Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Key Points

  • Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) does not prolong survival compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, but reduces the need for mastectomy and axillary lymph-node dissection, and thus surgical morbidity, without increasing the risk of locoregional recurrence

  • Patients with high-grade oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative and/or HER2-positive breast cancers are more likely to experience pathological complete response to NACT than those with low-grade, ER-positive tumours

  • Lumpectomy, following NACT, does not need to remove the entire volume of breast tissue initially occupied by the tumour

  • Sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) after NACT accurately stages the axilla and is associated with a low rate of nodal recurrence in patients presenting with clinically negative axillary lymph nodes

  • In patients who convert to clinically node-negative disease, SLNB after NACT has a false-negative rate of <10% only when ≥3 sentinel nodes are identified; nodal recurrence rates after SLNB alone in this population are unknown

  • The relative contribution of pre-NACT and post-NACT stage (degree of pathological response) to local control is uncertain; tailoring local therapy based on response to NACT is being evaluated in ongoing trials

Abstract

Early randomized trials of the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) to the treatment regimen of patients with breast cancer failed to demonstrate an improvement in overall survival compared with conventional adjuvant therapy; nevertheless, the increased opportunities for breast conservation, owing to downstaging of the primary tumour, and enthusiasm regarding the potential to tailor systemic therapy based on responses observed in the neoadjuvant setting, resulted in the adoption of this approach as a useful clinical tool. That the effectiveness of NACT varies by molecular subtype is becoming increasingly clear, and although the potential of tailoring adjuvant systemic therapy based on treatment response before surgery remains to be realized, the increasing rates of pathological complete response following NACT have had a considerable impact on locoregional treatment considerations. For example, NACT reduces the need for mastectomy and axillary lymph-node dissection, thus decreasing the morbidity of surgery, without compromising outcomes. However, selection of the ideal candidates for preoperative chemotherapy remains critical, and personalizing local therapy based on the degree of response is the subject of ongoing clinical trials. This article reviews the current issues surrounding surgery of the breast and axilla in patients with breast cancer receiving NACT.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A11202 trial schema.67
Figure 2: NSABP B-51/RTOG 1304 (NRG 9353) trial schema.68

