Association Between Progesterone Receptor Expression and the Incidence of Acute Postoperative Complications Following Lumpectomy

Shiri, Hosein; Dehghani, Abbasali; Seyed Hoseini, Seyed Vahid

doi:10.5281/zenodo.21433243

Association Between Progesterone Receptor Expression and the Incidence of Acute Postoperative Complications Following Lumpectomy

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Hosein Shiri ¹

Abbasali Dehghani ²

Seyed Vahid Seyed Hoseini ³

¹ Assistant Professor of Surgery, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

² Associate Professor of Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

³ Assistant Professor of Surgery, Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21433243

Abstract

Introduction: Lumpectomy is a standard breast-conserving procedure, yet acute postoperative complications may delay recovery and adjuvant treatment. Beyond clinical risk factors, tumor biology may influence wound healing and inflammatory responses. This study aimed to evaluate the association between progesterone receptor expression and the incidence of acute postoperative complications following lumpectomy.

Material and methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at Tabriz University of Medical Sciences in 2025 on 54 women undergoing lumpectomy, with sample size estimated using the Cochran formula and participants enrolled by convenience sampling. Progesterone receptor expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry on surgical specimens, and its association with acute postoperative complications was analyzed alongside demographic, clinical, pathological, and perioperative variables using appropriate statistical tests.

Results: Results summary: Among 54 patients undergoing lumpectomy, PR-negative status was associated with poorer early postoperative outcomes. Compared with PR-positive patients, PR-negative patients had higher postoperative VAS scores (4.06 ± 1.43 vs. 3.14 ± 1.21; p = 0.017), more acute complications (50.00% vs. 22.22%; p = 0.037), and more unplanned visits (33.33% vs. 11.11%; p = 0.048). PR negativity independently predicted complications after adjustment (OR = 3.84; p = 0.039).

Conclusion: PR-negative status was associated with a higher risk of acute postoperative complications after lumpectomy. Despite broadly comparable operative variables, PR-negative patients experienced greater postoperative morbidity and more unplanned visits, suggesting that receptor status may help identify patients requiring closer early postoperative monitoring.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Progesterone receptor

Lumpectomy

Postoperative complications

Breast cancer

Subjects

Bio-Chemistry

[1] Brouwer de Koning, S. G., Vranken Peeters, M. T. F. D., Jozwiak, K., Bhairosing, P. A., & Ruers, T. J. M. (2018). Tumor resection margin definitions in breast-conserving surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature. Clinical Breast Cancer, *18*(4), e595-e600.

[2] Lepomäki, M., Karhunen-Enckell, U., Tuominen, J., Kronqvist, P., Oksala, N., Murtola, T., ... & Rantanen, T. (2022). Tumor margins that lead to reoperation in breast cancer: A retrospective register study of 4,489 patients. Journal of Surgical Oncology, *125*(4), 577-588.

[3] Morrow, M. (2009). Breast conservation and negative margins: How much is enough? The Breast, *18*(Suppl 3), S84-S86.

[4] Moran, M. S., Schnitt, S. J., Giuliano, A. E., Harris, J. R., Khan, S. A., Horton, J., ... & Morrow, M. (2014). Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, *32*(14), 1507-1515.

[5] Schnitt, S. J., Moran, M. S., & Giuliano, A. E. (2020). Lumpectomy margins for invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ: Current guideline recommendations, their implications, and impact. Journal of Clinical Oncology, *38*(20), 2240-2245.

[6] Vos, E. L., Siesling, S., Baaijens, M. H. A., Verhoef, C., Jager, A., Voogd, A. C., ... & van Dalen, T. (2017). Omitting re-excision for focally positive margins after breast-conserving surgery does not impair disease-free and overall survival. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, *164*, 157-167.

[7] Monteau, A., Sigal-Zafrani, B., Kirova, Y. M., Fourchotte, V., Bollet, M. A., Vincent-Salomon, A., ... & Dendale, R. (2009). Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with close or focally involved margins following breast-conserving surgery: Treatment with reexcision or radiotherapy with increased dosage. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, *75*(4), 1021-1028.

[8] Suzuki, R., Yoshida, M., Oguchi, M., Yoshioka, Y., Tokumasu, K., Osako, T., ... & Miyashita, M. (2020). Efficacy of radiation boost after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer with focally positive, tumor-exposed margins. Journal of Radiation Research, *61*(3), 440-446.

