Long-term results of local recurrence after breast conservation treatment for invasive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The outcome for women with a local failure after breast conservation treatment is not well described in the literature. Because local recurrence is a potentially salvageable event, this study was performed to evaluate the outcome of patients with local recurrence after breast conservation surgery and definitive radiation treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 112 patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence. There were 100 isolated local recurrences and 12 local-plus-regional recurrences. There were 93 invasive local recurrences and 19 DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) local recurrences. Local recurrences were detected by physical examination alone in 42 patients, mammography alone in 47 patients, and both modalities in 23 patients. All patients were initially treated with breast conservation treatment with or without systemic therapy and subsequently treated at the time of local recurrence with salvage mastectomy with or without systemic therapy. The mean and median follow-up times after local recurrence were 49 and 44 months, respectively.

RESULTS: For the entire group of 112 patients, the overall survival at 10 years after local recurrence was 69%, the cause-specific survival was 71%, and the freedom from distant metastases was 47%. For the 93 patients with an invasive local recurrence, the overall survival at 10 years was 64%, cause-specific survival was 67%, and freedom from distant metastases was 44%. For the 93 patients with an invasive local recurrence, interval from diagnosis to local recurrence (< or =2 years vs. 2.1-5 years vs. >5 years) predicted for overall survival at 5 years (65% vs. 84% vs. 89%; p = 0.03). Method of detection of local recurrence (physical examination vs. mammography vs. both methods) also predicted for 5-year overall survival (73% vs. 91% vs. 93%, respectively; p = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, interval from diagnosis to local recurrence was an independent predictor of overall survival (p = 0.03). Method of detection of local recurrence (physical examination vs. mammography vs. both methods) was borderline in predicting for 5-year cause-specific survival (73% vs. 91% vs. 93%, respectively; p = 0.06). Similarly, interval from diagnosis to local recurrence (< or =2 years vs. 2.1-5 years vs. >5 years) was a borderline predictor of 5-year cause-specific survival (65% vs. 84% vs. 89%; p = 0.08). No factors that predicted for freedom from distant metastases were identified. There were three second locoregional failures on the chest wall. Two of the 19 patients with a DCIS local recurrence have died of metastatic breast cancer. Death was probably not related to their local recurrence, but rather a result of persistent risk from an invasive primary cancer.

CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides long-term data after salvage treatment for patients who experience local recurrence after breast conservation treatment. The variables of method of detection and interval from diagnosis to local recurrence are identified as having prognostic significance for overall and cause-specific survival. In view of the potential for long-term survival, aggressive attempt at salvage treatment is warranted for the patient with local recurrence after breast conservation treatment. Second local recurrence after salvage mastectomy is an uncommon event. Although DCIS local recurrences may not in themselves cause an increase in the risk of mortality, the risk from the primary invasive cancer persists.