Purpose: Although numerous studies have identified potential risk factors for ipsilateral lymphedema development in patients with breast cancer following axillary node dissection, the risk factors for lymphedema in patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy without axillary dissection remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the real-world incidence and risk factors for lymphedema in such patients. Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of medical records of patients with breast cancer who underwent sentinel node biopsy alone. The development cohort (5,051 patients, January 2017–December 2020) was analyzed to identify predictors of lymphedema, and a predictive model was subsequently created. A validation cohort (1,627 patients, January 2014–December 2016) was used to validate the model. Results: In the development cohort, 49 patients (0.9%) developed lymphedema over a median follow-up of 56 months, with most cases occurring within the first three years post-operation.Multivariate analysis revealed that a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or above, radiation therapy (RTx), chemotherapy, and more than three harvested lymph nodes significantly predicted lymphedema. The predictive model showed an area under the curve of 0.824 for systemic chemotherapy, with the number of harvested lymph nodes being the most significant factor. Patients were stratified into four risk groups, showing lymphedema incidences of 3.3% in the highest-risk group and 0.1% in the lowest-risk group. In the validation cohort, the incidences were 1.7% and 0.2% for the highest and lowest risk groups, respectively. Conclusion The lymphedema prediction model identifies RTx, chemotherapy, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 , and more than three harvested lymph nodes as significant risk factors. Although the overall incidence is low, the risk is notably influenced by the extent of lymph node removal and systemic therapies. The model’s high negative predictive value supports its application in designing tailored lymphedema surveillance programs for early intervention.

Purpose: Although numerous studies have identified potential risk factors for ipsilateral lymphedema development in patients with breast cancer following axillary node dissection, the risk factors for lymphedema in patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy without axillary dissection remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the real-world incidence and risk factors for lymphedema in such patients. Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of medical records of patients with breast cancer who underwent sentinel node biopsy alone. The development cohort (5,051 patients, January 2017–December 2020) was analyzed to identify predictors of lymphedema, and a predictive model was subsequently created. A validation cohort (1,627 patients, January 2014–December 2016) was used to validate the model. Results: In the development cohort, 49 patients (0.9%) developed lymphedema over a median follow-up of 56 months, with most cases occurring within the first three years post-operation.Multivariate analysis revealed that a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or above, radiation therapy (RTx), chemotherapy, and more than three harvested lymph nodes significantly predicted lymphedema. The predictive model showed an area under the curve of 0.824 for systemic chemotherapy, with the number of harvested lymph nodes being the most significant factor. Patients were stratified into four risk groups, showing lymphedema incidences of 3.3% in the highest-risk group and 0.1% in the lowest-risk group. In the validation cohort, the incidences were 1.7% and 0.2% for the highest and lowest risk groups, respectively. Conclusion The lymphedema prediction model identifies RTx, chemotherapy, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 , and more than three harvested lymph nodes as significant risk factors. Although the overall incidence is low, the risk is notably influenced by the extent of lymph node removal and systemic therapies. The model’s high negative predictive value supports its application in designing tailored lymphedema surveillance programs for early intervention.

Purpose: Although numerous studies have identified potential risk factors for ipsilateral lymphedema development in patients with breast cancer following axillary node dissection, the risk factors for lymphedema in patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy without axillary dissection remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the real-world incidence and risk factors for lymphedema in such patients. Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of medical records of patients with breast cancer who underwent sentinel node biopsy alone. The development cohort (5,051 patients, January 2017–December 2020) was analyzed to identify predictors of lymphedema, and a predictive model was subsequently created. A validation cohort (1,627 patients, January 2014–December 2016) was used to validate the model. Results: In the development cohort, 49 patients (0.9%) developed lymphedema over a median follow-up of 56 months, with most cases occurring within the first three years post-operation.Multivariate analysis revealed that a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or above, radiation therapy (RTx), chemotherapy, and more than three harvested lymph nodes significantly predicted lymphedema. The predictive model showed an area under the curve of 0.824 for systemic chemotherapy, with the number of harvested lymph nodes being the most significant factor. Patients were stratified into four risk groups, showing lymphedema incidences of 3.3% in the highest-risk group and 0.1% in the lowest-risk group. In the validation cohort, the incidences were 1.7% and 0.2% for the highest and lowest risk groups, respectively. Conclusion The lymphedema prediction model identifies RTx, chemotherapy, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 , and more than three harvested lymph nodes as significant risk factors. Although the overall incidence is low, the risk is notably influenced by the extent of lymph node removal and systemic therapies. The model’s high negative predictive value supports its application in designing tailored lymphedema surveillance programs for early intervention.

