Abstract
Introduction
Breast cancer affects at least 1 in 10 women in the UK, but most present with primary operable disease, which has an 80% 5-year survival rate overall.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ? What are the effects of treatments for primary operable breast cancer? What are the effects of interventions in locally advanced breast cancer (stage 3B)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 83 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: adding chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil and/or anthracycline and/or taxane-based regimens), or hormonal treatment to radiotherapy; adjuvant treatments (aromatase inhibitors, adjuvant anthracycline regimens, tamoxifen); axillary clearance; axillary dissection plus sentinel node dissection; axillary radiotherapy; axillary sampling; combined chemotherapy plus tamoxifen; chemotherapy plus monoclonal antibody (trastuzumab); extensive surgery; high-dose chemotherapy; hormonal treatment; less extensive mastectomy; less than whole-breast radiotherapy plus breast-conserving surgery; multimodal treatment; ovarian ablation; primary chemotherapy; prolonged adjuvant combination chemotherapy; radiotherapy (after breast-conserving surgery, after mastectomy, plus tamoxifen after breast-conserving surgery, to the internal mammary chain, and to the ipsilateral supraclavicular fossa, and total nodal radiotherapy); sentinel node biopsy; and standard chemotherapy regimens.
Key Points
Breast cancer affects at least 1 in 10 women in the UK, but most present with primary operable disease, which has an 80% 5-year survival rate overall.
In women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), radiotherapy reduces local recurrence and invasive carcinoma after breast-conserving surgery. The role of tamoxifen added to radiotherapy for DCIS remains unclear because of conflicting results.
In women with primary operable breast cancer, survival may be increased by full surgical excision, tamoxifen, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, ovarian ablation, or trastuzumab (in women who over-express HER2/neu oncogene).
Incomplete excision may increase the risk of local recurrence, but less-extensive mastectomy that excises all local disease is as effective as radical mastectomy at prolonging survival, with better cosmetic results.
Axillary clearance (removal of all axillary lymph nodes) achieves local disease control, but has not been shown to increase survival, and can cause arm lymphoedema.
Sentinel lymph node biopsy or 4-node sampling may adequately stage the axilla with less morbidity compared with axillary clearance.
Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces the risk of recurrence and death in women with oestrogen-positive tumours.
Primary chemotherapy may facilitate successful breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy. Adjuvant combination chemotherapy improves survival compared with no chemotherapy, with greatest benefit likely with anthracycline-based regimens at standard doses for 4 to 6 months.
Radiotherapy decreases recurrence and mortality after breast-conserving surgery. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy for women who are node-positive or at high risk of recurrence decreases recurrence and mortality.
Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors improve disease-free survival compared with tamoxifen, but their effect on overall survival is unclear. Adjuvant taxane-based regimens may improve disease-free survival over standard anthracycline-based therapy.
In women with locally advanced breast cancer, radiotherapy may be as effective as surgery or tamoxifen at increasing survival and local disease control.
Adding tamoxifen or ovarian ablation to radiotherapy increases survival compared with radiotherapy alone, but adding chemotherapy may not reduce recurrence or mortality compared with radiotherapy alone.
We don't know if chemotherapy alone improves survival in women with locally advanced breast cancer as we found few trials.
Clinical context
About this condition
Definition
This review examines the effects of treatment for non-metastatic, primary breast cancer. Ductal carcinoma in situ is a non-invasive tumour characterised by the presence of malignant cells in the breast ducts, but with no evidence that they breach the basement membrane and invade into periductal connective tissues. Invasive breast cancer occurs when cancer cells spread beyond the basement membrane, which covers the underlying connective tissue in the breast. This tissue is rich in blood vessels and lymphatic channels capable of carrying cancer cells beyond the breast. Invasive breast cancer can be separated into three main groups: early invasive breast cancer, locally advanced breast cancer, and metastatic breast cancer (see review on breast cancer [metastatic]). Operable breast cancer is disease apparently restricted to the breast and/or local lymph nodes in the absence of metastatic disease, and can be removed surgically. Although women do not have overt metastases at the time of staging, they remain at risk of local recurrence, and of metastatic spread. They can be divided into those with tumours greater than 4 to 5 cm, or multifocal cancers, or widespread malignant micro-calcifications that are usually treated by mastectomy, and those with tumours less than 4 to 5 cm that can be treated by breast-conserving surgery. Locally advanced breast cancer is defined according to the TNM staging system of the UICC as stage 3B (includes T4 a–d; N2 disease, but absence of metastases [see table 1 ]). It is a disease presentation with clinical or histopathological evidence of skin and/or chest-wall involvement, and/or axillary nodes matted together by tumour extension. Metastatic breast cancer is presented in a separate review (see review on breast cancer [metastatic]).
Table 1.
Staging of breast cancer (see text).
| TNM | Stage | |||
| Non-invasive | Tis | N0 | M0 | 0 |
| Early invasive | T1−2 | N0−1 | M0 | 1, 2A or B |
| T3 | N0 | M0 | 2B | |
| Advanced | ||||
| Locally advanced | Tany | N2 | M0 | 3A |
| T3 | N1−2 | M0 | 3A | |
| T4 | N0−3 | M0 | 3B | |
| Tany | N3 | M0 | 3B | |
| Metastatic | Tany | Nany | M1 | 4 |
Incidence/ Prevalence
Breast cancer affects 1/10 to 1/11 women in the UK and causes about 21,000 deaths a year. Prevalence is about 5 times higher, with over 100,000 women in the UK living with breast cancer at any one time. Of the 36,000 new cases of breast cancer each year in England and Wales, most will present with primary operable disease.
Aetiology/ Risk factors
The risk of breast cancer increases with age. Risk factors include an early age at menarche, nulliparity, older age at menopause, older age at birth of first child, family history, atypical hyperplasia, excess alcohol intake, radiation exposure to developing breast tissue, oral contraceptive use, postmenopausal HRT, and postmenopausal obesity. Risk in different countries varies fivefold. The cause of breast cancer in most women is unknown. About 5% of breast cancers can be attributed to mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, but the contribution to inherited breast cancer of other genes, including Chk2, ATM, p53, and PTEN and other lower risk alleles, is currently less well established.
Prognosis
Non-metastatic carcinoma of the breast is potentially curable. The risk of relapse depends on various clinicopathological features, including axillary node involvement, tumour grade, and tumour size, with biological markers including oestrogen receptor and HER2 receptor status prognostically important in the first 5 years following diagnosis. For women with operable disease, survival is stage and treatment dependent with 80% alive 5 years after diagnosis and treatment (adjuvant treatment is given to most women after surgery). The risk of recurrence is highest during the first 3 years, but the risk remains even 15 to 20 years after surgery. Recurrence at 10 years, according to one large systematic review, is 60% to 70% in node-positive women, and 25% to 30% in node-negative women. The prognosis for disease-free survival at 5 years is worse for stage 3B (33%) than that for stage 3A (71%). Overall survival at 5 years is 44% for stage 3B and 84% for stage 3A. Poor survival and high rates of local recurrence characterise locally advanced breast cancer.
Aims of intervention
To improve survival; to prevent local or regional node recurrence; to obtain prognostic information on the type and extent of tumour and the status of the axillary lymph nodes; to optimise cosmetic results and minimise psychosocial impact; to minimise adverse effects of treatment; and to maximise quality of life.
Outcomes
Mortality: overall survival. Treatment success: rates of local and regional recurrence, rates of mastectomy after breast-conserving treatment, rates of development of metastases, cosmetic outcomes, and quality of life. Adverse effects of treatment, including upper-limb lymphoedema.
Methods
Clinical Evidence search and appraisal April 2009. The following databases were used to identify studies for this systematic review: Medline 1966 to April 2009, Embase 1980 to April 2009, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials 2009, Issue 1 (1966 to date of issue). An additional search within the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) was carried out for the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). We also searched for retractions of studies included in the review. Abstracts of the studies retrieved from the initial search were assessed by an information specialist. Selected studies were then sent to the contributor for additional assessment, using predetermined criteria to identify relevant studies. Study design criteria for inclusion in this review were: published systematic reviews of RCTs and RCTs in any language, including unblinded studies and containing more than 20 individuals of whom more than 80% were followed up. There was no minimum length of follow-up required to include studies. We included systematic reviews of RCTs and RCTs where harms of an included intervention were studied applying the same study design criteria for inclusion as we did for benefits. In addition we use a regular surveillance protocol to capture harms alerts from organisations such as the US FDA and the UK MHRA, which are added to the reviews as required. Note: The authors also identified data by personal communication with experts in the field and through hand searches. Abstracts of studies that were considered to be fundamental to clinical practice and new developments were included in the comments sections. Phase 3 randomised published data are included. To aid readability of the numerical data in our reviews, we round many percentages to the nearest whole number. Readers should be aware of this when relating percentages to summary statistics such as relative risks (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs). We have performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions included in this review (see table ). The categorisation of the quality of the evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) reflects the quality of evidence available for our chosen outcomes in our defined populations of interest. These categorisations are not necessarily a reflection of the overall methodological quality of any individual study, because the Clinical Evidence population and outcome of choice may represent only a small subset of the total outcomes reported, and population included, in any individual trial. For further details of how we perform the GRADE evaluation and the scoring system we use, please see our website (www.clinicalevidence.com).
Table 1.
GRADE evaluation of interventions for breast cancer (non-metastatic)
| Important outcomes | Treatment success, mortality, adverse effects | ||||||||
| Number of studies (participants) | Outcome | Comparison | Type of evidence | Quality | Consistency | Directness | Effect size | GRADE | Comment |
| What are the effects of interventions after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ? | |||||||||
| 4 (3925) | Treatment success | Radiotherapy v no radiotherapy | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| 2 (2327) | Treatment success | Tamoxifen plus radiotherapy v radiotherapy plus placebo | 4 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of result. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results |
| 1 (1804) | Mortality | Tamoxifen plus radiotherapy v radiotherapy plus placebo | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| What are the effects of treatments for primary operable breast cancer? | |||||||||
| 1 (5187 | Mortality | Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors v placebo | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 2 (14,068) | Treatment success | Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors v tamoxifen | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 2 (14,068) | Mortality | Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors v tamoxifen | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (9366) | Treatment success | Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors plus tamoxifen v tamoxifen alone | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 47 (18,000) | Treatment success | Adjuvant combination chemotherapy v no chemotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 47 (18,000) | Mortality | Adjuvant combination chemotherapy v no chemotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| not reported (3454) | Treatment success | Different treatment durations compared with each other (prolonged adjuvant combination chemotherapy) | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| not reported (3454) | Mortality | Different treatment durations compared with each other (prolonged adjuvant combination chemotherapy) | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| 3 (4399) | Treatment success | Different doses compared with each other (enhanced-dose regimens of adjuvant combination chemotherapy) | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 3 (4399) | Mortality | Different doses compared with each other (enhanced-dose regimens of adjuvant combination chemotherapy) | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 12 (6719) | Treatment success | Anthracycline regimens v standard CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil) regimens | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 12 (6719) | Mortality | Anthracycline regimens v standard CMF regimens | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 55 (37,000, primarily with oestrogen) | Treatment success | Adjuvant tamoxifen v placebo | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 55 (37,000) | Mortality | Adjuvant tamoxifen v placebo | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (3887) | Treatment success | Durations of treatment compared with each other (adjuvant tamoxifen) | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (3887) | Mortality | Durations of treatment compared with each other (adjuvant tamoxifen) | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (3387) | Treatment success | Trastuzumab v observation (after chemotherapy) | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (3387) | Mortality | Trastuzumab v observation (after chemotherapy) | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 2 (3351) | Treatment success | Trastuzumab v observation (during chemotherapy) | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 2 (3351) | Mortality | Trastuzumab v observation (during chemotherapy) | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 15 (26,277) | Treatment success | Adjuvant taxane-based regimens v anthracycline-based regimens | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 15 (26,277) | Mortality | Adjuvant taxane-based regimens v anthracycline-based regimens | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (4950) | Treatment success | Different adjuvant taxane-based regimens v each other | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| Mortality | Different adjuvant taxane-based regimens v each other | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results | |