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bozzetti, F., Saccozzi, R., De Lena, M. & Salvadori, B. Inflammatory cancer of the breast: analysis of 114 cases. J. Surg. Oncol. 18, 355–361 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Haagensen, C. D. & Stout, A. P. Carcinoma of the breast. III. Results of treatment, 1935–1942. Ann. Surg. 134, 151–172 (1951).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonadonna, G. et al. Combination chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment in operable breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 294, 405–410 (1976).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher, B. et al. 1-phenylalanine mustard (L-PAM) in the management of primary breast cancer. A report of early findings. N. Engl. J. Med. 292, 117–122 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Buzdar, A. U., Montague, E. D., Barker, J. L., Hortobagyi, G. N. & Blumenschein, G. R. Management of inflammatory carcinoma of breast with combined modality approach—an update. Cancer 47, 2537–2542 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. De Lena, M., Zucali, R., Viganotti, G., Valagussa, P. & Bonadonna, G. Combined chemotherapy–radiotherapy approach in locally advanced (T3b–T4) breast cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 1, 53–59 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hortobagyi, G. N. et al. Management of stage III primary breast cancer with primary chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy. Cancer 62, 2507–2516 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mauri, D., Pavlidis, N. & Ioannidis, J. P. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 97, 188–194 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mieog, J. S., van der Hage, J. A. & van de Velde, C. J. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Br. J. Surg. 94, 1189–1200 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher, B. et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J. Clin. Oncol. 15, 2483–2493 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cortazar, P. et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 384, 164–172 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Prowell, T. M. & Pazdur, R. Pathological complete response and accelerated drug approval in early breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 2438–2441 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Hage, J. A. et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 4224–4237 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bear, H. D. et al. The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 4165–4174 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Baselga, J. et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet 379, 633–640 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Guarneri, V. et al. Preoperative chemotherapy plus trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer: results of the randomized phase II CHER-LOB study. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 1989–1995 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Untch, M. et al. Lapatinib versus trastuzumab in combination with neoadjuvant anthracycline–taxane-based chemotherapy (GeparQuinto, GBG 44): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 13, 135–144 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Katz, S. J. et al. Patient involvement in surgery treatment decisions for breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 5526–5533 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rouzier, R. et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 5678–5685 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gianni, L. et al. Gene expression profiles in paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 7265–7277 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Petrelli, F. & Barni, S. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ductal compared to lobular carcinoma of the breast: a meta-analysis of published trials including 1,764 lobular breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 142, 227–235 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lips, E. H. et al. Lobular histology and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat 136, 35–43 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ataseven, B. et al. Impact of multifocal or multicentric disease on surgery and locoregional, distant and overall survival of 6,134 breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 22, 1118–1127 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Boughey, J. C. 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. 260, 608–614 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hylton, N. M. et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: MR imaging for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy—results from ACRIN 6657/I-SPY TRIAL. Radiology 263, 663–672 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Marinovich, M. L. et al. Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 105, 321–333 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosen, E. L. et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 181, 1275–1282 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Turnbull, L. W. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis and management of breast cancer. NMR Biomed. 22, 28–39 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yeh, E. et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 184, 868–877 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen, J. H. et al. Breast cancer: evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 3.0-T MR imaging. Radiology 261, 735–743 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. De Los Santos, J. F. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of pathologic response in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic treatment for operable breast cancer. Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium trial 017. Cancer 119, 1776–1783 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Straver, M. E. et al. MRI-model to guide the surgical treatment in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann. Surg. 251, 701–707 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Charehbili, A. et al. Accuracy of MRI for treatment response assessment after taxane- and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 40, 1216–1221 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Weiss, A. et al. Calcifications on mammogram do not correlate with tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 21, 3310–3316 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Boughey, J. C. et al. Impact of preoperative versus postoperative chemotherapy on the extent and number of surgical procedures in patients treated in randomized clinical trials for breast cancer. Ann. Surg. 244, 464–470 (2006).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Wolmark, N., Wang, J., Mamounas, E., Bryant, J. & Fisher, B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2001, 96–102 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen, A. M. et al. Breast conservation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: the MD Anderson cancer center experience. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 2303–2312 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Abt, N. B. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and short-term morbidity in patients undergoing mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 149, 1068–1076 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gradishar, W. J. et al. Breast cancer version 3.2014. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 12, 542–590 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Mamounas, E. P. et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 2694–2702 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hunt, K. K. et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate and reduces the need for axillary dissection in breast cancer patients. Ann. Surg. 250, 558–566 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. van Deurzen, C. H. et al. Accuracy of sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 3124–3130 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Xing, Y. et al. Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Br. J. Surg. 93, 539–546 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Classe, J. M. et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: results of Ganglion Sentinelle et Chimiotherapie Neoadjuvante, a French prospective multicentric study. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 726–732 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Goyal, A., Newcombe, R. G., Chhabra, A. & Mansel, R. E. Factors affecting failed localisation and false-negative rates of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer—results of the ALMANAC validation phase. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 99, 203–208 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kelly, A. M., Dwamena, B., Cronin, P. & Carlos, R. C. Breast cancer sentinel node identification and classification after neoadjuvant chemotherapy-systematic review and meta analysis. Acad. Radiol. 16, 551–563 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim, T., Giuliano, A. E. & Lyman, G. H. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast carcinoma: a metaanalysis. Cancer 106, 4–16 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McMasters, K. M. et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: a suitable alternative to routine axillary dissection in multi-institutional practice when optimal technique is used. J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 2560–2566 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Tafra, L., Verbanac, K. M. & Lannin, D. R. Preoperative chemotherapy and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Am. J. Surg. 182, 312–315 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Veronesi, U. et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 546–553 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mamounas, E. P. et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from combined analysis of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18 and B-27. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 3960–3966 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Dominici, L. S. et al. Cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases are eradicated in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer 116, 2884–2889 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hennessy, B. T. et al. Outcome after pathologic complete eradication of cytologically proven breast cancer axillary node metastases following primary chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 9304–9311 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shen, J. et al. Feasibility and accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with documented axillary metastases. Cancer 109, 1255–1263 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Alvarado, R. et al. The role for sentinel lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients who present with node-positive breast cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 19, 3177–3184 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Boileau, J. F. et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: the SN FNAC study. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 258–264 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Boughey, J. C. et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA 310, 1455–1461 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 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. 14, 609–618 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Krag, D. N. et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 8, 881–888 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Tafra, L. et al. Multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer using both technetium sulfur colloid and isosulfan blue dye. Ann. Surg. 233, 51–59 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 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. 15, 1303–1310 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Giuliano, A. E. et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 305, 569–575 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Giuliano, A. E. et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann. Surg. 252, 426–432 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Krag, D. N. et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 11, 927–933 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Edge, S. et al. AJCC cancer staging manual 7th edn (Springer, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Boughey, J. C. et al. Methods impacting the false negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node positive breast cancer (T0–T4, N1–2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy—Results from a prospective trial—ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) [Poster No. P2-01-02]. Presented at the 2014 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

  67. NCI Community Oncology Research Program. CTSU Alliance A011202: A Randomized Phase III Trial Evaluating the Role of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Breast Cancer Patients (CT1–3 N1) Who Have Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Disease After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy [online]. (2014).

  68. Mamounas, E. P. et al. NSABP B-51/RTOG 1304: randomized phase III clinical trial evaluating the role of postmastectomy chest wall and regional nodal XRT (CWRNRT) and post-lumpectomy RNRT in patients (pts) with documented positive axillary (Ax) nodes before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) who convert to pathologically negative Ax nodes after NC [abstract]. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, TPS1141 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Both authors researched the data for the article, contributed substantially to discussion of the content, wrote the article, and reviewed and edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tari A. King.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

King, T., Morrow, M. Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 12, 335–343 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.63

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.63

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer