Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cirugía de mama por cáncer de mama metastásico

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Badwe 2015 {published data only}

Badwe R, Hawaldar R, Nair N, Kaushik R, Parmar V, Siddique S, et al. Locoregional treatment versus no treatment of the primary tumour in metastatic breast cancer: an open‐label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncology 2015;16:1380‐8. CENTRAL
Badwe R, Parmar V, Hawaldar R, Nair N, Kaushik R, Siddique S, et al. Surgical removal of primary tumor and axillary lymph nodes in women with metastatic breast cancer at first presentation: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Research 2013;73(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S2‐02. CENTRAL

Soran 2016 {published and unpublished data}

Soran A, Ozbas S, Kelsey SF, Gulluoglu BM. Randomized trial comparing locoregional resection of primary tumor with no surgery in stage IV breast cancer at the presentation (Protocol MF07‐01): a study of Turkish Federation of the National Societies for Breast Diseases. Breast Journal 2009;15(4):399‐403. CENTRAL
Soran A, Ozmen V, Ozbas S, Karanlik H, Muslumanoglu M, Igci A, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating resection of the primary breast tumor in women presenting with de novo stage IV breast cancer: Turkish Study (Protocol MF07‐01). Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016;34(Suppl):Abstract 1005. CENTRAL

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

NCT01906112 {published and unpublished data}

NCT01906112. Role of surgery for the primary in patients with breast cancer stage IV [Role of surgery for the primary in patients with breast cancer stage IV ‐ a prospective randomized multicenter controlled trial]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01906112 (first received 15 July 2013). CENTRAL

Ruiterkamp 2012 {published and unpublished data}

Ruiterkamp J, Ernst MF, van de Poll‐Franse LV, Bosscha K, Tjan‐Heijen VCG, Voogd AC. Surgical resection of the primary tumour is associated with improved survival in patients with distant metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis. European Jounal of Clinical Oncology 2009;35(11):1146–51. CENTRAL
Ruiterkamp J, Voogd AC, Tjan‐Heijnen VCG, Bosscha K, van der Linden YM, Rutgers EJT, et al. SUBMIT: Systemic therapy with or without up front surgery of the primary tumor in breast cancer patients with distant metastases at initial presentation. BMC Surgery 2012;12:5. CENTRAL

Referencias de los estudios en curso

NCT01015625 {unpublished data only}

NCT01015625. Primary Operation in SYnchronous meTastasized InVasivE Breast Cancer (POSYTIVE) [Primary Operation in synchronous metastasized invasive breast cancer to evaluate the use of local therapy]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01015625 (first received 18 November 2009). CENTRAL

NCT01242800 {unpublished data only}

NCT01242800. A Randomized Phase III Trial of the Value of Early Local Therapy for the Intact Primary Tumor in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer [Early Surgery or Standard Palliative Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Breast Cancer]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01242800 (first received 17 November 2010). CENTRAL

NCT02125630 {unpublished data only}

NCT02125630. The Effect of Primary Surgery in Patients With Stage IV Breast Cancer With Bone Metastasis Only [Bone Metastasis and Surgery in Breast Cancer]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02125630 (first received 29 April 2014). CENTRAL

UMIN000005586 {unpublished data only}

UMIN000005586. A randomized controlled trial comparing primary tumor resection plus systemic therapy with systemic therapy alone in metastatic breast cancer [A randomized controlled trial comparing primary tumor resection plus systemic therapy with systemic therapy alone in metastatic breast cancer (JCOG1017, PRIM‐BC)]. https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi‐open‐bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000006333 (first received 11 May 2011). CENTRAL

Anwar 2012

Anwar S, Peter MB, Dent J, Scott NA. Palliative excisional surgery for primary colorectal cancer in patients with incurable metastatic disease. Is there a survival benefit? A systematic review. Colorectal Disease 2012;14(8):920‐30.

Bermas 2009

Bermas HR, Khan SA. Local therapy for the intact breast primary in the presence of metastatic disease. In: Bland KI, Copeland EM editor(s). The Breast, Comprehensive Management of Benign and Malignant Diseases. 4th Edition. Vol. 2, Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2009:1211‐21.

Blanchard 2008

Blanchard D, Shetty P, Hilsenbeck S, Elledge R. Association of surgery with improved survival in stage IV breast cancer patients. Annals of Surgery 2008;247:732‐8.

Bourgier 2009

Bourgier C, Khodari W, Vataire AL, Pessoa EL, Dunant A, Delaloge S, et al. Breast radiotherapy as part of loco‐regional treatments in stage IV breast cancer patients with oligometastatic disease. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2010;96:199‐203.

BREAST‐Q

Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient‐reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST‐Q. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 2009;124(2):345‐53.

Caudle 2012

Caudle AS, Babiera GV. Primary tumor extirpation in stage IV disease: surgical considerations. In: Babiera GV, Skoracki RJ, Esteva FJ editor(s). Advanced Therapy of Breast Disease. 3rd Edition. Vol. 1, Shelton, CT: PMPH‐USA, 2012:1001‐8.

Danna 2004

Danna EA, Sinha P, Gilbert M, Clements VK, Pulaski BA, Ostrand‐Rosenberg S. Surgical removal of primary tumor reverses tumor‐induced immunosuppression despite the presence of metastatic disease. Cancer Research 2004;64(6):2205‐11.

Darby 2011

Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, Taylor C, Arriagada R, Clarke M, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast‐conserving surgery on 10‐year recurrence and 15‐year breast cancer death: meta‐analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet 2001;378(9804):1707‐16. [DOI: 10.1016/S0140‐6736(11)61629‐2]

Dawood 2009

Dawood S, Broglio K, Kau SW, Green MC, Giordano SH, Bernstam FM, et al. Triple receptor‐negative breast cancer: the effect of race on response to primary systemic treatment and survival outcomes. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009;27(2):220‐6.

Di Lascio 2014

Di Lascio S, Pagani O. Oligometastatic breast cancer: a shift from palliative to potentially curative treatment?. Breast Care 2014;9(1):7‐14.

Ellis 2014

Ellis LM, Bernstein DS, Voest EE, Berlin JD, Sargent D, Cortazar P, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;32(12):1277‐80.

EORTC QLQ‐BR23

Fayers PM, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Curran D, Groevold M. EORTC QLQ‐C30 Scoring Manual. 2nd Edition. Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Study Group, 1999.

Ernst 2007

Ernst MF, van de Poll‐Franse LV, Roukema JA, Coebergh JW, van Gestel CM, Vreugdenhil G, et al. Trends in the prognosis of patients with primary metastatic breast cancer diagnosed between 1975 and 2002. Breast 2007;16(4):344‐51.

Ferrel 1997

Ferrel RB, Grant M, Funk B, Otis‐Gree S, Garcia N. Quality of life in breast cancer. Part I: physical and social well‐being. Cancer Nursing 1997;20(6):398‐408.

Fields 2007

Fields R, Jeffe D, Trinkaus K. Surgical resection of the primary tumor is associated with increased long‐term survival in patients with stage IV breast cancer after controlling for site of metastasis. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2007;14(12):3345‐51.

Fisher 1989

Fisher B, Gunduz N, Coyle J, Rudock C, Saffer E. Presence of a growth‐stimulating factor in serum following primary tumor removal in mice. Cancer Research 1989;49:1996‐2001.

Flanigan 2001

Flanigan RC, Salmon SE, Blumenstein BA, Bearman SI, Roy V, McGrath PC, et al. Nephrectomy followed by interferon alfa‐2b compared with interferon alfa‐2b alone for metastatic renal‐cell cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;345(23):1655‐9.

Giordano 2004

Giordano SH, Buzdar AU, Smith TL, Kau SW, Yang Y, Hortobagyi GN. Is breast cancer survival improving?. Cancer 2004;100:44‐52.

GLOBOCAN 2012

Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2012 v2.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10, 2010. globocan.iarc.fr/ (accessed 18 August 2014).

Gnerlich 2008

Gnerlich J, Dueker JM, Jeffe DB, Deshpande AD, Thompson S, Margenthaler JA. Patient and tumor characteristics associated with primary tumor resection in women with stage IV breast cancer: analysis of 1988‐2003 SEER data. Breast Journal 2008;14(6):538‐42.

GRADEpro 2014 [Computer program]

McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc). Available from www.gradepro.org. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc). Available from www.gradepro.org, 2015.

Harris 2013

Harris E, Barry M, Kell MR. Meta‐analysis to determine if surgical resection of the primary tumour in the setting of stage IV breast cancer impacts on survival. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2013;20(9):2828‐34.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Hurvitz 2013

Hurvitz SA, Lalla D, Crosby RD, Mathias SD. Use of the metastatic breast cancer progression (MBC‐P) questionnaire to assess the value of progression‐free survival for women with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2013;142:603‐9.

Karnoub 2007

Karnoub AE, Dash AB, Vo AP, Sullivan A, Brooks MW, Bell GW, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis. Nature 2007;449(7162):557‐63.

Khan 2002

Khan SA, Stewart AK, Morrow M. Does aggressive local therapy improve survival in metastatic breast cancer?. Surgery 2002;132:620‐6.

Kiess 2012

Kiess AP, McArthur HL, Mahoney K, Patil S, Morris PG, Ho A, et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab reduces locoregional recurrence in women who receive breast‐conservation therapy for lymph node‐negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐positive breast cancer. Cancer 2012;118(8):1982‐8.

Lang 2013

Lang J, Tereffe W, Mitchell MP, Rao R, Feng L, Bernstam FM, et al. Primary tumor extirpation in breast cancer patients who present with stage IV disease is associated with improved survival. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2013;20:1893–9.

Le Scodan 2009

Le Scodan R, Stevens D, Brain E, Floiras JL, Cohen‐Solal C, Lande B, et al. Breast cancer with synchronous metastases: survival impact of exclusive locoregional radiotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009;27(9):1375‐81.

Ly 2010

Ly BH, Nguyen NP, Vinh‐Hung V, Rapiti E, Vlastos G. Loco‐regional treatment in metastatic breast cancer patients: is there a survival benefit?. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2010;119(3):537‐45.

McNeely 2012

McNeely M, Binkley JM, Pusic AL, Campbell KL, Gabram S, Soballe PW. A prospective model of care for breast cancer rehabilitation: postoperative and postreconstructive issues. Cancer 2012;118:2226‐36.

Mickisch 2001

Mickisch GH, Garin A, van Poppel H, de Prijck L, Sylvester R, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Genitourinary Group. Radical nephrectomy plus interferon‐alfa‐based immunotherapy compared with interferon alfa alone in metastatic renal‐cell carcinoma: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001;358(9286):966‐70.

Moher 2009

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009;151(4):264‐9.

Morrogh 2008

Morrogh M, Park A, Norton L, King TA. Changing indications for surgery in patients with stage IV breast cancer: a current perspective. Cancer 2008;112:1445‐54.

NCT00193778

NCT00193778. Assessing impact of loco‐regional treatment on survival in metastatic breast cancer at presentation. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00193778 (first received 19 September 2005).

NCT00557986

NCT00557986. Local surgery for metastatic breast cancer. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00557986 (first received 14 November 2007).

Neuman 2010

Neuman HB, Morrogh M, Gonen M, Van Zee KJ, Morrow M, King TA. Stage IV breast cancer in the era of targeted therapy. Cancer 2010;116(5):1226‐33.

Parmar 1998

Parmar MKB, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta‐analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815‐34.

Perez‐Fidalgo 2011

Pérez‐Fidalgo JA, Pimentel P, Caballero A, Bermejo B, Barrera JA, Burgues O, et al. Removal of primary tumor improves survival in metastatic breast cancer. Does timing of surgery influence outcomes?. Breast 2011;20:548‐54.

Petrelli 2012

Petrelli F, Barni S. Surgery of primary tumors in stage IV breast cancer: an updated meta‐analysis of published studies with meta‐regression. Medical Oncology 2012;29(5):3282‐90.

Rapiti 2006

Rapiti E, Verkooijen HM, Vlastos G. Complete excision of primary breast tumor improves survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2006;24:2743‐9.

Rastogi 2014

Rastogi S, Gulia S, Bajpai J, Ghosh J, Gupta S. Oligometastatic breast cancer: a mini review. Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology 2014;35(3):203‐6.

RevMan 2012 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.

Rhu 2015

Rhu J, Lee SK, Kil WH, Lee JE, Nam SJ. Surgery of primary tumour has survival benefit in metastatic breast cancer with single‐organ metastasis, especially bone. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2015;85(4):240‐4.

Ruiterkamp 2010

Ruiterkamp J, Voogd AC, Bosscha K, Tjan‐Heijnen VCG, Ernst MF. Impact of breast surgery on survival in patients with distant metastases at initial presentation. A systematic review of the literature. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2010;120(1):9‐16.

Sales 2001

Sales CACC, Paiva L, Scandiuzzi D, Anjos ACY. Quality of life of breast cancer: social functioning [Qualidade de vida em mulheres tratadas de cancer de mama: funcionamento social]. Revista Brasileira de Cancerologia 2001;47:263‐72.

Samiee 2012

Samiee S, Berardi P, Bouganim N, Vandermeer L, Arnaout A, Dent S, et al. Excision of the primary tumour in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a clinical dilemma. Current Oncology 2012;19(4):270‐9.

Slamon 2001

Slamon DJ, Leyland‐Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, Pharm D, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;344(11):783‐92.

Sobin 2002

Sobin LH, Wittekind CH. TNM classification of malignant tumours. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 6th Edition. New York: Wiley‐Liss, 2002.

Swain 2015

Swain SM, Baselga J, Kim SB, Ro J, Semiglazov V, Campone M, et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;372(8):724‐34.

