Prospective matched-pair comparison of outcome after treatment for lobular and ductal breast carcinoma.
p. 827-33
Mhuircheartaigh-J-Ni, Curran-C, Hennessy-E, Kerin-M-J.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether the prognosis of invasive lobular carcinoma is different from that of other invasive breast cancers is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome in age- and stage-matched patients with lobular carcinoma and those with invasive breast cancer, and in particular to compare predictors of outcome. METHODS: Data were obtained from a prospectively maintained database that included patients who had breast surgery for invasive cancer. Patients were matched for International Union Against Cancer stage and age at diagnosis within 5 years. Two patients with invasive ductal carcinoma were matched to each patient with invasive lobular carcinoma. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas in terms of overall survival. Oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive invasive ductal carcinoma had a better prognosis than ER-positive invasive lobular carcinoma (P = 0.011). Similarly, ER-negative invasive ductal carcinoma was associated with worse survival than ER-negative invasive lobular carcinoma (P = 0.054). CONCLUSION: These results suggested that the differences in outcome between invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas may be determined by ER status.
Use of enoxaparin results in more haemorrhagic complications after breast surgery than unfractionated heparin.
p. 834-6
Hardy-R-G, Williams-L, Dixon-J-M.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is used in preference to unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the prevention of postoperative thromboembolism in many UK surgical units. There are, however, conflicting reports on the relative risk of significant bleeding in surgical patients, and no data exist in the literature for patients undergoing breast surgery. METHODS: Data for patients in the Edinburgh Breast Unit with postoperative breast haematoma that needed surgical intervention were analysed for two 12-month intervals in which either UFH (2001) or LMWH (2005-2006) was used for thromboprophylaxis. Haematoma rates in the 6 months after UFH was reintroduced in 2006-2007 were also determined. RESULTS: The rate of haematoma requiring surgical intervention was 0.4 per cent (six of 1452 wounds) in patients who had UFH, compared with 1.8 per cent (32 of 1780 wounds) for LMWH. The rate fell to 0.5 per cent (four of 773 wounds) on reinstituting UFH. The relative risk of haematoma was significantly higher with LMWH than with UFH (4.00 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.97 to 8.11); P < 0.001). No significant postoperative thromboembolic complications were recorded. CONCLUSION: LMWH thromboprophylaxis was associated with a significant increase in haemorrhagic complications after breast surgery compared with UFH.