[9] Lee, J. H., Lee, H., Bang, Y. J., Ryu, J. M., Lee, S. K., Yu, J., ... & Kim, S. W. (2022). Comparison of recurrence rate between re-excision with radiotherapy and radiotherapy-only groups in surgical margin involvement of in situ carcinoma. Journal of Breast Cancer, *25*(4), 288-295.

[10] Kim, H., Kim, T. G., Park, B., Kim, J., Jun, S. Y., Lee, J. H., ... & Lee, I. J. (2024). Tailored radiation dose according to margin width for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ after breast-conserving surgery. Scientific Reports, *14*, 300.

[11] Fisher, S., Yasui, Y., Dabbs, K., & Winget, M. (2018). Re-excision and survival following breast conserving surgery in early-stage breast cancer patients: A population-based study. BMC Health Services Research, *18*, 94.

[12] Chakedis, J. M., Tang, A., Savitz, A., Lyon, L. L., Palacios, P. E., Vuong, B., ... & Pilarski, R. (2022). Economic impact of reducing reexcision rates after breast-conserving surgery in a large, integrated health system. Annals of Surgical Oncology, *29*, 6288-6296.

[13] Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). (2005). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomized trials. The Lancet, *365*(9472), 1687-1717.

[14] Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Davies, C., Godwin, J., Gray, R., Clarke, M., Cutter, D., ... & Peto, R. (2011). Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: Patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials. The Lancet, *378*(9793), 771-784.

[15] Voduc, K. D., Cheang, M. C., Tyldesley, S., Gelmon, K., Nielsen, T. O., & Kennecke, H. (2010). Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. Journal of Clinical Oncology, *28*(10), 1684-1691.

[16] Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). (2021). Trastuzumab for early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer: A meta-analysis of 13,864 women in seven randomized trials. The Lancet Oncology, *22*(8), 1139-1150.

[17] Biglia, N., Ponzone, R., Bounous, V. E., Mariani, L. L., Maggio Rotto, F., Benevelli, C., ... & Sismondi, P. (2014). Role of re-excision for positive and close resection margins in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery. The Breast, *23*(6), 870-875.

[18] Jobsen, J. J., van der Palen, J., Ong, F., & Meerwald, J. H. (2007). Differences in outcome for positive margins in a large cohort of breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Acta Oncologica, *46*(2), 172-180.

[19] Peterson, M. E., Schultz, D. J., Reynolds, C., & Solin, L. J. (1999). Outcomes in breast cancer patients relative to margin status after treatment with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy: The University of Pennsylvania experience. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, *43*(5), 1029-1035.

[20] DiBiase, S. J., Komenich, L. T., Heron, D. E., Schwartz, G. F., & Mansfield, C. M. (2002). Influence of radiation dose on positive surgical margins in women undergoing breast conservation therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, *53*(3), 680-686.

[21] Park, S., Ahn, S. D., Choi, E. K., & Kim, S. S. (2018). The effect of escalating the boost dose for patients with involved resection margin after breast-conserving surgery. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, *48*(3), 272-277.

[22] Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Darby, S., McGale, P., Correa, C., Taylor, C., Arriagada, R., ... & Peto, R. (2011). 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. The Lancet, *378*(9804), 1707-1716.

[23] Bartelink, H., Horiot, J. C., Poortmans, P. M., Struikmans, H., Van den Bogaert, W., Fourquet, A., ... & Collette, L. (2007). Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, *25*(22), 3259-3265.

[24] Batenburg, M. C. T., Bartels, M., Maarse, W., Witkamp, A., Verkooijen, H. M., & van den Bongard, H. J. G. D. (2022). Factors associated with late local radiation toxicity after post-operative breast irradiation. The Breast Journal, *2022*, 6745954.

[25] Brownlee, Z., Garg, R., Listo, M., Zavitsanos, P., Wazer, D. E., & Huber, K. E. (2018). Late complications of radiation therapy for breast cancer: Evolution in techniques and risk over time. Gland Surgery, *7*(4), 371-378.

[26] Sadeghi Joni, S., Gerami, R., Akhondi, N., Etemadi, A., Fosouli, M., & Eghbal, A. F. (2022). Investigating the role of susceptibility weighted imaging for assessment of ischemic penumbra with respect to Venus's blood flow in ischemic stroke patients. International Journal of Physiology, Pathophysiology and Pharmacology, *14*(3), 200-205.