Thomas 2015

Thomas A, Khan SA, Chrischilles EA, Schroeder MC. Initial surgery and survival in stage IV breast cancer in the United States, 1988‐2011. JAMA Surgery 2016;151(5):424‐31.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Badwe 2015

Methods

  • Randomised clinical trial

  • Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India

  • 350 patients

  • Mean follow‐up: 23 months

  • February 2005 to January 2013

  • Funding: Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India

  • No conflicts of interest

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

  • Metastatic breast cancer patients with expected survival of at least 1 year

  • Age 21 to 65 years

Exclusion criteria:

  • Patients not fit to receive anthracycline‐based chemotherapy

  • More than 2 visceral organ involvement

  • Multiple liver metastases with deranged liver function tests: SGOT/SGPT levels more than 4 times above the upper normal limit

  • Locally static or progressive disease or systemically progressive disease as shown by repeat staging investigations guided by worsening symptoms

  • Ulceration/fungation/bleeding after completion of chemotherapy that mandates surgery

  • Expected survival of less than 6 months after completion of chemotherapy

  • Unfit for anaesthesia due to metastatic disease

Interventions

  • Intervention group (n = 173): locoregional treatment: breast surgery (modified radical mastectomy/simple mastectomy with axillary clearance/breast conservation therapy) +/‐ radiotherapy (depending on type of surgery performed or histopathology report). Surgical oophorectomy (at the time of surgery) followed by hormone therapy (in ER‐ and/or PR‐positive premenopausal women). Postmenopausal women would receive hormone therapy if receptors hormone positive. Hormone therapy: aromatase inhibitors (letrozole 2.5 mg once a day/anastrozole 1.0 mg once a day)

  • Control group (n = 177): no breast surgery (no local treatment) with the same adjuvant treatment

Outcomes

Primary outcome:

  • Overall survival (time from randomisation to death from any cause). 173 women in the intervention group and 177 in the control (no breast surgery) group were analysed.

Secondary outcomes:

  • Locoregional PFS. 173 women in the intervention group and 177 in the control (no breast surgery) group were analysed.

  • Distant PFS. 173 women in the intervention group and 177 in the control (no breast surgery) group were analysed.

  • Quality of life. This outcome was not reported.

Notes

ClinicalTrials.gov register number: NCT00193778

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Computerized randomisation will be carried out at the central office after confirmation of eligibility and obtaining informed written consent. Randomisation will be stratified by

  1. Visceral or bone and/or soft tissue metastasis.

  2. Less than or equal to 3, or more than three metastases.

  3. Hormone responsive or non‐responsive tumor."

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00193778, tabular view, last update 18 October 2016.

The method of randomisation was appropriate.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"computer‐generated randomisation sequence and a telephone call to the central research office"

Allocation concealment was assured by a central office.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) ‐ OS

Low risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that the outcome overall survival is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) ‐ Local PFS

High risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that this outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) ‐ Distant PFS

High risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that this outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ OS

Low risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that the outcome overall survival is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ Local PFS

High risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that this outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ Distant PFS

High risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that this outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ OS

Unclear risk

There is no information about missing/censored data.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ Local PFS

Unclear risk

There is no information about missing/censored data.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ Distant PFS

Unclear risk

There is no information about missing/censored data.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

The study protocol is available, and all of the study’s prespecified primary outcomes that are of interest in the review were reported in the prespecified way.

Other bias

Low risk

The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.

Soran 2016

Methods

  • Randomised clinical trial

  • Federation of Breast Diseases Societies, Istanbul University, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Marmara University ‐ Turkey

  • 278 women

  • Intervention group: 140 breast surgery

  • Control group: 138 no breast surgery

  • Mean follow up: 21.1 +/‐ 14.5 months

  • November 2007 to November 2012

  • Sponsor: Federation of Breast Diseases Societies

  • No conflicts of interest

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

  • Women with metastatic breast cancer at initial diagnosis

  • Age > 18 years

  • Primary breast tumour amenable for complete surgical resection

  • Adequate organ function to undergo protocol‐driven locoregional and systemic treatment per investigator discretion and institutional guidelines

Exclusion criteria:

  • Primary tumour not amenable to complete surgical resection

  • Primary tumour with extended infection, bleeding, or necrosis

  • Patient in poor clinical condition for locoregional and systemic treatment

  • Synchronous primary cancer in the contralateral breast

  • Previous diagnosis of other cancers (excluding basal cell skin cancer, squamous cell skin cancer, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia)

  • Clinically involved contralateral axillary nodes

  • Patients not suitable for adequate follow‐up and failure to give informed consent

  • Pregnancy or nursing

Interventions

  • Intervention group (n = 138): locoregional treatment consisted of either mastectomy or breast‐conserving surgery with level I‐II axillary clearance in clinically or sentinel lymph node‐positive patients. Radiation therapy to whole breast was required following breast‐conserving surgery.

  • Control group (n = 136): no breast surgery (no local treatment) with the same adjuvant treatment

Outcomes

Primary:

  • Overall survival. 138 women in the intervention group and 136 in the control (no breast surgery) group were analysed.

Secondary:

  • Locoregional PFS. 136 women in the intervention group and 121 in the control (no breast surgery) group were analysed.

  • Quality of life. This outcome was not reported.

  • Morbidity ‐ 30‐day mortality. 138 women in the intervention group and 136 in the control (no breast surgery) group were analysed.

Notes

ClinicalTrials.gov register number: NCT00557986

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

As described in the text: "... is a phase III randomized controlled trial ..."

Probably done, but we did not find accurate information in the text. We emailed the author but were unable to obtain a precise answer on random sequence generation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No detailed information in the published text. We emailed the author but were unable to obtain a precise answer on allocation concealment. Insufficient information to allow judgement

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) ‐ OS

Low risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that the outcome overall survival is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) ‐ Local PFS

High risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that this outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) ‐ Distant PFS

High risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that this outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) ‐ Toxicity

Low risk

Toxicity was evaluated by 30‐day mortality. The review authors judge that this outcome is not influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ OS

Low risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that the outcome overall survival is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ Local PFS

High risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that this outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ Distant PFS

High risk

No blinding because it is a surgical intervention. The review authors judge that this outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ Toxicity

Low risk

Toxicity was evaluated by 30‐day mortality. The review authors judge that this outcome is not influenced by lack of blinding.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ OS

Unclear risk

There is no information about missing/censored data.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ Local PFS

Unclear risk

There is no information about missing/censored data.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ Distant PFS

Unclear risk

There is no information about missing/censored data.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ Toxicity

Unclear risk

There is no information about missing/censored data.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

The study protocol is available, and all of the study’s prespecified primary outcomes that are of interest in the review were reported in the prespecified way.

Other bias

High risk

There was an imbalance between groups at baseline. There was a higher proportion of women who were younger than 55 years of age, had ER‐positive and HER2‐negative tumours, and had single bone metastases in the group undergoing breast surgery. It is likely that these differences between the two groups could have influenced the result.

ER: oestrogen receptor
OS: overall survival
PFS: progression‐free survival
PR: progesterone receptor
SGOT: serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase
SGPT: serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

NCT01906112

This study was terminated prior to enrolment due to lack of accrual and no further funding.

Ruiterkamp 2012

This study was terminated prior to enrolment due to low accrual rate.

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

NCT01015625

Trial name or title

Primary Operation in SYnchronous meTastasized InVasivE Breast Cancer (POSYTIVE)

Methods

  • Randomised clinical trial

  • Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group

  • 254 patients

  • May 2010 to May 2019

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

  • Patients aged ≥ 18 years

  • Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status 0 to 2

  • Untreated synchronous metastasised invasive carcinoma of the breast with the primary tumour in situ (bilateral synchronous metastasised breast cancer patients are eligible)

  • The primary tumour must be identified and may be any size; however, primary resection with resection‐free margins must be possible.

  • Invasive adenocarcinoma of the breast on histological examination

  • The metastatic site must be identified by radiological assessment (CT of the chest and the abdomen OR ultrasound and chest X‐ray for visceral metastases; bone scan and/or CT and/or MRI for bone metastases). A biopsy is not necessary.

  • Written informed consent must be obtained and documented prior to beginning any protocol‐specific procedures and according to local regulatory requirements.

  • Able to comply with the protocol requirements during the treatment and follow‐up period

Exclusion criteria:

  • Patients in whom an R0 resection (microscopic free margins) is clinically questionable

  • Inflammatory cancer

  • Patients with a brain metastasis

  • Patients who are not eligible for general anaesthesia and operations

  • Patients without metastatic breast cancer (patients with a tumour marker value (CEA, CA15‐3) above normal levels without radiological‐proven evidence of metastases are not eligible for the study).

  • Patients with a second untreated malignancy

  • Any previous malignancy treated with curative intent, and the patient has not been disease‐free for 5 years; exceptions are:

    • carcinoma in situ of the cervix;

    • squamous carcinoma of the skin;

    • basal cell carcinoma of the skin.

  • Patients with any recurrent cancer disease

  • Pregnant or lactating women

  • Patients are not allowed to be part of another local therapy trial.

Interventions

Local therapy consists of lumpectomy or mastectomy with or without radiotherapy (according to centre tumour board decision) with a resection‐free margin of at least 1 mm or more demonstrated on paraffin embedded histological sections. Intraoperative frozen sections are allowed but not definitive for margin assessment. Sentinel node biopsy may be performed and must always be followed by axillary dissection of level I and II (axillary surgery level I and II is mandatory).

