By 1800: surgical resection of breast tumours commonly employed, +/- removal of surrounding breast, muscle, ribs and/or lymph nodes. Complete removal of the breast ("mastectomy") frequently performed.
Cancer was initially thought to radiate out from the primary tumour → removing some tissue surrounding the primary tumour was deemed desirable…but how much was enough?
1867: Charles Moore admonished surgeons recoiling from the "prevailing horror of such Amazonian surgery", urging them to perform more extensive resections
1894: William Halsted and Willy Meyer developed "radical" mastectomy procedures. Removal of breast, regional lymphatics, pectoralis muscles: cure rate reported as 40%
Gradually, understanding of the way that cancer progresses improved. Rather than simply radiating, cells typically migrate via lymph system to distant organs.
If cancer cells had already spread to distant sites, no amount of local resection would help. However, if cells had not yet metastasised to distant organs, minimal resection ("lumpectomy"), +/- removal of a few lymph nodes, would presumably be curative.
In the 1950s-1960s these ideas, and comparisons of outcomes (survival and quality of life) of patients after radical versus conservative surgery, led some surgeons to question the benefit of radical mastectomies
These comparisons were problematic, however… Maybe some hospitals or surgeons tended to see patients with more advanced cancer: their patients would have worse outcomes because their disease was more advanced, rather than because the surgical technique was suboptimal. Surgery requires technical expertise and practice - individual surgeons have their preferred approaches. Difficult to tell whether differences in outcome relate to approach or skill. And difficult to convince surgeons to compare approaches
Answering this question required a side-by-side comparison: randomised controlled trial. Considerable resistance! But they convinced many patients to participate. Patients were randomised to treatment arms
No statistical difference in outcomes: removing muscle, many lymph nodes was unnecessary. Radical surgery created massive suffering for no survival benefit. Gut feelings about optimal treatments can be very wrong! Objective data is required
Tissues, including tumours, drain fluid (possibly containing cancerous cells) into lymph vessels, which connect to lymph nodes. "Sentinel" nodes are those that receive fluid directly from the tumour – these are the most likely sites for initial cancer spread.
Intensive radiation treatment administered during surgery
Example: low dose prostate cancer brachytherapy - radioactive seeds injected into the prostate gland, give off radiation at a low dose rate over several weeks or months, seeds remain permanently
Radioactive and/or coloured substance is injected into the primary tumour: nodes that become radioactive and/or coloured are resected and checked for cancer cells. Now: often, only the tumour (lumpectomy) plus sentinel nodes are surgically removed
Surgery can be used as a preventative measure when cancer risk is extremely high (eg familial cancer). Angelina Jolie inherited BRCA1 mutation: predisposes to breast and ovarian cancer. Mother, grandmother and great-grandmother died from ovarian cancer. Cousin, aunt and great aunt died of breast cancer. Jolie had prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy to reduce her risk
When surgeons have to remove non-cancerous tissue, reconstructions are sometimes possible. Breast implants (fat + muscle or saline/silicone). Bone cancer often arises in the growth plates of legs in patients who are still growing. Huge improvements in management: Initially (pre-1980: Amputation, ~1980-2000: Prostheses replaced as patient grows (lots of surgery), ~2000-2010: Invasive expandable prostheses (screw to expand), ~2010-now: Non-invasive expandable prostheses