com
  • 48.
    IORT techniques Low energy50 Kv Intrabeam Electron Mobetron
  • 49.
    IORT : localrecur = 3.3 %, 95% CI = 2.3-5.11 WBRT : local recur = 1.3%, 95%CI = 0.7-2.5 Difference =2.0%
  • 53.
    IORT : localrecur = 4.4 %, 95% CI = 2.7-6.1 WBRT : local recur = 0.4 %, 95%CI = 0.0-1.0
  • 54.
  • 55.
    Subsequent analysis identifiedfactors associated with LR in IORT group Subsequent analysis identified factors associated with LR in IORT group On muliti-variated analysis, factors associated with LR were Factor Hazard ratio 95% CI Size > 2 cm 2.24 1.03-4.87 Node positive > 4 2.61 0.91-7.50 Poorly diff 2.18 1.00-4.79 Triple negative 2.4 0.94-6.1
  • 56.
    The logical conclusionis that intraoperative radiation therapy with electrons should be restricted to suitable patients, once characteristics defining suitability have been defined. The logical conclusion is that intraoperative radiation therapy with electrons should be restricted to suitable patients, once characteristics defining suitability have been defined.
  • 57.
    Boost (9 Gy)Single dose (21 Gy) Invasive breast cancer and age less than 50 year Invasive ductal carcinoma and favorable histology or Age ≥ 55 year Invasive breast cancer and tumor size > 2 cm from imaging Tumor ≤ 2 cm from imaging or previous surgery or Single malignant lesion Invasive breast cancer and angiolymphatic invasion evidenced in core needle biopsy Estrogen receptor positive No angiolymphatic invasion or extensive intraductal component from previous core biopsy Node negative
  • 58.
  • 59.
    2. Mobilize breasttissue at least 2 cm around the cavity and do purse-string suture.
  • 60.
    3. Move Mobetronin and do docking.
  • 61.
    Characteristics Boost group(N=23) Single group (N=79) Overall (N=102) Age (yr) : mean 51.2 (33-78) 64.8 (54-90) 61.7 (33-90) Tumor size (cm) : mean 1.6 (0.5-4.0) 1.3 (0.3-3.2) 1.4 (0.3-4.0) Histology - Invasive ductal CA 21 (100%) 72 (91.0%) 93 (91.1%) - Mucinous CA 0 2 (2.5%) 2 (2.0%) - Invasive papillary CA 0 5 (6.5%) 5 (4.9%) ER positive 21 (91.3%) 79 (100%) 100 (98%) Nodal status - N0 15 (65.3%) 76(96.2 %) 91 (89.2%) - N1 7 (30.4%) 3 (3.8 %) 10 (9.8%) - N2 1 (4.3%) 0 1 (1.0%) IORT: Result from Siriraj Hospital
  • 62.
    Characteristics Boost group(N=23) Single group (N=79) Overall (N=102) Age (yr) : mean 51.2 (33-78) 64.8 (54-90) 61.7 (33-90) Tumor size (cm) : mean 1.6 (0.5-4.0) 1.3 (0.3-3.2) 1.4 (0.3-4.0) Histology - Invasive ductal CA 21 (100%) 72 (91.0%) 93 (91.1%) - Mucinous CA 0 2 (2.5%) 2 (2.0%) - Invasive papillary CA 0 5 (6.5%) 5 (4.9%) ER positive 21 (91.3%) 79 (100%) 100 (98%) Nodal status - N0 15 (65.3%) 76(96.2 %) 91 (89.2%) - N1 7 (30.4%) 3 (3.8 %) 10 (9.8%) - N2 1 (4.3%) 0 1 (1.0%) IORT: Result from Siriraj Hospital
  • 63.
    Characteristics Boost group (N=23) Singlegroup (N=79) Overall (N=102) Median follow up time (days) 1258.5 (401-1523) 634.43 (100-1458) 946.45 (100-1523) AXLD 10 (43.5%) 0 10 (9.8%) Op time (mins) 125.9 (72-235) 126.4 (80-194) 126.3 (80-235) Positive margin 0 2 (4.5%) 2 (3%) Ipsilat recurrence 1 (4.3%) 1 (1.3%)(axillary) 2 (1.9%) Contralat recurrence 1 (4.3%) 2 (2.5%) 3 (2.9%) Systemic recurrence 2 (8.7%) 0 2 (1.9%) BCA related death 2 (8.7%) 0 2 (1.9%) Non-BCA death 0 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.0%) Total save of ERT procedures 115 1975 2090 IORT: Result from Siriraj Hospital
  • 64.
    Controversy 3 IORT followingbreast conserving surgery has shown higher ipsilateral recurrence than conventional whole breast irradiation However, in some selected patients, the non-inferior result might be demonstrated.