Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 3083–3087 | Cite as

Editorial: Management Based on Risk: Individualizing the Care of the Breast Cancer Patient

  • Judy C. Boughey
  • Jill R. Dietz
Breast Oncology


Sentinel Lymph Node Lymphedema Dense Breast Axillary Dissection Recurrence Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Attai D. Presidential address—What are we missing? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5309-x.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ataseven B, von Minckwitz G. The impact of neoadjuvant treatment on surgical options and outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5364-3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1796–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jeruss JS, Mittendorf EA, Tucker SL, et al. Combined use of clinical and pathologic staging variables to define outcomes for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:246–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mittendorf EA, Jeruss JS, Tucker SL, et al. Validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1956–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abdelsattar JM, Al-Hilli Z, Hoskin TL, Heins CN, Boughey JC. Validation of the CPS + EG staging system for disease-specific survival in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5324-y.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mittendorf EA, Vila J, Tucker SL, et al. The Neo-Bioscore update for staging breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: incorporation of prognostic biologic factors into staging after treatment. JAMA Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1001/jamaonc.2015.6478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yi M, Mittendorf EA, Cormier JN, et al. Novel staging system for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention: time to modify the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4654–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2005–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramsey SD, Barlow WE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Integrating comparative effectiveness design elements and endpoints into a phase III, randomized clinical trial (SWOG S1007) evaluating oncotypeDX-guided management for women with breast cancer involving lymph nodes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34:1–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Piccart M, Rutgers E, van’t Veer L, et al. Primary analysis of the E ORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT study: A prospective, randomized study evaluating the clinical utility of the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint) combined with common clinical-pathological criteria for selection of patients for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive nodes. American Association for Cancer Research. 2016.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Olson JA, Jr, Budd GT, Carey LA, et al. Improved surgical outcomes for breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy: results from a multicenter phase II trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:906–14; discussion 915–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boughey JC, McCall LM, Ballman KV, et al. Tumor biology correlates with rates of breast-conserving surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: findings from the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260:608–14; discussion 614–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1455–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy proven node positive breast cancer: The SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:258–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boughey JC, Ballman KV, Le-Petross HT, et al. Identification and resection of clipped node decreases the false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node-positive breast cancer (T0–T4, N1–N2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2016;263:802–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Factors affecting sentinel lymph node identification rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients enrolled in ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2015;261:547–52.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caudle AS, Yang WT, Mittendorf EA, et al. Selective surgical localization of axillary lymph nodes containing metastases in patients with breast cancer: a prospective feasibility trial. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:137–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boneti C, Korourian S, Bland K, Cox K, Adkins LL, Henry-Tillman RS, Klimberg VS. Axillary reverse mapping: mapping and preserving arm lymphatics may be important in preventing lymphedema during sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:1038–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferguson CM, Swaroop MN, Horick N, et al. Impact of ipsilateral blood draws, injections, blood pressure measurements, and air travel on the risk of lymphedema for patients treated for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:691–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dietz J, Hieken TJ. Nipple-sparing mastectomy indications and contraindications, risks and benefits and techniques for NSM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5370-5.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, Kundt G, Reimer T. The oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction: an extended follow-up study. Ann Surg. 2009;249:461–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sakurai T, Zhang N, Suzuma T, Umemura T, Yoshimura G, Yang Q. Long-term follow-up of nipple-sparing mastectomy without radiotherapy: a single center study at a Japanese institution. Med Oncol 2013;30:481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim HJ, Park EH, Lim WS, et al. Nipple areola skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure: a single center study. Ann Surg. 2010;251:493–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krajewski AC, Boughey JC, Degnim AC, Jakub JW, Jacobson SR, Hoskin TL, Hieken TJ. Expanded indications and improved outcomes for nipple-sparing mastectomy over time. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3317–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Piper ML, Esserman LJ, Sbitany H, Peled AW. Outcomes following oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(Suppl 3):S222–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carter S, et al. Operative and oncologic outcomes in 9861 patients with operable breast cancer: single institution analysis of breast conservation with oncoplastic reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5407-9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cordeiro E, et al. Complications of oncoplastic breast surgery versus breast conserving surgery: An analysis of the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simmons R, Ballman K, Carp N, et al. A Phase II trial exploring the success of cryoablation therapy in the treatment of invasive breast carcinoma: Results from ACOSOG (Alliance) Z1072. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2438–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Plichta J. Application of the 2015 ACS and ASBS Screening Mammography Guidelines: risk assessment is critical for women ages 40–44. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Skaane P. Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s12282-016-0699-4.
  33. 33.
    Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED. Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer: Analysis from ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(4):djv367.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Throckmorton A, Dickson Witmer D. Dense breasts: what do our patients need to be told and why. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5400-3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O’Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology. 2011;258:106–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307:1394–404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maxwell KN, Hart SN, Vijai J, et al. Evaluation of ACMG-Guideline-based variant classification of cancer susceptibility and non-cancer-associated genes in families affected by breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;98:801–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Division of Surgical OncologyCase Western Reserve, University HospitalsClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations