Search

Breast cancer stands as the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the primary cause of cancer-related mortality among women worldwide, including Italy. With the increasing number of survivors, many are enrolled in regular follow-up programs. However, adherence to recommendations from scientific societies (such as ASCO, ESMO, AIOM) for breast cancer follow-up management varies in daily clinical practice across different cancer centers, potentially resulting in unequal management and escalating costs. To address these concerns, the Italian Association of Multidisciplinary Oncology Groups (AIGOM) orchestrated a Consensus on early Breast Cancer follow-up utilizing the Estimate-Talk-Estimate methodology. Following the identification of 18 Items and 38 statements by a select Board, 46 out of 54 (85.1%) experts comprising a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional panel expressed their degree of consensus (Expert Panel). The Expert Panel underscores the potential for the multidisciplinary team to tailor follow-up intensity based on the individual risk of recurrence. In selected cases, the general practitioner may be recommended as the clinical lead for breast cancer follow-up, both after completion of adjuvant treatment and at early initiation of endocrine therapy in low-risk patients. Throughout follow-up, and alongside oncologic surveillance, the expert panel advises osteometabolic, cardiologic, and gynecologic surveillance for the early detection and management of early and late treatment toxicities. Moreover, preserving quality of life is emphasized, with provisions for psycho-oncologic support and encouragement to adopt protective lifestyle behaviors., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: None of the authors has any interests to report directly related to this manuscript. Outside the scope of this manuscript: Stefania Gori, Fiorenza De Rose, no conflict of interests to declare. Antonella Ferro, honoraria from Novartis, MDS, Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Ely Lilly, Gentili. Alessandra Fabi grants from Astra Zeneca (steering committee); consulting fees from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini; honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo Exact Sciences; travel grants from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini; advisory board from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini. Catia Angiolini, Giuseppe Azzarello, Maurizio Cancian, Michela Cinquini, Luca Arecco no conflict of interests to declare. Cynthia Aristei, grants from PRIN 2023, from the Ministry of University and Research. Project title “The microbiome in breast cancer therapy and its potential for pRobIOtics to improve treatment outcome. Acronym: BARRIO”. Daniela Bernardi, Laura Biganzoli, Anna Cariello no conflict of interests to declare. Laura Cortesi, report grants from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Pfizer; consulting fees and honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Gilead, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Daijchii Sanchio, Novartis; travel grants from Gilead, Pfizer, Daijchi Sanchio; Advisory Board from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis. Elisabetta Cretella no conflict of interests to declare. Carmen Criscitiello, grants from Seagen, Gilead; consulting fees and honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, MSD; Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Roche. Ugo De Giorgi consulting fees from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer; travel grants from Pfizer, Ipsen, Astrazeneca. Maria Carmen De Santis, Giuseppe Deledda, Massimo Dessena, Sara Donati, Arianna Dri, Gianluigi Ferretti no conflict of interests to declare. Jennifer Foglietta, honoraria from Novartis; travel grants from Roche, Sophos, Pfizer; Advisory Board from Menarini Stem Line. Davide Franceschini, Pierfrancesco Franco, Alessio Schirone no conflict of interests to declare. Daniele Generali, grants from LILT, University of Trieste, Novartis, Roche; consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Accord, Daiichi Dankyo; honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Accord, Daiichi Dankyo, Astrazeneca, Istituto Gentili; travel grants from Roche, Menarini; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from Mednote. Lorenzo Gianni, travel grants from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer; Advisory Board from Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Seagen. Stefano Giordani, Giovanni Grandi, Maria Cristina Leonardi, Stefano Magno, no conflict of interests to declare. Luca Malorni, consulting fees from Menarini, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Roche; travel grants from Roche, Menarini, Celgene, IT Health Fusion; Advisory Board from Novartis. Carlotta Mantoan no conflict