| 4 (1296) | Mortality | Radical/total mastectomy v simple mastectomy plus radiotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (666) | Treatment success | Radical or total mastectomy v simple mastectomy plus radiotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 5 (2090) | Mortality | Supraradical, radical, and total mastectomy v each other | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 9 (3107) | Treatment success | Mastectomy v breast conservation with or without radiotherapy | 4 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Moderate | Directness point deducted as unclear how many women in analysis received radiotherapy |
| 9 (at least 4891) | Mortality | Mastectomy v breast conservation with or without radiotherapy | 4 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Moderate | Directness point deducted as unclear how many women in analysis received radiotherapy |
| 1 (705) | Treatment success | Different extents of local excision compared with each other | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 12 (2102) | Treatment success | Ovarian ablation v no ablation | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 12 (2102) | Mortality | Ovarian ablation v no ablation | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 11 (7575) | Treatment success | Breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy v breast-conserving surgery alone | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 11 (7575) | Mortality | Breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy v breast-conserving surgery alone | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 7 (3294) | Mortality | Breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy v mastectomy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (666) | Treatment success | Breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy v breast-conserving surgery plus endocrine therapy | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| 1 (666) | Mortality | Breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy v breast-conserving surgery plus endocrine therapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for assessment of only among-group differences for this outcome (3-armed trial) |
| 4 (2907) | Treatment success | Breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy plus endocrine therapy v breast-conserving surgery plus endocrine therapy only | 4 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting. Directness point deducted for different results with measures of treatment success |
| 3 (2268) | Mortality | Breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy plus endocrine therapy v breast-conserving surgery plus endocrine therapy only | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting |
| 36 (8505 node positive) | Treatment success | Radiotherapy after mastectomy v mastectomy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 36 (8505 node positive) | Mortality | Radiotherapy after mastectomy v mastectomy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 4 (2802) | Treatment success | Primary chemotherapy v adjuvant chemotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 5 (3216) | Mortality | Primary chemotherapy v adjuvant chemotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (466) | Mortality | Axillary clearance v axillary sampling | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 8 (4370) | Treatment success | Axillary clearance v axillary radiotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 8 (4370) | Mortality | Axillary clearance v axillary radiotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (448) | Treatment success | Standard v dose-intensified anthracycline based regimens | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (448) | Mortality | Standard v dose-intensified anthracycline based regimens | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (174) | Treatment success | FAC regimen (fluorouracil, doxorubicin [adriamycin], and cyclophosphamide) v single-agent paclitaxel | 4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (174) | Mortality | FAC regimen (fluorouracil, doxorubicin [adriamycin], and cyclophosphamide) v single-agent paclitaxel | 4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (101) | Treatment success | MPEMi (methotrexate, cisplatin, etoposide, mitomycin C), MPEpiE (methotrexate, cisplatin, epirubicin, etoposide), and MPEpiV (methotrexate, cisplatin, epirubicin, vincristine) regimens v each other | 4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 2 (2515) | Treatment success | Sequencing of anthracycline-based chemotherapy and docetaxel | 4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for incomplete reporting of results and for no long-term results |
| 1 (73) | Treatment success | Intra-arterial v intravenous administration | 4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 3 (1134) | Treatment success | Less than whole-breast radiotherapy v whole breast radiotherapy | 4 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results |
| 2 (426) | Mortality | Less than whole-breast radiotherapy v whole breast radiotherapy | 4 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results |
| 1 (270) | Treatment success | Radiotherapy to the internal mammary chain v no internal mammary chain irradiation | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (270) | Mortality | Radiotherapy to the internal mammary chain v no internal mammary chain irradiation | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (1375) | Treatment success | Radiotherapy v no radiotherapy to the ipsilateral supraclavicular fossa | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 3 (1389) | Treatment success | Sentinel node biopsy plus total axillary dissection v with sentinel node biopsy alone | 4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for incomplete reporting of results and for uncertainty about follow-up |
| 1 (200) | Mortality | Sentinel node biopsy plus total axillary dissection v with sentinel node biopsy alone | 4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for incomplete reporting of results and for uncertainty about follow-up |
| at least 8 RCTs (at least 3858 women) | Mortality | High-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation v conventional chemotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| at least 8 RCTs (at least 3858 women) | Treatment success | High-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation v conventional chemotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 13 (5064) | Adverse effects | High-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation v conventional chemotherapy | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +2 | High | Effect size points added for RR >5 |
| What are the effects of interventions in locally advanced breast cancer (stage 3B)? | |||||||||
| 4 (3599) | Treatment success | Postoperative radiotherapy (in women also receiving postoperative systemic treatment) v no radiotherapy | 4 | −2 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for incomplete reporting of results and for weak methods. Directness point deducted for inclusion of women with different disease severities |
| 4 (3599) | Mortality | Postoperative radiotherapy (in women also receiving postoperative systemic treatment) v no radiotherapy | 4 | −2 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | Quality points deducted for incomplete reporting of results and for weak methods. Directness point deducted for inclusion of women with different disease severities |
| 2 (219) | Treatment success | Surgery alone v radiotherapy alone | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 2 (219) | Mortality | Surgery alone v radiotherapy alone | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results |
| 1 (143) | Mortality | Low-dose radiotherapy v tamoxifen | 4 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results |
| 3 (580) | Treatment success | Systemic treatment plus radiotherapy v radiotherapy | 4 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 0 | Very low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results. Directness point deducted for inclusion of women with less severe disease |
| 3 (580) | Mortality | Systemic treatment plus radiotherapy v radiotherapy | 4 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 0 | Very low | Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Consistency point deducted for conflicting results. Directness point deducted for inclusion of women with less severe disease |
| 1, 2 publications (107) | Treatment success | Multimodal treatment v hormone treatment | 4 | −1 | −1 | 0 | +1 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for sparse data. Consistency point deducted for different results at different end points. Effect size point added for OR 2 to 5 |
| 1 (101) | Mortality | Adjuvant chemotherapy v primary plus adjuvant chemotherapy | 4 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for sparse data |
Type of evidence: 4 = RCT; 2 = Observational Consistency: similarity of results across studies.Directness: generalisability of population or outcomes.Effect size: based on relative risk or odds ratio.
Glossary
- Adjuvant treatment
(also known as postoperative chemotherapy) This usually refers to systemic chemotherapy, hormonal treatment, or both, given to people after removal of a primary tumour (in this case, surgery for early breast cancer), with the aim of killing any remaining micrometastatic tumour cells and thus preventing recurrence.
- Anthracyclines
These are also known as cytotoxic antibiotics, and are used as adjuvant treatment with radiotherapy. Examples of anthracyclines are aclarubicin, daunorubicin, adriamycin (doxorubicin), epirubicin, and idarubicin.
- Axillary clearance
Clearance of level I, II, and usually level III axillary lymph nodes. Level I nodes are lateral to the pectoralis minor muscle, level II nodes are under it, and level III nodes are medial to it at the apex of the axilla.
- Axillary radiotherapy
This usually includes irradiation of the supraclavicular fossa. Irradiation of this area incorporates some underlying lung, which increases the risk of radiation pneumonitis. By increasing the volume of the lung irradiated, compared with chest wall or breast radiotherapy alone, the risk of acute pneumonitis is increased.
- Axillary sampling
Aims to remove the four largest, most easily palpable axillary lymph nodes for histological examination.
- Brachial plexopathy
Damage — usually permanent and often progressive — to the brachial plexus. It may arise from radiotherapy as a delayed or late event. It may also be caused by tumour infiltration.
- Brachytherapy
Delivery of a radiation dose over a short distance either from a low-energy x-ray source, a low-energy electron source, or a radioactive source.
- Breast-conserving surgery
Surgery consisting of lumpectomy (minimal cancer-free margins), wide local excision (wider free margins), or segmental or quadrant resection (usually with wide-free margins).
- CMF (classical)
Chemotherapy regimen containing cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil.
- Combination chemotherapy
Two or more cytotoxic drugs given intravenously every 3 to 4 weeks for 4 to 6 months.
- Disease-free survival
Means being alive with no local or distant recurrence or contralateral disease.
- Early invasive breast cancer
(stage 1 or 2) is M0 with T1 or T2 (tumour diameter 5 cm or less, no involvement of skin or chest wall) and N0 or N1 (mobile axillary nodes); or M0 with T3 (tumour diameter over 5 cm, no skin or chest wall involvement), but only N0.
- FAC
Chemotherapy regimen containing fluorouracil, adriamycin (doxorubicin), and cyclophosphamide.
- High-quality evidence
Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
- Less than whole-breast radiotherapy
The delivery of radiotherapy by either temporary internal placement of a radiation source or by external beam treatment to part of the breast (area of wide local excision after breast-conserving surgery).
- Locally advanced breast cancer
Operable locally advanced breast cancer (stage 3A) is T3 (tumours >5 cm) and N1 (non-matted involved axillary nodes). Locally advanced breast cancer (stage 3B) is M0 with T4 (skin or chest wall infiltration by tumour), N2 (matted axillary nodes)/N3 (internal mammary node involvement) disease, or both, not classified as non-invasive or early invasive breast cancer. Metastatic breast cancer (stage 4) is M1 (any supraclavicular fossa node involvement or distant metastases to bone, lung, liver, etc.) with any combination of tumour and node parameters.
- Low-quality evidence
Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
- Milan regimen
A sequential regimen of single agent anthracycline followed by CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil).
- Moderate-quality evidence
Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
- Modified radical mastectomy
Modified radical mastectomy is a total mastectomy with removal of all axillary nodes from level I medial to the pectoralis minor, level II underneath the pectoralis minor, and up to the apex and including level III nodes medial to the pectoralis minor but below the axillary vein up to the first rib. Traditionally, a modified radical mastectomy included excision of the pectoralis minor, but most surgeons performing a modified radical mastectomy nowadays preserve the pectoralis minor.
- Ovarian ablation
Surgical, medical, or radiation-induced suppression of ovarian function in premenopausal women.
- Overall objective response rate
The proportion of treated people in whom a complete response (disappearance of all known lesions on 2 separate measurements at least 4 weeks apart), or partial response (>50% reduction in the size of lesions) is observed.
- Primary chemotherapy
(also known as neoadjuvant or preoperative chemotherapy) involves the use of chemotherapy to treat breast cancer before locoregional treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, or both) to the breast to downstage large primary cancers that would require mastectomy to improve chances of survival.
- Quadrantectomy
Tumour excised with 2 cm or more of normal surrounding breast tissue and with a segment of breast tissue from the periphery of the breast to the nipple.
- Radical mastectomy
Removal of the breast and pectoralis major and minor muscles and axillary contents.
- Radiotherapy
Part of initial local and regional treatment. In early stage disease, it may be an adjunct to surgery; in locally advanced disease (T4, N2), it may be the sole locoregional treatment. Radiotherapy may be delivered to the breast or postmastectomy chest wall, as well as to the lymphatic areas of the axilla, supraclavicular fossa, or internal mammary node chain.