Outcomes

Primary outcome measure:

  • to evaluate the median survival of patients with synchronous metastasised breast cancer and the primary tumour in place comparing arm A with local therapy to the primary tumour versus arm B without local therapy [ Time Frame: time point at which 50% of all randomised participants died ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Secondary outcome measures:

  • time to distant progression [ Time Frame: time to treatment change due to systemic progression ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

  • time to local progression [ Time Frame: increase in size > 25% of the primary tumour in arm B (no local therapy). Local recurrence in arm A (local therapy). ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Starting date

May 2010

Contact information

[email protected], [email protected]

Notes

NCT01242800

Trial name or title

Early surgery or standard palliative therapy in treating patients with stage IV breast cancer

Methods

  • Randomised clinical trial

  • Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ‐ USA

  • 880 patients

  • February 2011 to June 2025

Participants

Disease characteristics:

  • Diagnosis of intact primary (not recurrent) invasive carcinoma of the breast stage IV disease. Confirmation of the primary tumour should be by needle biopsy (preferred). Incisional surgical biopsy allowed as long as there is residual palpable or tumour image in the breast.

  • Must be judged to be candidate for complete resection with free margins followed by radiation therapy (if radiation therapy is indicated)

  • For women not undergoing axillary dissection, sentinel node biopsy should document an axillary nodal burden of 1 to 2 involved lymph nodes (i.e. ACOSOG Z‐11 criteria may be applied).

  • Prior non‐invasive (DCIS) cancer allowed provided there has been no recurrence.

  • Prior ipsilateral invasive cancer allowed if more than 5 years previous.

  • No synchronous contralateral breast cancer

  • Patients should have at least 1 organ system involved with distant metastatic disease. If patient has only 1 metastatic lesion/focus, this must be proven by biopsy, and the pathology report confirming the diagnosis of primary breast cancer, as well as the metastatic site, must be available.

  • Must have available radiologic reports documenting disease status within the past 6 weeks prior to initiating systemic therapy

  • Central nervous system metastases allowed provided projected survival > 6 months.

  • Patients must have completed at least 16 weeks of optimal systemic therapy (appropriate to the tumour biological profile and the patient's age and menopausal status). If systemic therapy is discontinued for toxicity, but there is no distant progression and at least 12 weeks of therapy have been delivered, then the patient remains eligible. Radiation therapy (if indicated) must begin within 12 weeks of final therapeutic surgical procedure (including re‐excision for free margins and completion of axillary dissection).

  • Patients may register at any time from the time of diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer (if eligibility criteria met) to the time when a maximum of 30 weeks of induction systemic therapy has been completed. Patients must be randomised within 16 to 32 weeks after the start of systemic therapy.

  • Patients must not have experienced disease progression since the start of systemic therapy, as evidenced by radiographic documentation of disease status before treatment and within 4 weeks +/‐ 2 weeks prior to randomisation, including: no new sites of disease; no enlargement of existing sites by 20% or more in longest diameter; no symptomatic deterioration.

  • Patients who require radiotherapy to bone metastases during induction systemic therapy are eligible. Local disease at the primary site must be asymptomatic. Hormone receptor status known.

Patient characteristics:

  • Menopausal status not specified.

  • Patients must have adequate organ function to undergo local therapy 4 weeks +/‐ 2 weeks prior to randomisation per investigator discretion and institutional guidelines.

  • More than 5 years since other primary cancers that were curatively treated

  • Not pregnant or nursing

  • Negative pregnancy test

  • Fertile patients must use an accepted and effective contraception method.

Interventions

Patients undergo surgery comprising BCT or total mastectomy according to patient and treating physician preference. Surgery is to occur no later than 10 weeks after completion of 32 weeks of systemic therapy. Free surgical margins must be achieved with re‐excision or mastectomy for patients undergoing BCT. After completion of BCT, patients undergo radiotherapy once a day, 5 days per week. Patients who had mastectomy undergo radiotherapy at the discretion of treating physician.

