Association of Long-term Oncologic Prognosis With Minimal Access Breast Surgery vs Conventional Breast Surgery

Key Points

Question

What is the long-term oncologic prognosis associated with minimal access breast surgery (endoscopic or robotic) vs conventional breast surgery?

Findings

This cohort study including 2412 patients with breast cancer found that the long-term oncologic prognosis following minimal access breast surgery was not significantly different than that following conventional breast surgery.

Meaning

The findings indicate that minimal access breast surgery may be a safe and feasible alternative to conventional surgery.

Abstract

This cohort study evaluates the association of oncologic prognosis with minimal access breast surgery vs conventional surgery.

Abstract

Importance

Minimal access breast surgery (MABS) has been used in breast cancer management. However, long-term prognostic data associated with MABS vs conventional breast surgery (CBS) are lacking.

Objective

To investigate long-term therapeutic outcomes associated with MABS vs CBS for breast cancer management.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this single-center retrospective cohort study, 9184 individuals were assessed for inclusion. After exclusions, 2412 adult female individuals were included who were diagnosed with stage 0 to III breast cancer, underwent unilateral breast surgery between January 2004 and December 2017, and had no distant metastasis or history of severe underlying disease. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize selection bias. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2019.

Exposures

MABS or CBS.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Data on demographic and tumor characteristics and long-term outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

This study included 2412 patients (100% female; median [IQR] age, 44 [40-49] years). Of these, 603 patients underwent MABS (endoscopic, endoscopy-assisted, or robot-assisted procedures in 289, 302, and 12 patients, respectively) and 1809 patients underwent CBS. The median follow-up time was 84 months (93 in the MABS group and 80 months in the CBS group). Intergroup differences were not significant for the following parameters: 10-year local recurrence-free survival (93.3% vs 96.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.86-2.27; P = .18), regional recurrence-free survival (95.5% vs 96.7%; HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.81-2.36; P = .23), and distant metastasis-free survival (81.0% vs 82.0%; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.23; P = .72). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year disease-free survival rates in the MABS group were 85.9%, 72.6%, and 69.1%, respectively. The corresponding rates in the CBS group were 85.0%, 76.6%, and 70.7%. The intergroup differences were not significant (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31; P  = .55). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year overall survival rates in the MABS group were 92.0%, 83.7%, and 83.0%, respectively. The corresponding rates in the CBS group were 93.6%, 88.7%, and 81.0%. The intergroup differences were not significant (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97-1.72; P  = .09). Post hoc subgroup analysis showed no significant intergroup differences in disease-free survival.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, long-term outcomes following MABS were not significantly different from those following CBS in patients with early-stage breast cancer. MABS may be a safe and feasible alternative in this patient population.