- Sentinel node biopsy
A procedure whereby the first nodes in the draining lymphatic basin are removed and examined by a pathologist for cancer cells.
- Simple mastectomy
Removal of the breast tissue, usually in association with an ellipse of skin which includes the nipple and areolar complex. Dissection continues down to, but does not usually include, the pectoral fascia. It includes removal of the axillary tail of the breast. Lymph nodes are not usually removed other than by an additional procedure.
- Supraradical mastectomy
Removal of breast, pectoralis major and minor muscles, axillary contents, and internal mammary chain of nodes.
- Systemic therapy
Use of oral or intravenous treatments that affect the whole body.
- Total mastectomy
Surgery to remove the entire breast.
- Total nodal irradiation
Radiotherapy to the regional lymph nodes, including supraclavicular, infraclavicular, axillary nodes, and internal mammary nodes in the upper intercostal spaces.
- UICC
International Union against Cancer.
- Very low-quality evidence
Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.
See review on breast cancer (metastatic).
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication is intended for medical professionals. Categories presented in Clinical Evidence indicate a judgement about the strength of the evidence available to our contributors prior to publication and the relevant importance of benefit and harms. We rely on our contributors to confirm the accuracy of the information presented and to adhere to describe accepted practices. Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this and regular advances in medical research we strongly recommend that readers' independently verify specified treatments and drugs including manufacturers' guidance. Also, the categories do not indicate whether a particular treatment is generally appropriate or whether it is suitable for a particular individual. Ultimately it is the readers' responsibility to make their own professional judgements, so to appropriately advise and treat their patients. To the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ Publishing Group Limited and its editors are not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, products liability or otherwise) whether they be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the application of the information in this publication.
Contributor Information
Justin Stebbing, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Geoff Delaney, Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Professor Alastair Thompson, Department of Surgery and Molecular Oncology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
References
- 1.UICC International Union Against Cancer. TNM classification of malignant tumours, 6th ed. Sobin LH, Wittekind CH, eds. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Office for National Statistics. 2005. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=575&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=374 (last accessed 5 January 2011). [Google Scholar]
- 3.Easton D, Ford D. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA-1 mutation carriers. Am J Hum Genet 1995;56:265–271. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumour size, lymph node status and survival in 24 740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989;63:181–187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hortobagyi GN, Ames FC, Buzdar AU, et al. Management of stage III primary breast cancer with primary chemotherapy, surgery and radiation therapy. Cancer 1988;62:2507–2516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Goodwin A, Parker S, Ghersi D, et al. Post-operative radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2009. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2005. 19821272 [Google Scholar]
- 7.Julien JP, Bijker N, Fentiman IS, et al. Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ; first results of EORTC randomised Phase III trial 10853. Lancet 2000;355:528–533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, EORTC Radiotherapy Group, Bijker, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853 - a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3381−3387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L, et al. Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma-in-situ: analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10853. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2263–2271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Holmberg L, Garmo H, Granstrand B, et al. Absolute risk reductions for local recurrence after postoperative radiotherapy after sector resection for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1247−1252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999;353:1993–2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Allred D, Bryant J, Land S, et al. Estrogen receptor expression as a positive marker of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in the treatment of DCIS: findings from NSABP Protocol B-24 [conference abstract]. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Houghton J, George WD, Cuzick J, et al. Radiotherapy and tamoxifen in women with completely excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:95–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, et al. A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1793–1802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rasmussen BB, Regan MM, Lykkesfeldt AE, et al. Adjuvant letrozole versus tamoxifen according to centrally-assessed ERBB2 status for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: supplementary results from the BIG 1-98 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:23−28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Crivellari D, Sun Z, Coates AS, et al. Letrozole compared with tamoxifen for elderly patients with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: the BIG 1-98 trial. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1972−1979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Baum M, Buzdar A, Cuzick J, et al. Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial efficacy and safety update analyses. Cancer 2003;98:1802–1810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Baum M, Buzdar AU, Cuzick J, et al. Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: first results of the ATAC randomised trial. Lancet 2002;359:2131–2139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Howell A, Cuzick J, Baum M, et al. Results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Lancet 2005;365:60–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) Trialists' Group, Forbes JF, Cuzick J, et al. Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:45−53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Coombes RC, Hall E, Gibson LJ, et al. A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1081–1092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Coombes RC, Kilburn LS, Snowdon CF, et al. Survival and safety of exemestane versus tamoxifen after 2-3 year's tamoxifen treatment (Intergroup Exemestane Study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369:559–570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Howell A. Effect of anastrozole of bone mineral density: 2-years results of the "Arimidex" (anastrozole), tamoxifen, alone or in combination (ATAC) trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;82:S27 [abstract 129]. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Coleman RE, Banks LM, Girgis SI, et al. Skeletal effects of exemestane on bone-mineral density, bone biomarkers, and fracture incidence in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer participating in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES): a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:119–127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Amoroso D, et al. Anastrozole appears to be superior to tamoxifen in women already receiving adjuvant tamoxifen treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;82:S6 [abstract 3]. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998;352:930–942. Search date not reported. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, Clarke M, Coates AS, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen-receptor-poor breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2008;371:29–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bonadonna G, Zambeti M, Valagussa P. Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes. JAMA 1995;273:542–547. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Fisher B, Anderson S, Wickerham DL, et al. Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-22. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:1858–1869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Wood WC, Budman DR, Korzun AH. Dose and dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II, node-positive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1253–1259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.de Azambuja E, Paesmans M, Beauduin M, et al. Long-term benefit of high-dose epirubicin in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: 15-year efficacy results of the Belgian multicentre study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:720−725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gennari A, Sormani MP, Pronzato P, et al. HER2 status and efficacy of adjuvant anthracyclines in early breast cancer: a pooled analysis of randomized trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:14−20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998;351:1451–1467. Search date not reported. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Swedish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Randomised trial of two versus five years of adjuvant tamoxifen for post-menopausal early stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1543–1549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, et al. Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumours. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1529–1542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Stewart HJ, Forrest AP, Everington D, et al. Randomised comparison of 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen with continuous therapy for operable breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1996;74:297–299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Powles TJ, Hickish T, Kanis JA, et al. Effect of tamoxifen on bone mineral density measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in healthy premenopausal and postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:78–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Swain SM. Tamoxifen: the long and short of it. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1510–1512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1659–1672. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Untch M, Gelber RD, Jackisch C, et al. Estimating the magnitude of trastuzumab effects within patient subgroups in the HERA trial. Ann Oncol 2008;19:1090−1096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1673–1684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Hortobagyi GN. Trastuzumab in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1734–1736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.De Laurentiis M, Cancello G, D'Agostino D, et al. Taxane-based combinations as adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:44−53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Jones S, Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy J, et al. Docetaxel with cyclophosphamide is associated with an overall survival benefit compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: 7-year follow-up of US Oncology Research Trial 9735. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1177−1183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Goldstein LJ, O'Neill A, Sparano JA, et al. Concurrent doxorubicin plus docetaxel is not more effective than concurrent doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide in operable breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive axillary nodes: North American Breast Cancer Intergroup Trial E 2197. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4092−4099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1663−1671. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Roche H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M, et al. Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5664–5671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J, et al. Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2302–2313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Effects of radiotherapy and surgery in early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1444–1455. Search date not reported. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Johansen H, Kaae S, Jensen MB, et al. Extended radical mastectomy versus simple mastectomy followed by radiotherapy in primary breast cancer. A fifty-year follow-up to the Copenhagen Breast Cancer randomised study. Acta Oncol 2008;47:633−638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, et al. Twenty-five year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med 2002;347:567–575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Morris AD, Morris RD, Wilson JF, et al. Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy in early stage breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 10 year survival. Cancer J Sci Am 1997;3:6–12. Search date 1995. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Yang SH, Yang KH, Li YP, et al. Breast conservation therapy for stage I or stage II breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Oncol 2008;19:1039−1044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Blichert-Toft M, Nielsen M, During 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;47:672−681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, et al. Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1991;27:1395–1400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Smitt NC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ, et al. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long-term results of breast conservation. Cancer 1995;76:259–267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Wazer DE, DiPetrillo T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic outcome and complication risk after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:356–363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Abner AL, Recht A, Vicini FA, et al. Cosmetic results after surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:331–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Dewar JA, Benhamou S, Benhamou E, et al. Cosmetic results following lumpectomy axillary dissection and radiotherapy for small breast cancers. Radiother Oncol 1988;12:273–280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Rochefordiere A, Abner A, Silver B, et al. Are cosmetic results following conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer dependent on technique? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992;23:925–931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Sneeuw KA, Aaronson N, Yarnold J, et al. Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer 1: comparison of patients' ratings, observers' ratings and objective assessments. Radiother Oncol 1992;25:153–159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Ash DV, Benson EA, Sainsbury JR, et al. Seven year follow-up on 334 patients treated by breast conserving surgery and short course radical postoperative radiotherapy: a report of the Yorkshire Breast Cancer Group. Clin Oncol 1995;7:93–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Lindsey I, Serpell JW, Johnson WR, et al. Cosmesis following complete local excision of breast cancer. Aust N Z J Surg 1997;67:428–432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Touboul E, Belkacemi Y, Lefranc JP, et al. Early breast cancer: influence of type of boost (electrons vs iridium-192 implant) on local control and cosmesis after conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 1995;34:105–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Halyard MY, Grado GL, Schomber PJ, et al. Conservative therapy of breast cancer: the Mayo Clinic experience. Am J Clin Oncol 1996;19:445–450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Group. Ovarian ablation in early breast cancer: overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1996;348:1189–1196. Search date not reported. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;366:2087–2106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Holli K, Hietanen P, Saaristo R, et al. Radiotherapy after segmental resection of breast cancer with favorable prognostic features: 12-year follow-up results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:927−932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Ford HT, Coombes RC, Gazet JC, et al. Long-term follow-up of a randomised trial designed to determine the need for irradiation following conservative surgery for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2006;17:401–408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Fisher B, Bryant J, Dignam JJ, et al. Tamoxifen, radiation therapy, or both for prevention of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy in women with invasive breast cancers of one centimeter or less. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4141–4149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Lee TS, Kilbreath SL, Refshauge KM, et al. Prognosis of the upper limb following surgery and radiation for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;110:19−37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Rutqvist LE, Rose C, Cavallin-Stahl E. A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in breast cancer. Acta Oncol 2003;42:532–545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. A Canadian consensus document. Can Med Assoc J 1998;158(suppl 3):1–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Ragaz J, Olivolto IA, Spinelli J, et al. Locoregional radiation therapy in patients with high-risk breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: 20-year results of the British Columbia randomised trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:116–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Overgaard M, Hansen PS, Overgaard J, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk premenopausal women with breast cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 1997;337:949–955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Hojris I, Overgaard M, Christensen JJ, et al. Morbidity and mortality of ischaemic heart disease in high-risk breast-cancer patients after adjuvant postmastectomy systemic treatment with or without radiotherapy: analysis of DBCG 82b and 82c randomised trials. Radiotherapy Committee of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Lancet 1999;354:1425–1430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Fyles AW, McCready DR, Manchul LA, et al. Tamoxifen with or without breast irradiation in women 50 years of age or older with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:963–970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Berry D, et al; Cancer and Leukemia Group B; Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women 70 years of age or older with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:971–977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Potter R, Gnant M, Kwasny W, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen or anastrozole with or without whole breast irradiation in women with favorable early breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:334−340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Prescott RJ, Kunkler IH, Williams LJ, et al. A randomised controlled trial of postoperative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimum-risk older population. The PRIME trial. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:1−149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Rayan G, Dawson LA, Bezjak A, et al. Prospective comparison of breast pain in patients participating in a randomized trial of breast-conserving surgery and tamoxifen with or without radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:154–161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Winzer KH, Sauer R, Sauerbrei W, et al; German Breast Cancer Study Group. Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery; first results of a randomised clinical trial in patients with low risk of recurrence. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:998–1005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Cuzick J, Stewart H, Peto R, et al. Overview of randomized trials of postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 1987;71:15−29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Ghersi D, Simes J. Draft report of effectiveness of postmastectomy radiotherapy and risk factors for local recurrence in early breast cancer. Report to NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre, Sydney, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 85.Whelan TJ, Julian J, Wright J, et al. Does locoregional radiation therapy improve survival in breast cancer? A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1220−1229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Gebski V, Lagleva M, Keech A, et al. Survival effects of post-mastectomy adjuvant radiation therapy using biologically equivalent doses: a clinical perspective. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:26–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Cuzick J, Stewart H, Rutqvist L, et al. Cause-specific mortality in long term survivors of breast cancer who participated in trials of radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:447–453. Search date not reported. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, Nielsen HM, Overgaard M, et al. Study of failure pattern among high-risk breast cancer patients with or without postmastectomy radiotherapy in addition to adjuvant systemic therapy: long-term results from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82 b and c randomized studies. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2268−2275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Kyndi M, Sorensen FB, Knudsen H. Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and response to postmastectomy radiotherapy in high-risk breast cancer: The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1419−1426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Rutqvist L, Johansson H. Long-term follow-up of the Stockholm randomized trials of postoperative radiation therapy versus adjuvant chemotherapy among 'high risk' pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2006;45:517–527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Killander F, Anderson H, Ryden S, et al. Radiotherapy and tamoxifen after mastectomy in postmenopausal women - 20 year follow-up of the South Sweden Breast Cancer Group randomised trial SSBCG II:I. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:2100−2108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Overgaard M, Jensen MB, Overgaard J, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in high risk postmenopausal breast cancer patients given adjuvant tamoxifen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82c randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353:1641–1648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Mauriac L, Durand M, Avril A, et al. Effects of primary chemotherapy in conservative treatment of breast cancer patients with operable tumours larger than 3 cm: results of a randomised trial in a single centre. Ann Oncol 1991;2:347–354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Scholl SM, Fourquet A, Asselain B, et al. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial. Eur J Cancer 1994;30A:645–652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Powles TJ, Hickish TF, Makris A, et al. Randomized trial of chemoendocrine therapy started before or after surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:547–552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2672–2685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, et al. Pre-operative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:4224–4237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Mauriac L, MacGrogan G, Avril A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm: a unicentre randomized trial with a 124-month median follow-up. Institut Bergonie Bordeaux Groupe Sein (IBBGS). Ann Oncol 1999;10:47–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Broet P, Scholl S, De la Rochrfordiere A, et al. Short and long term effects on survival in breast cancer patients treated by primary chemotherapy: an updated analysis of a randomised trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1999;58:151–156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Makris A, Powles TJ, Ashley SE, et al. A reduction in the requirements for mastectomy in a randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1998;9:1179–1184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Avril A, Faucher A, Bussieres E, et al. Results of 10 years of a randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancers larger than 3 cm. Chirurgie 1998;123:247–256. [In French] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Chetty U, Jack W, Prescott RJ, et al. Management of the axilla in operable breast cancer treated by breast conservation: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Surg 2000;87:163–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Browning C, Redman S, Pillar C, et al. NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre, Sydney 1998. Lymphoedema: prevalence risk factors and management: a review of research. Search date 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 104.Axelsson CK, Mouridzsen HT, Zedeler K. Axillary dissection at level I and II lymph nodes is important in breast cancer classification. Eur J Cancer 1992;28A:1415–1418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.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;69:2496–2501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Steele RJC, Forrest APM, Gibson R, et al. The efficacy of lower axillary sampling in obtaining lymph node status in breast cancer: a controlled randomised trial. Br J Surg 1985;72:368–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Therasse P, Mauriac L, Welnicka-Jaskiewicz M, et al. Final results of a randomized phase III trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with a dose-intensified epirubicin and cyclophosphamide + filgrastim as neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced breast cancer: an EORTC–NCIC–SAKK multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:843–850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, Theriault RL, et al. Prospective evaluation of paclitaxel versus combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3412–3417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Cocconi G, Bisagni G, Ceci G, et al. Three new active cisplatin-containing combinations in the neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced and locally recurrent breast carcinoma: a randomized Phase II trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1999;56:125–132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1456–1466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.D'Orazio AI, O'Shaughnessy J, Seidman AD. Neoadjuvant docetaxel augments the efficacy of preoperative docetaxel/cyclophosphamide in operable breast cancer: first results of NSABP-27. Clin Breast Cancer 2002;2:266–268. [Google Scholar]
- 112.Takatsuka Y, Yayoi E, Kobayashi T, et al. Neoadjuvant intra-arterial chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: a prospective randomised study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1994;24:20–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Webb A, Smith IE, Ahern R. A randomised Phase II trial of pre-operative navelbine/epirubicin (NE) versus navelbine/mitozantrone (NM) versus adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:174. [Google Scholar]
