TABLE 1.
Study | Year | Country | Carcinoma type | BCS | Age range (y) |
n | Reexcision ratea | LOE | Study type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arora et al.24 | 2007 | USA | ADH, DCIS | Lumpectomy | 42–87 | 44 | 55.0 % (24) | 1 | Retrospective cohort |
Aziz et al.5 | 2006 | Canada | IC, DCIS | Lumpectomy | 55b | 1,172 | 13.0 % (152) | 1 | Retrospective cohort |
Cabioglu et al.14 | 2007 | USA | IC, DCIS | Wide local excision, segmental mastectom |
27–95 | 261 | 44.0% (116) | 1 | Retrospective cohort |
Camp et al.15 (personal communication) | 2005 | USA | IC, DCIS | Lumpectomy | 26–78 | 78 | 33.3 % (26) | 1 | Retrospective cohort |
Huston et al.25 | 2006 | USA | DCIS, LCIS, IDC, ILC |
Lumpectomy | 30–91 | 171 | 29.2 % (50) | 2 | Retrospective cohort |
Landercasper et al.26 | 2010 | USA | Breast cancer | Lumpectomy | – | 568 | 19.0 % (108) | 1 | Retrospective cohort hospital report |
Loibl et al.16 | 2006 | Germany | ILC, IDC | Lumpectomy | 26–78 | 248 | 27.0 % (67) | 1 | Retrospective cohort RCT–GEPARDUO |
McCahill et al.27 | 2010 | USA | DCIS, IDC, ILC | Partial mastectom | – | 712 | 13.0 % (95) | 2 | Retrospective cohort |
Menes et al.28 | 2005 | USA | DCIS, ILC, IDC | Lumpectomy | 27–87 | 459 | 49.9 % (229) | 1 | Retrospective cohort Prospective database |
Miller et al.29 | 2004 | USA | DCIS, ILC, IDC | BCS | 38–64 | 143 | 18.2 % (26) | 1 | Retrospective cohort |
Moorthy et al.30 | 2004 | UK | IDC, ILC | Lumpectomy, wide local excision, quadrantectomy |
47–73 | 505 | 27.1 % (137) | 1 | Prospective cohort |
Mullenix et al.31 | 2004 | USA | IDC, ILC | BCS | 48–73 | 150 | 51.0 % (90) | 1 | Retrospective cohort, prospective database |
Ooi et al.32 | 2003 | Australia | DCIS, ILC, IDC, IC, medullary |
BCS | 28–80 | 742 | 3.9 % (29) | 2 | Retrospective cohort |
O’Sullivan et al.33 | 2007 | USA | IDC, DCIS, ILC | Lumpectomy | 20–91 | 2,770 | 59.6 % (1,651) | 1 | Retrospective cohort, prospective database |
Perez34 | 2003 | USA | ILC, IDC | Quadrantectomy, wide local excision, local excision |
– | 1,347 | 52.3 % (704) | 1 | Retrospective cohort |
Ramanah et al.35 | 2008 | France | ILC, IDC | Lumpectomy, wide local excision |
44–68 | 206 | 41.0 % (84) | 1 | Retrospective cohort |
Sanchez et al.36 | 2010 | USA | IDC, ILC, DCIS, atypia |
BCS | 22–88 | 351 | 34.0% (118) | 2 | Retrospective cohort |
van den Broek et al.37 | 2007 | Netherlands | ILC | BCS | – | 416 | 14.4 % (60) | 2 | Retrospective cohort |
Vicini et al.38 | 2001 | USA | DCIS | Excisional biopsy | – | 146 | 64.0 % (95) | 2 | Retrospective cohort |
Results | 351b | 35 % (±3 %)c |
BCS breast conservation surgery, LOE level of evidence (SORT), ADH atypical ductal hyperplasia, IC invasive carcinoma, DCIS ductal carcinoma-in-situ, LCIS lobular carcinoma-in-situ, IDC invasive ductal carcinoma, ILC invasive lobular carcinoma
After first BCS
Sample median
Pooled estimates