of interests to declare. Federica Martorana honoraria from Lilly, Daychii-Sankyo, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis; travel grants from Gilead, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly; advisory board from Amgen. Icro Meattini consulting fees from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Menarini StemLine. Bruno Meduri, Laura Merlini, Federica Miglietta, Alessandra Modena, Fabrizio Nicolis, Isabella Palumbo, no conflict of interests to declare. Pietro Panizza honoraria and travel grants from Bayer AG. Francesca Angela Rovera, Piermario Salvini, Armando Santoro, Mario Taffurelli, no conflict of interests to declare. Angela Toss consulting fees and grants from Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Astrazeneca, Gilead, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo; travel grants from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Astrazeneca. Paolo Tralongo, Monica Turazza, Matteo Valerio, Matteo Verzè no conflict of interests to declare. Patrizia Vici consulting fees from Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis; honoraria from EISAI, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer; travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, IPSEN; advisory board from Pfizer, Novartis. Claudio Zamagni no conflict of interests to declare. Giuseppe Curigliano advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Ellipsis, Veracyte, Exact Science, Celcuity, Merck, BMS, Gilead, Sanofi, Menarini. Giovanni Pappagallo no conflict of interests to declare. Alberto Zambelli consulting fees Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, DaiichiSankyo, Seagen, ExactSciences, MSD, Gentili, Gilead; travel grants from Roche, DaiichiSankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis; advisory board from Roche., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary node staging of patients with early breast cancer (BC), but its necessity can be questioned since surgery for examination of axillary nodes is not performed with curative intent., Objective: To determine whether the omission of axillary surgery is noninferior to SLNB in patients with small BC and a negative result on preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasonography., Design, Setting, and Participants: The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial was a prospective noninferiority phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in Italy, Switzerland, Spain, and Chile. A total of 1463 women of any age with BC up to 2 cm and a negative preoperative axillary ultrasonography result were enrolled and randomized between February 6, 2012, and June 30, 2017. Of those, 1405 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Data were analyzed from October 10, 2022, to January 13, 2023., Intervention: Eligible patients were randomized on a 1:1 ratio to receive SLNB (SLNB group) or no axillary surgery (no axillary surgery group)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point of the study was distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at 5 years, analyzed as intention to treat. Secondary end points were the cumulative incidence of distant recurrences, the cumulative incidence of axillary recurrences, DFS, overall survival (OS), and the adjuvant treatment recommendations., Results: Among 1405 women (median [IQR] age, 60 [52-68] years) included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 708 were randomized to the SLNB group, and 697 were randomized to the no axillary surgery group. Overall, the median (IQR) tumor size was 1.1 (0.8-1.5) cm, and 1234 patients (87.8%) had estrogen receptor-positive ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu), nonoverexpressing BC. In the SLNB group, 97 patients (13.7%) had positive axillary nodes. The median (IQR) follow-up for disease assessment was 5.7 (5.0-6.8) years in the SLNB group and 5.7 (5.0-6.6) years in the no axillary surgery group. Five-year distant DDFS was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98.0% in the no axillary surgery group (log-rank P = .67; hazard ratio, 0.84; 90% CI, 0.45-1.54; noninferiority P = .02). A total of 12 (1.7%) locoregional relapses, 13 (1.8%) distant metastases, and 21 (3.0%) deaths were observed in the SLNB group, and 11 (1.6%) locoregional relapses, 14 (2.0%) distant metastases, and 18 (2.6%) deaths were observed in the no axillary surgery group., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, omission of axillary surgery was noninferior to SLNB in patients with small BC and a negative result on ultrasonography of the axillary lymph nodes. These results suggest that patients with these features can be safely spared any axillary surgery whenever the lack of pathological information does not affect the postoperative treatment plan., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02167490.