Outcomes

Primary outcome:

  1. overall survival

Secondary outcomes:

  1. health‐related quality of life

  2. uncontrolled chest wall disease

  3. circulating tumour cells

Starting date

February 2011

Contact information

Seema Khan ‐ [email protected]

Notes

NCT01242800

NCT02125630

Trial name or title

The effect of primary surgery in patients with stage IV breast cancer with bone metastasis only

Methods

  • Randomised clinical trial

  • Federation of Breast Diseases Societies ‐ Turkey

  • 288 women

  • April 2014 to April 2017

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

  • Female between 18 and 80 years of age

  • Primary breast tumour amenable for complete surgical resection

  • Women in good physical condition for receiving protocol‐driven locoregional and systemic treatment

  • Women eligible for sentinel lymph node biopsy and receiving radiotherapy

Exclusion criteria:

  • Primary tumour not amenable for complete resection (such as tumour extending to neighbouring tissues; T4a,c or inflammatory breast cancer; T4d)

  • Primary tumour with extended infection, bleeding, or necrosis

  • Women with poor physical condition that prevents the patient from receiving protocol‐driven locoregional and systemic treatment

  • Synchronous primary cancer at the contralateral breast

  • Previous diagnosis of other cancers (excluding basal cell skin cancer, squamous cell skin cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia)

  • Clinically involved contralateral axillary nodes

  • Women not suitable for adequate follow‐up

  • Failure to give informed consent

Interventions

Surgery to primary tumour: mastectomy, lumpectomy

Outcomes

  • Primary: overall survival

  • Secondary: progression‐free survival

Starting date

April 2014

Contact information

[email protected]

Notes

NCT02125630

UMIN000005586

Trial name or title

A randomized controlled trial comparing primary tumour resection plus systemic therapy with systemic therapy alone in metastatic breast cancer (PRIM‐BC): Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1017

Methods

  • Randomised clinical trial

  • Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG)

  • 600 women

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

  • Females between 20 and 80 years of age

First registration

  • Histologically proven breast cancer confirmed by biopsy from the tumour

  • Presense/absence of overexpression of oestrogen receptor and HER2 was examined by IHC or FISH analyses.

  • Neither bilateral breast cancer nor invasion to contralateral breast

  • At least 1 measurable lesion other than the breast tumour and ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes was detected by CT or MRI before primary registration.

  • No brain metastasis

  • Women aged 20 to 80 years old

  • ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Performance status of 2 caused by the symptom from bone metastasis is also eligible.

  • No prior surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy for any other malignancies within 5 years

  • No history of invasive breast cancer. Non‐invasive breast cancer resected completely by partial mastectomy is eligible.

  • Neither prior chemotherapy for breast cancer nor prior radiotherapy for ipsilateral breast (radiotherapy for bone metastasis within 30 Gy and 10 times before registration is allowed)

  • Sufficient organ functions

  • Written informed consent

Second registration (after primary chemotherapy)

  • Primary chemotherapy was performed after the first registration and protocol treatment is not discontinued.

  • Objective response of primary chemotherapy was neither progressive disease nor not evaluable.

  • Within 28 days from the date of response evaluation

  • Sufficient organ functions

  • Complete resection is expected to be possible by total or partial mastectomy without resection of adjacent organs or wide skin transplant, or both.

  • No active bleeding from breast tumour that necessitates blood transfusion within 28 days before second registration

Exclusion criteria:

First registration (no exclusion criteria at second registration)

  • Simultaneous or metachronous (within 5 years) double cancers

  • Infectious disease to be treated

  • Body temperature of 38 °C or higher

  • Pregnant or lactating women

  • Psychiatric diseases

  • Systemic and continuous steroids medication

  • Comorbid unstable angina pectoris or history of myocardial infarction within 6 months

  • Uncontrollable hypertension

  • Diabetes mellitus uncontrollable or treated by continuous insulin administration

Interventions

Primary tumour resection plus systemic therapy

Outcomes

Primary outcomes:

  1. overall survival

Secondary outcomes:

  1. proportion of women without progression in metastatic sites

  2. yearly local recurrence‐free survival

  3. incidence of local ulcer/local bleeding

  4. yearly primary tumour resection‐free survival

  5. adverse events of chemotherapy

  6. operative morbidity

  7. serious adverse events

Starting date

November 2011

Contact information

hiwata@aichi‐cc.jp

Notes

doi: 10.1093/jjco/hys120; protocol ID UMIN000005586

ACOSOG: American College of Surgeons Oncology Group
BCT: breast‐conserving therapy
CEA: carcinoembryonic antigen
CT: computed tomography
DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ
ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
FISH: fluorescent in situ hybridisation
IHC: immunohistochemistry
MRI: magnetic resonance imaging

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Overall survival Show forest plot

2

624

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.53, 1.31]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 1 Overall survival.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 1 Overall survival.

2 Overall survival ‐ HER2 status Show forest plot

2

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 2 Overall survival ‐ HER2 status.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 2 Overall survival ‐ HER2 status.

2.1 HER2‐positive

2

192

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.48, 1.50]

2.2 HER2‐negative

2

421

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.50, 1.40]

3 Overall survival ‐ ER status Show forest plot

2

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 3 Overall survival ‐ ER status.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 3 Overall survival ‐ ER status.

