The present analysis reports the clinical, pathological, treatment profile and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes of consecutive breast cancer patients from three Indian centres, who underwent curative surgery as their first treatment. Among the 3453 patients, stage I, II, and III cases were 11.75%, 66.79%, and 21.64%, respectively while hormone receptor positive/ HER2 negative, triple negative (TNBC) and hormone receptor any/HER2 positive cases were 55.2%, 24.2% and 20.6%, respectively. The five-year OS in the entire cohort, node-negative and node-positive patients were 94.1% (93.25-94.98), 96.17% (95.2-97.15) and 91.83% (90.36-93.31), respectively, and the corresponding DFS were 88.1% (86.96-89.31), 92.0% (90.64-93.39) and 83.93% (82.03-85.89), respectively. The five-year OS in hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, TNBC and HER2 subgroups were 96.11% (95.12-97.1), 92.74% (90.73-94.8) and 90.62% (88.17-93.15), respectively, and the corresponding DFS were 91.59% (90.19-93.02), 85.46% (82.79-88.22) and 81.29% (78.11-84.61), respectively. this is the largest dataset of early breast cancer patients from india with survival outcome analysis and can therefore serve as a benchmark for future studies. Breast cancer, an increasing public health dilemma, represents a heterogeneous group of diseases and still remains today the leading cancer in women and a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide 1. As per the GLOBOCAN 2018 statistics, there were a total of 1157294 new cancer cases in the year 2018 in both sexes across all ages in India. Among these, there were 162468 cases of breast cancer with a mortality of 87090 cases. The five-year prevalence across all age groups was 405456 cases 2. A high-incidence cancer of high-resource nations, breast cancer has swiftly become a global healthcare challenge. Improvements in screening, imaging, awareness and diagnostic strategies have led to improvement in the early detection of the disease. Owing to the advent of newer regimes and options, treatment stratification has greatly developed in the past decade 1. A multitude of therapeutic options have been developed and tested leading to major oncologic breakthroughs. Molecular based classifications and personalized treatment have also evolved in the past decade. This has also led to improvements in overall, progression-free and relapse-free survival 3,4. Nevertheless, a patient's survival is related to several prognostic factors, including number of positive lymph nodes, tumor size, hormone receptor status, histological type and grade, and patient's age 5. Although much has been reported by the Western world, it is imperative to have a large population-based data to study the disease
Background Wire localization is historically the most common method for guiding excision of non-palpable breast lesions, but there are limitations to the technique. Newer technologies such as magnetic seeds may allow some of these challenges to be overcome. The aim was to compare safety and effectiveness of wire and magnetic seed localization techniques. Methods Women undergoing standard wire or magnetic seed localization for non-palpable lesions between August 2018 and August 2020 were recruited prospectively to this IDEAL stage 2a/2b platform cohort study. The primary outcome was effectiveness defined as accurate localization and removal of the index lesion. Secondary endpoints included safety, specimen weight and reoperation rate for positive margins. Results Data were accrued from 2300 patients in 35 units; 2116 having unifocal, unilateral breast lesion localization. Identification of the index lesion in magnetic-seed-guided (946 patients) and wire-guided excisions (1170 patients) was 99.8 versus 99.1 per cent (P = 0.048). There was no difference in overall complication rate. For a subset of patients having a single lumpectomy only for lesions less than 50 mm (1746 patients), there was no difference in median closest margin (2 mm versus 2 mm, P = 0.342), re-excision rate (12 versus 13 per cent, P = 0.574) and specimen weight in relation to lesion size (0.15 g/mm2 versus 0.138 g/mm2, P = 0.453). Conclusion Magnetic seed localization demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to those of wire localization. This study has established a robust platform for the comparative evaluation of new localization devices.
Context and Aims:The disease pattern and presentation of breast cancer in India are thought to differ from the West. The purpose of this study is to describe and to discuss the presentation, clinicopathological data, and survival from an urban specialist breast center in Southern India. Materials and Methods: Prospectively collected data were analyzed for clinicopathological details, treatment variables, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Cumulative survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for patients treated from 2007 to 2011. Results: A total of 1671 patients were operated at our center from January 2007 to December 2016. Average age at diagnosis was 54.2 years. Over 70% had Stage I and Stage II disease, infiltrating duct carcinoma was predominant in 88.2%. Average clinical tumor size was three centimeters. Breast conservation was performed in 22.4%. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 44.6%. Estrogen-receptor positivity was seen in 64.6%, 22.2% were Her2Neu positive. Triple negative disease was seen in 19.1%. Survival analysis was done using the Kaplan-Meier curves for 540 patients treated from 2007 to 2011. The median follow-up of surviving patients was 70 months with 10% lost to follow-up. In our study population, the 5 years overall survival rate is 88.3% and disease-free survival is 85.7%. Conclusion:Our study reflects a higher percentage of early breast cancer with outcomes comparable to the West. More research is required to understand the genetic predisposition in our population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.