Purpose: This study evaluated the effectiveness of different surveillance intensities on morbidity and mortality in women with breast cancer. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery in the Republic of Korea between 2009 and 2011. The patients were divided into two groups based on the intensity of their postsurgical surveillance: intensive surveillance group (ISG) and less-intensive surveillance group. Surveillance intensity was measured based on the frequency and type of follow-up diagnostic tests conducted, including mammography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scans, and positron emission tomography scans. Results: We included 1,356 patients with a median follow-up period of 121.2 months (range, 12.8–168.0 months). The analysis revealed no significant difference in the overall survival (OS) between the two groups within five years of surgery. However, patients with ISG exhibited significantly better breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and distant metastasisfree survival (DMFS) within the same period. Five years after surgery, the differences in survival outcomes between the groups were not statistically significant. Conclusion Intensive surveillance did not demonstrate a significant improvement in OS for patients with breast cancer beyond five years postoperatively. However, within the first five years, intensive surveillance was associated with better BCSS and DMFS. These findings suggest that personalized surveillance strategies may benefit specific patient subsets, particularly in the early years after treatment. Further nationwide randomized studies are warranted to refine surveillance guidelines and optimize outcomes in patients with breast cancer.

Purpose: Advances in chemotherapeutic and targeted agents have increased pathologic complete response (pCR) rates after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST). Vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) has been suggested to accurately evaluate pCR. This study aims to confirm the non-inferiority of the 5-year disease-free survival of patients who omitted breast surgery when predicted to have a pCR based on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and VAB after NST, compared with patients with a pCR who had undergone breast surgery in previous studies. Methods The Omission of breast surgery for PredicTed pCR patients wIth MRI and vacuumassisted bIopsy in breaST cancer after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (OPTIMIST) trial is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, non-inferiority study enrolling in 17 tertiary care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. Eligible patients must have a clip marker placed in the tumor and meet the MRI criteria suggesting complete clinical response (post-NST MRI size ≤ 1 cm and lesion-to-background signal enhancement ratio ≤ 1.6) after NST. Patients will undergo VAB, and breast surgery will be omitted for those with no residual tumor. Axillary surgery can also be omitted if the patient was clinically node-negative before and after NST and met the stringent criteria of MRI size ≤ 0.5 cm. Survival and efficacy outcomes are evaluated over five years.Discussion: This study seeks to establish evidence for the safe omission of breast surgery in exceptional responders to NST while minimizing patient burden. The trial will address concerns about potential undertreatment due to false-negative results and recurrence as well as improved patient-reported quality of life issues from the omission of surgery. Successful completion of this trial may reshape clinical practice for certain breast cancer subtypes and lead to a safe and less invasive approach for selected patients.

Purpose: Patients with breast cancer with positive lumpectomy margins have a two-fold increased risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). This can be the result of either technically incomplete resection or the biological characteristics of the tumor that lead to a positive margin. We hypothesized that if achieving negative margins by re-excision nullifies the IBTR risk, then the increased risk is mainly attributed to the technical incompleteness of the initial surgeries. Thus, we investigated IBTR rates in patients with breast cancer who achieved clear margins after re-excision. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent breast lumpectomy for invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2018 at a single institution, and investigated IBTR events. Results: Among 5,598 patients, 793 achieved clear margins after re-excision of their initial positive margins. During the median follow-up period of 76.4 months, 121 (2.2%) patients experienced IBTR. Patients who underwent re-excision to achieve negative margin experienced significantly higher IBTR rates compared to those achieving clear margin at first lumpectomy (10-year IBTR rate: 5.3% vs. 2.6% [25 vs. 84 events]; unadjusted p = 0.031, hazard ratio, 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–2.48; adjusted p = 0.030, hazard ratio, 1.69, 95% CI, 1.05–2.72). This difference was more evident in patients aged < 50 years and those with delayed IBTR. Additionally, no statistically significant differences were observed in the spatial distribution of IBTR locations. Conclusion Patients who underwent re-excision for initial positive margins had an increased risk of IBTR, even after achieving a final negative margin, compared to patients with negative margins initially. This increased risk of IBTR is mostly observed in young patients and delayed cases.

Purpose: Latissimus dorsi mini-flap (LDMF) reconstruction after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a useful volume replacement technique when a large tumor is located in the upper or outer portion of the breast. However, few studies have reported the impact of LDMF on patients’ quality of life (QoL) and cosmesis compared with conventional BCS. Methods: We identified patients who underwent BCS with or without LDMF between 2010 and 2020 at a single center. At least 1 year after surgery, we prospectively administered the BREAST-Q to assess QoL and obtained the patients’ breast photographs. The cosmetic outcome was assessed using four panels composed of physicians and the BCCT.core software. Results: A total of 120 patients were enrolled, of whom 62 and 58 underwent LDMF or BCS only, respectively. The LDMF group had significantly larger tumors, shorter nipple-to-tumor distances in preoperative examinations, and larger resected breast volumes than did the BCSonly group (p < 0.001). The questionnaires revealed that QoL was poorer in the LDMF group, particularly in terms of the physical well-being score (40.9 vs. 20.1, p < 0.001). Notably, the level of patients’ cosmetic satisfaction with their breasts was comparable, and the cosmetic evaluation was assessed by panels and the BCCT.core software showed no differences between the groups. Conclusion Our results showed that cosmetic outcomes of performing LDMF are comparable to those of BCS alone while having the advantage of resecting larger volumes of breast tissue. Therefore, for those who strongly wish to preserve the cosmesis of their breasts, LDMF can be considered a favorable surgical option after the patient is oriented toward the potential for physical dysfunction after surgery.