Search

Purpose Changes occur in the expression of oestrogen-regulated and proliferation-associated genes in oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast tumours during the menstrual cycle. We investigated if Oncotype® DX recurrence score (RS), Prosigna® (ROR) and EndoPredict® (EP/EPclin) prognostic tests, which include some of these genes, vary according to the time in the menstrual cycle when they are measured. Methods Pairs of test scores were derived from 30 ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative tumours sampled at two different points of the menstrual cycle. Menstrual cycle windows were prospectively defined as either W1 (days 1–6 and 27–35; low oestrogen and low progesterone) or W2 (days 7–26; high oestrogen and high or low progesterone). Results The invasion module score of RS was lower (− 10.9%; p = 0.098), whereas the ER (+ 16.6%; p = 0.046) and proliferation (+ 7.3%; p = 0.13) module scores were higher in W2. PGR expression was significantly increased in W2 (+ 81.4%; p = 0.0029). Despite this, mean scores were not significantly different between W1 and W2 for any of the tests and the two measurements showed high correlation (r = 0.72–0.93). However, variability between the two measurements led to tumours being assigned to different risk categories in the following proportion of cases: RS 22.7%, ROR 27.3%, EP 13.6% and EPclin 13.6%. Conclusion There are significant changes during the menstrual cycle in the expression of some of the genes and gene module scores comprising the RS, ROR and EP/EPclin scores. These did not affect any of the prognostic scores in a systematic fashion, but there was substantial variability in paired measurements.

Background The TARGIT-A trial reported risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) during lumpectomy for breast cancer to be as effective as whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Here, we present further detailed analyses. Methods In total, 2298 women (≥45 years, invasive ductal carcinoma ≤3.5 cm, cN0–N1) were randomised. We investigated the impact of tumour size, grade, ER, PgR, HER2 and lymph node status on local recurrence-free survival, and of local recurrence on distant relapse and mortality. We analysed the predictive factors for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT as part of the risk-adapted approach, using regression modelling. Non-breast cancer mortality was compared between TARGIT-IORT plus EBRT vs. EBRT. Results Local recurrence-free survival was no different between TARGIT-IORT and EBRT, in every tumour subgroup. Unlike in the EBRT arm, local recurrence in the TARGIT-IORT arm was not a predictor of a higher risk of distant relapse or death. Our new predictive tool for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT is at https://targit.org.uk/addrt. Non-breast cancer mortality was significantly lower in the TARGIT-IORT arm, even when patients received supplemental EBRT, HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.17–0.88) P = 0.0091. Conclusion TARGIT-IORT is as effective as EBRT in all subgroups. Local recurrence after TARGIT-IORT, unlike after EBRT, has a good prognosis. TARGIT-IORT might have a beneficial abscopal effect. Trial registration ISRCTN34086741 (21/7/2004), NCT00983684 (24/9/2009).

The major changes in hormone levels that occur through the menstrual cycle have been postulated to affect the expression of hormone-regulated and proliferation-associated genes (PAGs) in premenopausal ER+ breast cancer. Whilst previous studies have demonstrated differences in gene expression, here, we investigated if there are within patient changes in the expression of oestrogen- and progesterone-regulated genes (ERGs and PRGs) and PAGs in ER+ breast cancer during the menstrual cycle. Samples from 96 patients in two independent prospective studies of the effect of menstrual cycle on ER+ breast cancer were used. Plasma hormone measurements were used to assign tumours to one of three pre-defined menstrual cycle windows: W1 (days 27–35 and 1–6; low oestradiol and low progesterone), W2 (days 7–16; high oestradiol and low progesterone) and W3 (days 17–26; intermediate oestradiol and high progesterone). RNA expression of 50 genes, including 27 ERGs, 11 putative PRGs and seven PAGs was measured. The AvERG (geomean of PGR, GREB1, TFF1 and PDZK1) was used as a composite measure of ERG expression and showed significant changes between the three windows of the menstrual cycle increasing over 2.2-fold between W1 and W2 and decreasing between W2 and W3 and between W3 and W1. Proliferation gene expression also varied significantly, following the same pattern of changes as ERG expression, but the changes were of lower magnitude (1.4-fold increase between W1 and W2). Significant changes in the expression of eight individual ERGs, including GREB1, PGR and TFF1, and two PAGs were observed between W1 and either W2 or W3 with all genes showing higher levels in W2 or W3 (1.3–2.4-fold; FDR 0.016–0.05). The AvProg, a composite measure of PRG expression, increased significantly (1.5-fold) in W3 compared to W1 or W2 but no significant changes were observed for individual PRGs. In conclusion, we observed significant changes in ERG, PRG and PAG expression in ER+ breast tumours during the menstrual cycle that may affect the assessment and interpretation of prominent biomarkers (e.g. PgR) and commonly used multigene prognostic signatures in premenopausal ER+ breast cancer.

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR.The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy.A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment.TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.La mamoplastia terapéutica (therapeutic mammaplasty, TM) puede ser una alternativa a la mastectomía, pero hay pocos estudios bien diseñados que hayan evaluado el éxito de esta estrategia o hayan comparado los resultados a corto plazo de la TM con la mastectomía con o sin (+/-) reconstrucción mamaria inmediata (immediate breast reconstruction, IBR). Para comparar la seguridad y los resultados a corto plazo de la TM y la mastectomía +/- IBR se combinaron los datos de los estudios nacionales iBRA-2 y TeaM. MÉTODOS: En el estudio TeaM se identificó el subgrupo de pacientes al que se realizó una TM para evitar la mastectomía y se compararon los datos demográficos, las complicaciones, los resultados oncológicos y el tratamiento adyuvante con las pacientes sometidas a mastectomía +/- IBR del estudio iBRA-2. La variable principal fue el porcentaje de éxito de la cirugía conservadora de mama en el grupo TM. Las variables secundarias fueron las complicaciones postoperatorias y el intervalo de tiempo hasta el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante.Se incluyeron en el análisis 2.916 pacientes (TM n = 376; mastectomía n = 1.532; IBR n = 1.008). La TM era más frecuente en pacientes obesas o en las sometidas a cirugía bilateral en comparación con las pacientes con IBR. Sin embargo, las pacientes sometidas a una mastectomía +/- IBR tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar complicaciones que las del grupo TM (TM n = 79, 21,0%; mastectomía n = 570, 37,2%; mastectomía y IBR n = 359, 35,6%; P 0,001). La conservación de la mama fue posible en el 87% de las pacientes con TM y el procedimiento no retrasó el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: La TM puede permitir que pacientes de alto riesgo que no serían candidatas a IBR eviten la mastectomía de una forma segura. Se necesitan más trabajos para comparar los resultados percibidos por las pacientes y los estéticos de las diferentes estrategias terapéuticas y establecer la seguridad oncológica a largo plazo.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) avoids mastectomy for larger tumors, but patient-reported outcomes are unknown. Methods: The BREAST-Q questionnaire was distributed to 333 women following therapeutic mammaplasty or latissimus dorsi (LD) miniflap since 1991 [tumor diameter, 32.5 (5–100) mm). QScore software generated scores/100 for breast appearance, physical, emotional, and sexual wellbeing. Outcomes following therapeutic mammaplasty and LD miniflap were compared and qualitative data analyzed to identify common themes relating to satisfaction. Results: One hundred fifty (45%) women responded [mammaplasty versus LD miniflap, 52% versus 42%; age, 52 (30–83) years; follow-up, 84 (4–281) months). Eighty-nine percent rated OBCS better than mastectomy, > 80% recommending it to others. Mean outcome scores for breast appearance, physical, and emotional wellbeing were high and persisted beyond 15 years. Therapeutic mammaplasty patients were significantly more satisfied than those undergoing LD miniflap with the shape (P < 0.05), the size (P < 0.005), and the natural feel of the treated breast (P = 0.01). They demonstrated similar scores for physical and emotional wellbeing and a lower score for sexual wellbeing than LD miniflap patients. More LD miniflap patients reported back/shoulder symptoms and were more likely to report upper back pain (P < 0.05), but very few (< 5%) were concerned about donor-site appearance. Overall satisfaction with surgical outcomes was high in both OBCS groups (82% “excellent/very good”) but greatest after therapeutic mammaplasty (P < 0.005). Conclusions: Patients report long-lasting satisfaction after OBCS and outcomes that compare very favorably with those reported following mastectomy and immediate autologous reconstruction.

