Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salvage mastectomy (SM) is the standard surgery for ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR). However, whether repeat breast-conserving surgery (RBCS) is an alternative method remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of RBCS and SM after IBTR for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Wiley Online and Embase for controlled studies comparing RBCS and SM after IBTR for BCS (published between 1993 and 2019, published in English). Our main endpoints were the secondary local recurrence rate (SLRR), distant metastasis rate (DMR) and overall survival (OS). We used a random-effects model or fixed-effects model for data pooling. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 424 eligible studies were ultimately included, and all studies were retrospective cohort studies (n=2532 participants). 1) SLRR: The SLRR of RBCS was higher than SM (pooled relative rate (pRR) = 1.87, 95% CI 1.22 - 2.86, P=0.004). Stratified analysis was performed according to whether radiotherapy was performed after salvage surgery (radiotherapy group: 2ndRT, no radiotherapy group: no-2ndRT), and the following results were revealed: pRR=0.43 (95% CI 0.20-0.95, P=0.04) for group 2ndRT; and pRR=2.30 (95% CI 1.72-3.06, P<0.00001) for group no-2ndRT. These results showed that the main cause of heterogeneity was salvage radiotherapy. 2) DMR: No significant difference in the DMR was observed between RBCS and SM (pRR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 - 1.01, P=0.05). 3) OS: No significant difference in OS was observed between RBCS and SM (pRR=0.65, 95% CI 0.39 - 1.08, P=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: The SLRR of RBCS was higher than SM for ITBR after BCS, but survival was not affected. RBCS may be used as an alternative for IBTR patients after BCS with strict control for several indications, such as tumor size, recurrence interval and biological behavior, and attaching importance to subsequent salvage radiotherapy and systematic therapy.