Correction to: Breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy-a systematic review on surgical outcomes

Correction to: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 10.1007/s10549-017-4598-5

In the original publication of the article, Table 1 was published incorrectly. The corrected Table 1 is given in this erratum. The original article has been corrected.

Table 1.

Margin status and additional therapies

Study	Study type	Inclusion period	Comparison	BCS after NACT (vs primary BCS)	Lobular carcinoma (%)	Definition positive margin	Positive margins (%)	Additional boost (%)	Re-excision (%)	Secondary mastectomy (%)	pCR (%)	OCEBM evidence
Assersohn (1999) [24]	Randomized controlled trial	1990–1995	NACT 4x plus adjuvant 4x vs 8x adjuvant chemotherapy	98 vs 86	NR	inked margin close < 1 mm	40% vs 36%	NR	0% vs 0%	0% vs 0%	NR	3
Boughey (2006) [25]	Prospective cohort (RCT data)	1998–2005	NACT vs adjuvant chemotherapy	162 (vs 101)	NR	≤ 2 mm	NR	NR	12.3% vs 13.9%	7.4% vs 9.9%	NR	3
Waljee (2008) [26]	RSCC	2002–2006	NACT vs adjuvant chemotherapy	65 (vs 211)	NR	NR	NR	NR	31.3% vs 58.8% (p = 0.001)	14.1% vs 16.7% (p = 0.001)	NR	4
Komenaka (2011) [27]	RSCC	2002–2009	NACT vs adjuvant chemotherapy	39 (vs 68)	NR	Inked margin close < 1 mm	23% vs 46% (close or positive) (p = 0.04)	NR	18% vs 41% (p = 0.01)	2.6% vs 8.8%	NR	4
Tiezzi (2008) [31]	RSCC	1990–2003	NACT vs no NACT	88 (vs 191)	NR	≤ 1 mm	19.3% vs 13.1%	NR	0% vs 0%	0% vs 0%	NR	4
Christy (2009) [29]	RSCC	2002–2007	NACT vs no NACT	31 (vs 62)	NR	Positive NR close<1mm	10% vs 32% (p < 0.01)	NR	3.2% vs 17.7% (p < 0.01)	3.2% vs 21.0% (p < 0.01 )	NR	4
Karanlik (2015) [28]	RSCC	2008–2011	NACT vs no NACT	80 (vs 116)	NR	< 5 mm	5% vs15.5%* (p = 0.02)	NR	3.8% vs 7.8% (p = 0.02)	1.3% vs 7.8% (p = 0.02)	NR	4
Volders (2016) [33]	RSCC	2012–2013	NACT vs no NACT	626 (vs 9275)	11.3% vs 9.0%	Inked margin	27.3% vs 16.4% (p < 0.001)	NR	4.0% vs 2.3% (p < 0.001)	5.1% vs 3.0% (p < 0.001)	15%	4
Sadetzki (2005) [34]	RSCC	1995–2001		100	9%	< 5 mm invasive < 10 mn DCIS	NR	NR	10%	21%	NR	4
Fukutomi (2006) [35]	RSCC	NR		113	NR	NR	24.7%	NR	2nd procedures 11.5%		NR	4
Straver (2010) [36]	RSCC	2000–2007		135	15.6%	≤ 2 mm	24%	15.6%	1.5%	6.7%	NR	4
van Riet (2010) [47]	RSCC	2003–2008		47	6.4%	Inked margin	6.4%	2.1%		4.3%	40.4%	4
Gobardhan (2012) [38]	RSCC	2009–2010		85	6%	Inked margin	8.2%	4.8%	0%	3.5%	31%	4
Mazouni (2013) [39]	RSCC	2002–2010	BCS vs OPBS	259; 214 vs 45	6.1%vs 4.4%	NR	14.1% vs 15.6%	NR	9% vs 2%	18% vs 24%	24.3% vs 22.2%	4
Donker (2013) [40]	RSCC	2007–2010	ROLL vs seed localization	154; 83 vs 71	7% vs 4%	Inked margin	13% vs 13%	6.0% vs 4.2%	1% vs 4%	6% vs 4%	30% vs 38%	4
Gerber (2014) [41]	Multicenter RCT	2007–2010	NACT ECDB vs NACT ECD	502	NR	NR	26.5%	NR	2nd procedures 26.5%		NR	3
Krygh (2014) [30]	RSCC	2005–2012	NACT vs no NACT	83 vs 1252	NR	< 5 mm < 2 mm (after Oct 2009)	NR	NR	8.8% vs 10.3%	NR	NR	4
Ramos (2014) [42]	Prospective single center cohort	2008–2012		58	5.2%	< 2 mm	12.1%	0 (0%)	6.9%	5.2%	31%	4
Amabile (2015) [32]	RSCC	2009–2013	NACT vs no NACT	44 vs 85	2.3% vs 21.2%	Positive close < 1 mm	27.3% vs 29.4% positive or close	NR	2nd procedures 27.3% vs 29.3%		28.1%	4
Truin (2016) [43]	Retrospective national database	2008–2012	ILC VS IDC	1539; 113 vs 1426	100% vs 0%	NR	33.6% vs 8.6%	NR	7.1% vs 3.9%	26.5% vs 4.7%	NR	4
Rubio (2016) [44]	Single center cohort	2008–2012	IOUS vs WL	214; 145 vs 69	8.3% vs 2.9%	Inked margin	3.4% vs 4.3%	NR	8.9% vs 2.9%	0.7% vs 5.8%	22.7% vs 34.7%	4
Chauhan (2016) [45]	Prospective single center cohort	2012–2014	BCS vs OPBS™	100; 43 vs 57	2% vs 2%	Inked margin	8% vs 2%	NR	2% vs 0	5% vs 2%	NR	4

NR not reported, NACT neoadjuvant chemotherapy, ILC invasive lobular carcinoma, IDC invasive ductal carcinoma, IOUS intra operative ultrasound, WL wire guided lumpectomy, BCS breast conserving surgery, OPBS oncoplastic breast surgery, RSCC retrospective single center cohort