Background: Tumor-positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy results in a risk of non sentinel node metastases in micro-and macro-metastases ranging from 20 to 50%, respectively. Therefore, most patients underwent unnecessary axillary lymph node dissections. We have previously developed a mathematical model for predicting patient-specific risk of non sentinel node (NSN) metastases based on 2460 patients. The study reports the results of the validation phase where a total of 1945 patients were enrolled, aimed at identifying a tool that gives the possibility to the surgeon to choose intraoperatively whether to perform or not axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Methods: The following parameters were recorded: Clinical: hospital, age, medical record number; Bio pathological: Tumor (T) size stratified in quartiles, grading (G), histologic type, lymphatic/vascular invasion (LVI), ER-PR status, Ki 67, molecular classification (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER-2 Like, Triple negative); Sentinel and non-sentinel node related: Number of NSNs removed, number of positive NSNs, cytokeratin 19 (CK19) mRNA copy number of positive sentinel nodes stratified in quartiles. A total of 1945 patients were included in the database. All patient data were provided by the authors of this paper. Results: The discrimination of the model quantified with the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC), was 0.65 and 0.71 in the validation and retrospective phase, respectively. The calibration determines the distance between predicted outcome and actual outcome. The mean difference between predicted/observed was 2.3 and 6.3% in the retrospective and in the validation phase, respectively. The two values are quite similar and as a result we can conclude that the nomogram effectiveness was validated. Moreover, the ROC curve identified in the risk category of 31% of positive NSNs, the best compromise between false negative and positive rates i.e. when ALND is unnecessary (< 31%) or recommended (> 31%). Conclusions: The results of the study confirm that OSNA nomogram may help surgeons make an intraoperative decision on whether to perform ALND or not in case of positive sentinel nodes, and the patient to accept this decision based on a reliable estimation on the true percentage of NSN involvement. The use of this nomogram achieves two main gools: 1) the choice of the right treatment during the operation, 2) to avoid for the patient a second surgery procedure.

Two large randomised controlled trials of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in breast-conserving surgery (TARGIT-A and ELIOT) have been published 14 years after their launch. Neither the TARGIT-A trial nor the ELIOT trial results have changed the current clinical practice for the use of IORT. The in-breast local recurrence rate (LRR) after IORT met the pre-specified non-inferiority margins in both trials and was 3.3% in TARGIT-A and 4.4% in the ELIOT trial. In both trials, the pre-specified estimates for local recurrence (LR) with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) significantly overestimated actual LRR. In the TARGIT-A trial, LR with EBRT was estimated at the outset to be 6%, and in the ELIOT trial, it was estimated to be 3%. Surprisingly, LRR in the EBRT groups has been found to be significantly lower, 1.3% in the EBRT arm of the TARGIT-A and 0.4% in the EBRT arm of the ELIOT trial, respectively. Median follow-up was 2.4 years for the TARGIT-A trial and 5.8 years for the ELIOT trial. However, the initial cohort of patients in the TARGIT-A trial (reported in 2010) now have a median follow-up of 3.8 years and data on LR were available at 5 years follow-up on 35% of patients (18% who received IORT). Although further follow-up will increase confidence with the data, it will also further delay clinical implementation. By carefully weighing the risks and benefits of a single-fraction radiation treatment with patients, IORT should be offered within agreed and strict protocols. Patients deemed at low risk of LR or those deemed suitable for partial breast irradiation, according to the GEC-ESTRO and ASTRO recommendations, could be considered as candidates for IORT. These guidelines apply to all partial breast irradiation techniques, and more specific guidelines for IORT would assist clinicians.