3.1 ER‐positive

2

426

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.48, 1.42]

3.2 ER‐negative

2

200

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.70, 1.55]

4 Overall survival ‐ only bone metastasis Show forest plot

2

226

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.49, 1.69]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 4 Overall survival ‐ only bone metastasis.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 4 Overall survival ‐ only bone metastasis.

5 Progression‐free survival Show forest plot

2

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 5 Progression‐free survival.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 5 Progression‐free survival.

5.1 Local progression‐free survival

2

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.08, 0.57]

5.2 Distant progression‐free survival

1

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

1.42 [1.08, 1.86]

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, outcome: 1.1 Overall survival.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, outcome: 1.1 Overall survival.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, outcome: 1.5 Progression‐free survival.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, outcome: 1.5 Progression‐free survival.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 1 Overall survival.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 1 Overall survival.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 2 Overall survival ‐ HER2 status.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 2 Overall survival ‐ HER2 status.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 3 Overall survival ‐ ER status.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 3 Overall survival ‐ ER status.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 4 Overall survival ‐ only bone metastasis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 4 Overall survival ‐ only bone metastasis.

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 5 Progression‐free survival.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment, Outcome 5 Progression‐free survival.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Breast surgery plus systemic treatment compared to systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer

Breast surgery plus systemic treatment compared to systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer

Patient or population: metastatic breast cancer
Setting: inpatients and outpatients
Intervention: breast surgery plus systemic treatment
Comparison: systemic treatment

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with systemic treatment

Risk with breast surgery plus systemic treatment

Overall survival at 2 years

Follow‐up: range 23 months to 40 months

Study population

HR 0.83
(0.53 to 1.31)

624
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2 3

The estimates for the control group are based upon an average of the estimates from Badwe 2015 and Soran 2016.

511 per 1000

448 per 1000
(318 to 608)

Quality of life

Not reported

Not reported

Local PFS at 2 years

Follow‐up: range 23 months to 40 months

Study population

HR 0.22
(0.08 to 0.57)

607
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 2 4

The estimates for the control group are based upon an average of the estimates from Badwe 2015 and Soran 2016.

500 per 1000

141 per 1000
(54 to 326)

Distant PFS at 2 years

Follow‐up: 23 months

Study population

HR 1.42
(1.08 to 1.86)

350
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 5

The estimates for the control group are based upon the estimates from Badwe 2015.

548 per 1000

676 per 1000
(576 to 772)

Breast cancer‐specific survival

Not reported

Not reported

Toxicity from local therapy

Follow‐up: 40 months

Study population

RR 0.99
(0.14 to 6.90)

274
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 6

The estimates for the control group are based upon the estimates from Soran 2016.

15 per 1000

15 per 1000
(2 to 101)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1In Soran 2016, trial random sequence generation and allocation concealment were unclear. Downgraded one level.
2Statistical or clinical heterogeneity, or both. Downgraded one level.
3Wide 95% CI (0.53 to 1.31) including the null effect. Downgraded one level.
4In Soran 2016, trial random sequence generation and allocation concealment were unclear. Outcome assessors were not blinded, and this is a subjective outcome. Downgraded one level.
5Outcome assessors were not blinded, and this is a subjective outcome. Downgraded one level.
6Very wide 95% CI (0.14 to 6.9). Downgraded one level.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Breast surgery plus systemic treatment compared to systemic treatment for metastatic breast cancer
Table 1. Overall survival ‐ subgroup analyses

Overall survival subgroup analysis

Number of studies

N

HR

Lower CI

Upper CI

P value

HER2‐positive

2

192

0.90

0.60

1.35

NS

HER2‐negative

2

421

0.85

0.67

1.08

NS

ER positive

2

426

0.79

0.61

1.03

NS

ER negative

2

200

1.01

0.73

1.40

NS

Bone‐only metastasis

2

226

0.91

0.49

1.69

NS

CI: confidence interval
ER: oestrogen receptor
HR: hazard ratio
NS: not significant

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Overall survival ‐ subgroup analyses
Comparison 1. Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Overall survival Show forest plot

2

624

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.53, 1.31]

2 Overall survival ‐ HER2 status Show forest plot

2

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 HER2‐positive

2

192

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.48, 1.50]

2.2 HER2‐negative

2

421

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.50, 1.40]

3 Overall survival ‐ ER status Show forest plot

2

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 ER‐positive

2

426

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.48, 1.42]

3.2 ER‐negative

2

200

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.70, 1.55]

4 Overall survival ‐ only bone metastasis Show forest plot

2

226

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.49, 1.69]

5 Progression‐free survival Show forest plot

2

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Local progression‐free survival

2

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.08, 0.57]

5.2 Distant progression‐free survival

1

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

1.42 [1.08, 1.86]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Systemic treatment plus surgery versus systemic treatment