To compare outcomes of salvage mastectomy (SM) and salvage breast-conserving surgery (SBCS) and study the feasibility of SBCS.

Of 2,038 patients treated with breast-conserving therapy at Yale-New Haven Hospital before 1999, 166 sustained an ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Outcomes and prognostic factors of patients treated with SM or SBCS were compared. Patients were considered amenable to SBCS if the recurrence was localized on mammogram and physical examination, and had pathologic size < 3 cm, confined to the biopsy site, without skin or lymphovascular invasion, and with < or = 3 positive nodes.

Of the 146 patients definitively managed at IBTR, surgery was SM (n = 116) or SBCS (n = 30). The median length of follow-up after IBTR was 13.8 years. The SM and SBCS cohorts had no significant differences, except at IBTR the SM cohort had a greater tumor size (p = 0.049). Of the SM cohort, 65.5% were considered appropriate for SBCS, and a localized relapse was predicted by estrogen-receptor positive, diploid, and detection of recurrence by mammogram. Multicentric disease correlated with BRCA1/2 mutation, estrogen-receptor negative, lymph node positive at relapse, and detection of recurrence by physical examination. Survival after IBTR was 64.5% at 10 years, with no significant difference between SM (65.7%) and SBCS (58.0%). Only 2 patients in the SBCS cohort subsequently had a second IBTR, and were salvaged with mastectomy.

While mastectomy is considered the standard surgical salvage of IBTR, SBCS is feasible and prognostic factors are related to favorable tumor biology and early detection. Patients with BRCA1/2 germline mutations may be less appropriate for SBCS, as multicentric disease was more prevalent. Patients who underwent SBCS had comparable outcomes as those who underwent SM, but remain at continued risk for IBTR. A prospective trial evaluating repeat lumpectomy and partial breast reirradiation is discussed.