The Italian Society of Surgical Oncology (SICO) Breast Oncoteam developed a survey to explore the state of the art of neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer in Italy, specifically focusing on cases treated during the two-year period 2014-2015. A questionnaire was sent to Italian Breast Units with a minimum of 150 new breast cancer cases treated/year according to the Senonetwork directory and to the SICO Breast Oncoteam Breast Unit network. A total of 23/107 Breast Units submitted the survey, reporting a total amount of 20156 cases of breast carcinoma (17241 invasive, 2915 in situ) treated in the biennium, corresponding approximately to 20% of newly diagnosed breast cancers in Italy. In the United States, medical treatment before surgery for breast cancer is indicated in about 22.7% of newly diagnosed cases according to the National Cancer Database, while a German study reported approximately 20% of cases treated with neoadjuvant therapy. In our survey, a total of 1673/17241 cases (9.7%) were treated with neoadjuvant therapy, ranging from 2.9% to 23.6% according to different centres, showing heterogeneity in neoadjuvant treatment indications, even in multidisciplinary breast units. Better resources should be engaged to achieve a standardised quality indicator for neoadjuvant treatment, and this indicator could be included among the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) quality indicators. In the near future, we plan to develop a second survey to better test improvements in the employment of neoadjuvant therapy after the expiry of the 2016 European Parliament deadline and after the 2017 St. Gallen Conference recommendations., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate feasibility, tolerability and cosmetic outcome of intra-operative radiation therapy (IORT) as an exclusive post-surgery treatment of early stage breast cancer., Patients and Methods: From October 2008 to October 2009 30 patients underwent wide breast cancer excision or quadrantectomy followed by IORT on tumor bed with accelerated electrons at the dose of 21Gy. The characteristics of the patients were: ductal breast cancer or invasive lobular cT1, cT2 ≤ 2,5 cm, cN0, G1-2, age over 35 years, M0., Results: The average age was 51.7 (range 38 - 75) with an average follow up of 11.7 months (range 6 - 18). The pathologic stage of the lesions resulted pT1 in 29 cases (96,6%), in particular: one case pT1a (3,3%), 21 cases pT1b (70,0%) and 7 cases pT1c (23,3%). One case (3,3%) was pT2 with a diameter of 2.5 cm. The grading was G2 in 20 cases (66,6%) and G1 in 10 cases (33,3%). The toxicity, evaluated according to the EORTC-RTOG criteria, was G0 (33.3%) in 10 cases, G1 (63,3%) in 19 cases, G2 in one case (3,4%); there was no G3 toxicity. The time needed for a complete healing of the wound was less than 10 days in 96,7% of the cases, with one case of limphocele (3,3%). There were no infections of the surgical wound nor any mastitis, neither in the treated quadrant nor in the other ones. We observed a light fibrosis in 5 cases (16,6%), moderate in 2 cases (6,6%) but never severe. Cosmetics, evaluated in four levels, according to Danoff et al., was excellent in 3 cases (43,3%), good in 15 cases (50%), sufficient in 2 cases (6,7%), never insufficient. As regards local control, there was no local relapse. The global survival was 100%., Conclusions: The IORT in early breast cancer, at the doses used in this study, proved itself as a secure technique, repeatable, with limited complications. The advantages of its use are the possibility of a direct control, by the surgeon and the radiotherapist, of the structures to treat and those to protect; the absence of time needed for cellular repopulation between surgery and radiotherapy; a good cosmetic outcome; and logistic advantages. It is necessary to have a long term follow up to evaluate the efficacy in terms of long term cosmetic and local control.

Thanks to a retrospective analysis of the first 250 cases of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer assessed by the authors over the period from October 1998 to December 2000 in the light of a careful review of the literature, it has been possible to establish the importance of careful patient selection, strict compliance with the execution technique and, above all, the need for an adequate learning curve, before the procedure is used in particular protocols and/or in routine clinical practice in the near future. In particular, the training should first of all ensure that all personnel involved, i.e. surgeons, nuclear medicine specialists, and histopathologists, should attend specific courses at qualified Institutions followed by the actual management of a certain number of consecutive cases. In order to perfect the methodology and organisation, a preliminary study in a group of patients at different stages of evolution of the disease is recommended (50 cases in the study population reported). The next phase should include a group of highly selected patients, numbering at least 50-100. The training may be considered complete when in at least 20 cases, an identification rate of at least 90% is achieved with an incidence of false negatives of not more than 5%. In the authors' experience, these results were reached after 100 selected patients, and were later consistently confirmed after a further 50 cases.