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

  • José H. Volders
  • Vera L. Negenborn
  • Pauline E. Spronk
  • Nicole M. A. Krekel
  • Linda J. Schoonmade
  • Sybren Meijer
  • Isabel T. Rubio
  • M. Petrousjka van den Tol
Correction
  • 147 Downloads

Correction to: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment  https://doi.org/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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • José H. Volders
    • 1
  • Vera L. Negenborn
    • 2
  • Pauline E. Spronk
    • 3
  • Nicole M. A. Krekel
    • 2
  • Linda J. Schoonmade
    • 4
  • Sybren Meijer
    • 1
  • Isabel T. Rubio
    • 5
  • M. Petrousjka van den Tol
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand SurgeryVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Dutch Institute for Clinical AuditingLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Medical LibraryVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Breast Cancer Surgical Unit, Breast Cancer CenterHospital Universitario Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations