重新审视接受保乳治疗的浸润性乳腺癌患者的手术切缘--采用 1 毫米负宽度的证据。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Ejso Pub Date : 2024-08-03 DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108573
{"title":"重新审视接受保乳治疗的浸润性乳腺癌患者的手术切缘--采用 1 毫米负宽度的证据。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Clinical trials have demonstrated conclusively the non-inferiority of breast-conserving surgery followed by breast radiation therapy (BCT) compared with mastectomy for the treatment of early-stage invasive breast cancer (BC). The definition of the required surgical margin to ensure adequate removal of the cancer by BCT to obtain an acceptable low local recurrence (LR) rate remains controversial. Meta-analyses published by Houssami et al. in 2010 and 2014 demonstrated significantly lower LR rates for patients with a negative margin compared with those with positive (ink on tumour) or close (defined as ≤1 mm or ≤2 mm) margins. Neither meta-analysis addressed whether ‘no ink on tumour’ was adequate to define a negative margin because of a lack of data. Nevertheless, in 2014, the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) with advice from pathologists reviewed these data together and published guidelines recommending that a margin of ‘no ink on tumour’ was sufficient to define a clear margin in BCT. Subsequently, clinical practice has varied with some national and international bodies endorsing ‘no ink on tumour’, whilst others have recommended a ≥1 mm margin as acceptable margins for BCT. A more recent meta-analysis conducted by Bundred and colleagues in 2022 did have sufficient data to compare ‘no ink on tumour’ and 1 mm and concluded that 1 mm rather than ‘no ink on tumour’, should be used as a minimum negative margin, and recommended that international guidelines be revised. The current review presents a balanced assessment of the evidence relating margin width and local recurrence after BCT. This review concludes that guidelines should consider re-defining a negative margin as ≥1 mm rather than ‘no ink on tumour’ in the context of BCT, recognising there will be variation to tailor therapy for any individual patient situation to ensure optimal patient care.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324006255/pdfft?md5=92ec34a90f0bedafdb678b5c0078c285&pid=1-s2.0-S0748798324006255-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting surgical margins for invasive breast cancer patients treated with breast conservation therapy - Evidence for adopting a 1 mm negative width\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Clinical trials have demonstrated conclusively the non-inferiority of breast-conserving surgery followed by breast radiation therapy (BCT) compared with mastectomy for the treatment of early-stage invasive breast cancer (BC). The definition of the required surgical margin to ensure adequate removal of the cancer by BCT to obtain an acceptable low local recurrence (LR) rate remains controversial. Meta-analyses published by Houssami et al. in 2010 and 2014 demonstrated significantly lower LR rates for patients with a negative margin compared with those with positive (ink on tumour) or close (defined as ≤1 mm or ≤2 mm) margins. Neither meta-analysis addressed whether ‘no ink on tumour’ was adequate to define a negative margin because of a lack of data. Nevertheless, in 2014, the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) with advice from pathologists reviewed these data together and published guidelines recommending that a margin of ‘no ink on tumour’ was sufficient to define a clear margin in BCT. Subsequently, clinical practice has varied with some national and international bodies endorsing ‘no ink on tumour’, whilst others have recommended a ≥1 mm margin as acceptable margins for BCT. A more recent meta-analysis conducted by Bundred and colleagues in 2022 did have sufficient data to compare ‘no ink on tumour’ and 1 mm and concluded that 1 mm rather than ‘no ink on tumour’, should be used as a minimum negative margin, and recommended that international guidelines be revised. The current review presents a balanced assessment of the evidence relating margin width and local recurrence after BCT. This review concludes that guidelines should consider re-defining a negative margin as ≥1 mm rather than ‘no ink on tumour’ in the context of BCT, recognising there will be variation to tailor therapy for any individual patient situation to ensure optimal patient care.