InFo Hämatologie + Onkologie

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 15–18 | Cite as

Schwerpunkt triple-negatives Mammakarzinom

Aktuelle chirurgische Therapie des Mammakarzinoms

  • Jasmin ZeindlerEmail author
  • Fabienne Schwab

Die operative Brustkrebstherapie ist eine der ältesten onkologischen Behandlungsformen überhaupt. Obwohl sie sich im Laufe der Zeit stark verändert hat, ist sie nach wie vor ein wichtiger Bestandteil eines multimodalen Behandlungskonzeptes. Viele neuere Entwicklungen in der chirurgischen Therapie des Mammakarzinoms zielen darauf ab, die Behandlung zu deeskalieren. Ein Überblick.


  1. 1.
    Nunn JF. Ancient Egyptian medicine. Trans Med Soc Lond. 1996-1997;113:57–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halsted WS. I. A Clinical and Histological Study of certain Adenocarcinomata of the Breast: and a Brief Consideration of the Supraclavicular Operation and of the Results of Operations for Cancer of the Breast from 1889 to 1898 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Ann Surg. 1898;28(5):557–76PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halsted WS. I. The Results of Operations for the Cure of Cancer of the Breast Performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from June, 1889, to January, 1894. Ann Surg. 1894;20(5):497–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Plesca M et al. Evolution of radical mastectomy for breast cancer. J Med Life. 2016;9(2):183–6PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le Quesne LP. David Patey, surgeon and academic: a memoir. J Med Biogr. 1997;5(3):125–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corso G et al. The Veronesi quadrantectomy: an historical overview. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vercher-Conejero JL et al. Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer. Diagnostics (Basel). 2015;5(1):61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Niikura N et al. Initial staging impact of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in locally advanced breast cancer. Oncologist. 2011;16(6):772–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fisher B et al. Comparison of radical mastectomy with alternative treatments for primary breast cancer. A first report of results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Cancer. 1977;39(6 Suppl):2827–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher B et al. Ten-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing radical mastectomy and total mastectomy with or without radiation. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(11):674–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher B et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1233–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Veronesi U et al. Comparing radical mastectomy with quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy in patients with small cancers of the breast. N Engl J Med. 1981;305(1):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yoon TI et al. No Association of Positive Superficial and/or Deep Margins with Local Recurrence in Invasive Breast Cancer Treated with Breast-Conserving Surgery. Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 50(1):275–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morrow M et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery with Whole-Breast Irradiation in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(12):3801–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haloua MH et al. A nationwide pathology study on surgical margins and excision volumes after breast-conserving surgery: There is still much to be gained. Breast. 2016;25:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buchholz TA et al. Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1502–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moran MS et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):704–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Zee KJ et al. Relationship Between Margin Width and Recurrence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Analysis of 2996 Women Treated With Breast-conserving Surgery for 30 Years. Ann Surg. 2015;262(4):623–31PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hughes L et al. Surgeon Volume, Patient Age, and Tumor-Related Factors Influence the Need for Re-Excision After Breast-Conserving Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(Suppl 5):656–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Langhans L et al. Reoperation Rates in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ vs Invasive Breast Cancer After Wire-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(4):378–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medina-Franco H et al. Factors associated with breast symmetry after breast conserving surgery for cancer. Rev Invest Clin. 2013;65(5):379–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veronesi U et al. Radiotherapy after breast-preserving surgery in women with localized cancer of the breast. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(22):1587–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clarke M et al. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366(9503):2087–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weber WP et al. Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(7):1236–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clough KB et al. Oncoplastic surgery: pushing the limits of breast-conserving surgery. Breast J. 2015;21(2):140–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clough KB et al. Long-term Results After Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer: A 10-year Follow-up. Ann Surg. 2018;268(1):165–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Veronesi U et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(6):546–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fleissig A et al. Post-operative arm morbidity and quality of life. Results of the ALMANAC randomised trial comparing sentinel node biopsy with standard axillary treatment in the management of patients with early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;95(3):279–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Steegers MA et al. Effect of axillary lymph node dissection on prevalence and intensity of chronic and phantom pain after breast cancer surgery. J Pain. 2008;9(9):813–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    DiSipio T et al. Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(6):500–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giuliano AE et al. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg. 1994;220(3):391–8; discussion 8-401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Veronesi U et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary dissection in breast cancer: results in a large series. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(4):368–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Langer I et al. Axillary recurrence rate in breast cancer patients with negative sentinel lymph node (SLN) or SLN micrometastases: prospective analysis of 150 patients after SLN biopsy. Ann Surg. 2005;241(1):152–8PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Galimberti V et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(4):297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Giuliano AE et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giuliano AE et al. Effect of Axillary Dissection vs No Axillary Dissection on 10-Year Overall Survival Among Women With Invasive Breast Cancer and Sentinel Node Metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017;318(10):918–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weber WP et al. A 10-year trend analysis of sentinel lymph node frozen section and completion axillary dissection for breast cancer: are these procedures becoming obsolete? Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(1):225–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kuehn T et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):609–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Donker M et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):1303–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boughey JC et al. Factors affecting sentinel lymph node identification rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients enrolled in ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2015;261(3):547–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BrustchirurgieUniversitätsspital BaselBaselSchweiz
  2. 2.Gynäkologische Onkologie, FrauenklinikUniversitätsspital BaselBaselSchweiz

Personalised recommendations