Search

The clinical behavior and prognosis of small multifocal and microinvasive breast cancers are still debated together with the best method of assessing tumor size in multiple invasive carcinomas. This study evaluates the clinico-pathological features of single and multiple breast cancers up to 0.5 cm in order to evaluate the rate of recurrences. We retrospectively analyzed 170 node-negative patients consecutively treated at European Institute of Oncology from 2001 to 2006. We divided them into Group I (pT1mi) and Group II (pT1a) furtherly divided in subgroups, according to focality and aggregate diameter. For each group we assessed tumor size, (multi)focality, extensive in situ component (EIC), histology, grade, peritumoral vascular invasion (PVI), hormonal receptor status (HR), HER-2 expression, Ki67 expression. We observed that the frequency of local recurrences and distant metastases in group I was higher among those with a single focus; whereas in group II, it was higher in multifocal carcinomas. Then, by comparing the two groups, the prognosis was better in multiple pT1mi than in similarly sized unifocal pT1a. Microinvasive carcinomas are associated with a good prognosis, even if they seem to have a more aggressive intrinsic biological behavior. Multifocality seems to be correlated with a worse prognosis in case of invasive carcinomas pT1a. In case of microinvasive carcinomas, by contrast, multifocality per se does not seem to affect the recurrence rate. • One of the prognostic features of breast cancer is the size. • Microscopic quantification of microinvasive carcinoma, mostly in multifocal cases, is still difficult to be standardized. • Our study compares 170 single/multiple small breast cancers, treated at single institution to evaluate recurrence rate. • Local and distant recurrences were better in multiple pT1mi(m) carcinoma than in similarly sized, unifocal pT1a. • In microinvasive carcinomas, multifocality per se does not affect the recurrence rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: To develop a Risk Score (RS) to predict distant recurrence among premenopausal women with node-negative endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. Methods: The Cox model was used to develop the RS using clinical and histopathological features from 378 women participating in the IBCSG Trial VIII who received endocrine therapy alone or following chemotherapy. The performance of the resulting model was validated on a cohort of 1005 patients from a single institution who received endocrine therapy alone. Results: In a multivariable analysis, the risk of distant recurrence was associated with tumor size, ER, Ki-67 and peritumoral vascular invasion. In the validation cohort, patients with high RS were at greater risk of distant recurrence compared to patients with low RS (HR, 17.41; 95% CI, 5.72–52.95). Conclusion: In premenopausal women with node-negative endocrine-responsive early breast cancer, the RS identifies patients at higher risk of distant recurrence. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aim Breast International Group (BIG) 2–98 is a randomised phase III trial that tested the effect of adding docetaxel, either in sequence to or in combination with anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy, in women with node-positive breast cancer (BC). Here, we present the 10-year final trial safety and efficacy analyses. We also report an exploratory analysis on the predictive value of Ki67 for docetaxel efficacy, in the BIG 2–98 and using a pooled analysis of three other randomised trials. Patients and methods 2887 patients were randomly assigned in a 2 × 2 trial design to one of four treatments. The primary objective was to evaluate the overall efficacy of docetaxel on disease free survival (DFS). Secondary objectives included comparisons of sequential docetaxel versus sequential control arm, safety and overall survival (OS). Ki67 expression was centrally evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Results After a median follow-up of 10.1 years, the addition of docetaxel did not significantly improve DFS or OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.81–1.04; P = 0.16 and HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.76–1.03; P = 0.11, respectively). Sequential docetaxel did not improve DFS compared to the sequential control arm (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.72–1.03; P = 0.10). In oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours with Ki67 ⩾ 14%, the addition of docetaxel resulted in 5.4% improvement in 10-year OS ( P = 0.03, test for interaction = 0.1). In a multivariate model, there was a trend for improved DFS and OS in ER-positive patients with high Ki67 and treated with docetaxel (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.63–1.01; P = 0.05 and HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.57–1.01; P = 0.06, respectively). A pooled analysis of four randomised trials showed a benefit of taxanes in highly proliferative ER-positive disease but not in low proliferating tumours (interaction test P = 0.01). Conclusion The DFS benefit previously demonstrated with sequential docetaxel is no longer observed at 10 years. However, an exploratory analysis suggested a benefit of docetaxel in patients with highly proliferative ER-positive BC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For patients with breast cancer and metastases in the sentinel nodes, axillary dissection has been standard treatment. However, for patients with limited sentinel-node involvement, axillary dissection might be overtreatment. We designed IBCSG trial 23-01 to determine whether no axillary dissection was non-inferior to axillary dissection in patients with one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel nodes and tumour of maximum 5 cm.Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients were eligible if they had clinically non-palpable axillary lymph node(s) and a primary tumour of 5 cm or less and who, after sentinel-node biopsy, had one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel lymph nodes with no extracapsular extension. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either undergo axillary dissection or not to undergo axillary dissection. Randomisation was stratified by centre and menopausal status. Treatment assignment was not masked. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. Non-inferiority was defined as a hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1·25 for no axillary dissection versus axillary dissection. The analysis was by intention to treat. Per protocol, disease and survival information continues to be collected yearly. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00072293.Findings: Between April 1, 2001, and Feb 28, 2010, 465 patients were randomly assigned to axillary dissection and 469 to no axillary dissection. After the exclusion of three patients, 464 patients were in the axillary dissection group and 467 patients were in the no axillary dissection group. After a median follow-up of 5·0 (IQR 3·6-7·3) years, we recorded 69 disease-free survival events in the axillary dissection group and 55 events in the no axillary dissection group. Breast-cancer-related events were recorded in 48 patients in the axillary dissection group and 47 in the no axillary dissection group (ten local recurrences in the axillary dissection group and eight in the no axillary dissection group; three and nine contralateral breast cancers; one and five [corrected] regional recurrences; and 34 and 25 distant relapses). Other non-breast cancer events were recorded in 21 patients in the axillary dissection group and eight in the no axillary dissection group (20 and six second non-breast malignancies; and one and two deaths not due to a cancer event). 5-year disease-free survival was 87·8% (95% CI 84·4-91·2) in the group without axillary dissection and 84·4% (80·7-88·1) in the group with axillary dissection (log-rank p=0·16; HR for no axillary dissection vs axillary dissection was 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, non-inferiority p=0·0042). Patients with reported long-term surgical events (grade 3-4) included one sensory neuropathy (grade 3), three lymphoedema (two grade 3 and one grade 4), and three motor neuropathy (grade 3), all in the group that underwent axillary dissection, and one grade 3 motor neuropathy in the group without axillary dissection. One serious adverse event was reported, a postoperative infection in the axilla in the group with axillary dissection.Interpretation: Axillary dissection could be avoided in patients with early breast cancer and limited sentinel-node involvement, thus eliminating complications of axillary surgery with no adverse effect on survival.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: The Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial (a randomised double-blind phase III trial) has shown that letrozole significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) compared with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. Our aim was to establish whether the benefit of letrozole versus tamoxifen differs according to the ERBB2 status of tumours. Methods: The BIG 1-98 trial consists of four treatment groups that compare 5 years of monotherapy with letrozole or tamoxifen, and sequential administration of one drug for 2 years followed by the other drug for 3 years. Our study includes data from the 4922 patients randomly assigned to the two monotherapy treatment groups (letrozole or tamoxifen for 5 years; 51 months median follow-up [range <1 to 90 months]). A central assessment of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and ERBB2 status using paraffin-embedded primary tumour material was possible for 3650 (74%) patients. ER, PgR, and ERBB2 expression were measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and ERBB2-positivity was confirmed by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH). Positive staining in at least 1% of cells was considered to show presence of ER or PgR expression. Tumours were deemed ERBB2-positive if amplified by FISH, or, for the few tumours with unassessable or unavailable FISH results, if they were IHC 3+. Hazard ratios (HR) estimated by Cox modelling were used to compare letrozole with tamoxifen for DFS, which was the primary endpoint, and to assess treatment-by-covariate interactions. The BIG 1-98 trial is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00004205. Findings: By central assessment 7% (257 of 3650) of tumours were classified as ERBB2-positive. In 3533 patients with tumours confirmed to express ER, DFS was poorer in patients with ERBB2-positive tumours (n=239) than in those with ERBB2-negative tumours (n=3294; HR 2·09 [95% CI 1·59–2·76]; p<0·0001). There was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity in the treatment effect according to ERBB2 status of the tumour (p=0·60 for interaction), thus, letrozole improves DFS compared with tamoxifen regardless of ERBB2 status. The observed HRs were 0·62 (95% CI 0·37–1·03) for ERBB2-positive tumours and 0·72 (0·59–0·87) for ERBB2-negative tumours. Interpretation: A benefit of letrozole over tamoxifen was noted, irrespective of ERBB2 status of the tumour, and, therefore, ERBB2 status does not seem to be a selection criterion for treatment with letrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]