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ejso\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324006255/pdfft?md5=92ec34a90f0bedafdb678b5c0078c285&pid=1-s2.0-S0748798324006255-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ejso\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324006255\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324006255","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床试验已确凿证明,在治疗早期浸润性乳腺癌(BC)方面,保乳手术后进行乳腺放射治疗(BCT)与乳房切除术相比并无劣势。如何定义所需的手术切缘,以确保通过 BCT 充分切除癌症,从而获得可接受的低局部复发率(LR),目前仍存在争议。Houssami 等人在 2010 年和 2014 年发表的荟萃分析表明,与边缘阳性(肿瘤上有墨迹)或边缘接近(定义为≤1 毫米或≤2 毫米)的患者相比,边缘阴性患者的局部复发率明显较低。由于缺乏数据,两项荟萃分析均未涉及 "肿瘤上无墨迹 "是否足以定义阴性边缘。尽管如此,2014 年,美国肿瘤外科学会(SSO)和美国放射肿瘤学会(ASTRO)在病理学家的建议下共同回顾了这些数据,并发布了指南,建议 "肿瘤上无墨迹 "的边缘足以定义 BCT 的清晰边缘。随后,临床实践发生了变化,一些国家和国际机构认可 "肿瘤上无墨迹",而另一些机构则建议将≥1 毫米的边缘作为 BCT 的可接受边缘。Bundred 及其同事最近在 2022 年进行的一项荟萃分析确实有足够的数据对 "肿瘤上无墨迹 "和 1 毫米进行比较,得出的结论是,应将 1 毫米而非 "肿瘤上无墨迹 "作为最小负缘,并建议修订国际指南。本综述对与BCT术后边缘宽度和局部复发有关的证据进行了平衡评估。本综述的结论是,在 BCT 方面,指南应考虑将阴性边缘重新定义为≥1 毫米,而不是 "肿瘤上无血迹",同时认识到针对任何患者的个体情况进行定制治疗都会存在差异,以确保为患者提供最佳治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Revisiting surgical margins for invasive breast cancer patients treated with breast conservation therapy - Evidence for adopting a 1 mm negative width

Clinical trials have demonstrated conclusively the non-inferiority of breast-conserving surgery followed by breast radiation therapy (BCT) compared with mastectomy for the treatment of early-stage invasive breast cancer (BC). The definition of the required surgical margin to ensure adequate removal of the cancer by BCT to obtain an acceptable low local recurrence (LR) rate remains controversial. Meta-analyses published by Houssami et al. in 2010 and 2014 demonstrated significantly lower LR rates for patients with a negative margin compared with those with positive (ink on tumour) or close (defined as ≤1 mm or ≤2 mm) margins. Neither meta-analysis addressed whether ‘no ink on tumour’ was adequate to define a negative margin because of a lack of data. Nevertheless, in 2014, the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) with advice from pathologists reviewed these data together and published guidelines recommending that a margin of ‘no ink on tumour’ was sufficient to define a clear margin in BCT. Subsequently, clinical practice has varied with some national and international bodies endorsing ‘no ink on tumour’, whilst others have recommended a ≥1 mm margin as acceptable margins for BCT. A more recent meta-analysis conducted by Bundred and colleagues in 2022 did have sufficient data to compare ‘no ink on tumour’ and 1 mm and concluded that 1 mm rather than ‘no ink on tumour’, should be used as a minimum negative margin, and recommended that international guidelines be revised. The current review presents a balanced assessment of the evidence relating margin width and local recurrence after BCT. This review concludes that guidelines should consider re-defining a negative margin as ≥1 mm rather than ‘no ink on tumour’ in the context of BCT, recognising there will be variation to tailor therapy for any individual patient situation to ensure optimal patient care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ejso
Ejso 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1148
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery. The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Calendar of events IFC: Filler advert_sciencedirect_210x280.pdf Filler advert_pharmapendium_2021_210x280.pdf Filler advert_scopus_2021_210x280.pdf
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1