- 114.Hickey BE, Francis D, Lehman MH, et al. Sequencing of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2009. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 115.Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures – Surgical, and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. A systematic review of intraoperative radiotherapy in early stage breast cancer. 2002, ASERNIP-S Report No. 27. Adelaide, South Australia. Search date 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 116.BlueCross BlueShield Association. Accelerated partial breast irradiation as sole radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for early stage breast cancer. Technol Eval Cent Asses Program Exec Summ 2007;22:1−4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Polgar C, Fodor J, Major T, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with partial or whole breast irradiation for low-risk invasive breast carcinoma - 5-year results of a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:694−702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Ribeiro GG Magee B, Swindell R, et al. The Christie Hospital breast conservation trial: an update at 8 years from inception. Clin Oncol 1993;5:278–283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Magee B, Swindell R, Harris M, et al. Prognostic factors for breast recurrence after conservative breast surgery and radiotherapy: results from a randomised trial. Radiother Oncol 1996;39:223–227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Dodwell DJ, Dyker K Brown J, et al. A randomised study of whole-breast vs tumour-bed irradiation after local excision and axillary dissection for early breast cancer. Clin Oncol 2005;17:618–622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Coles CE, Moody AM, Wilson CB, et al. Reduction of radiotherapy-induced late complications of early breast cancer: the role of intensity-modulation radiation therapy and partial breast irradiation. Part II – Radiotherapy strategies to reduce radiation-induced late effects. Clin Oncol 2005;17:98–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Kaija H, Maunu P. Tangential breast irradiation with or without internal mammary chain irradiation: results of a randomised trial. Radiother Oncol 1995;36:172–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Gyenes G, Rutqvist LE, Liedberg A, et al. Long-term cardiac morbidity and mortality in a randomized trial of pre- and postoperative radiation therapy versus surgery alone in primary breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 1998;48:185–190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Handley R. Carcinoma of the breast. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1975;57:59–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Veronesi U, Cascinelli NM, Bufalino R, et al. Risk of internal mammary lymph node metastases and its relevance on prognosis in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg 1983;198:681–684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Veronesi U, Valagussa P. Inefficacy of internal mammary node dissection in breast cancer surgery. Cancer 1981;47:170–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Favourable and unfavourable effects on long-term survival of radiotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2000;355:1757–1770. Search date not reported. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Bates T, Evans RGB. Report of the Independent Review commissioned by The Royal College of Radiologists into brachial plexus neuropathy following radiotherapy for breast cancer. London: Royal College of Radiologists, 1995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.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;349:546–553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Purushotham AD, Upponi S, Klevesath MB, et al. Morbidity after sentinel lymph node biopsy in primary breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4312–4321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.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;25:3657−3663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.King TA, Fey JV, Van Zee KJ, et al. A prospective analysis of the effect of blue-dye volume on sentinel lymph node mapping success and incidence of allergic reaction in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:535–541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7703–7720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:881−888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Kim T, Giuliano AE, Lyman GH. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast carcinoma. Cancer 2006;106:4–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Julian TB, Krag D, Brown A, et al. Preliminary technical results of NSABP B-32, a randomized phase III clinical trial to compare sentinel node resection to conventional axillary dissection in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004;88:S11–S12. [Google Scholar]
- 137.Mansel RE, Goyal A, Necombe RG, et al: Objective assessment of lymphedema, shoulder function and sensory deficit after sentinel node biopsy for invasive breast cancer: ALMANAC trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004;88:S12 [abstract 15]. [Google Scholar]
- 138.Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE. Axillary Lymphatic Mapping Against Nodal Axillary Clearance (ALMANAC) Trialists Group. Clinical relevance of multiple sentinel nodes in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg 2005;92:438–442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Gill G, SNAC Trial Group of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) and NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre. 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;16:266−275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Farquhar C, Marjoribanks J, Basser R, et al. High dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. In: The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2004. [Google Scholar]
- 141.Zander AR, Schmoor C, Kroger N, et al. Randomized trial of high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support versus standard-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes: overall survival after 6 years of follow-up. Ann Oncol 2008;19:1082−1089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Moore HC, Green SJ, Gralow JR, et al. Intensive dose-dense compared with high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk operable breast cancer: Southwest Oncology Group/Intergroup study 9623. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1677−1682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Papaioannou A, Lissaios B, Vasilaros S, et al. Pre- and post-operative chemoendocrine treatment with or without post-operative radiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer 1983;51:1284–1290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Olson JE, Neuberg D, Pandya KJ, et al. The role of radiotherapy in the management of operable locally advanced breast carcinoma: results of a randomised trial by the Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group. Cancer 1997;79:1138–1149. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Perloff M, Lesnick G J, Korzun A, et al. Combination chemotherapy with mastectomy or radiotherapy for stage III breast carcinoma: a Cancer and Leukaemia Group B Study. J Clin Oncol 1988;6:261–269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.De Lena M, Varini M, Zucali R, et al. Multimodal treatment for locally advanced breast cancer. Results of chemotherapy–radiotherapy versus chemotherapy–surgery. Cancer Clin Trials 1981;4:229–236. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Willsher PC, Robertson JF, Armitage NC, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: long term results of a randomised trial comparing primary treatment with tamoxifen or radiotherapy in post-menopausal women. Eur J Surg Oncol 1996;22:34–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Bartelink H, Rubens RD, Van der Schueren E, et al. Hormonal therapy prolongs survival in irradiated locally advanced breast cancer: a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomised Phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:207–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Koning C, Hart G. Long term follow up of a randomised trial on adjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;41:397–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Rodger A, Jack WJL, Hardman PDJ, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: report of a Phase II study and subsequent Phase III trial. Br J Cancer 1992;65:761–765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.Willsher PC, Robertson JF, Chan SY, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: early results of a randomised trial of multimodal therapy versus initial hormone therapy. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:45–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Tan SM, Cheung KL, Willsher PC, et al. Locally advanced primary breast cancer: medium term results of a randomised trial of multimodal therapy versus initial hormone therapy. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:2331–2338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Deo SV, Bhutani M, Shukla NK, et al. Randomized trial comparing neo-adjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in operable locally advanced breast cancer (T4 b N0-2 M0) J Surg Oncol 2003;84:192–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Jones SE, Savin MA, Holmes FA, et al. Phase III trial comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5381–5387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Lee HD, Yoon DS, Koo JY, et al. Breast conserving therapy in stage I & II breast cancer in Korea. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997;44:193–199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]