Search

Purpose While new strategies for the treatment of invasive breast cancer (BC) are emerging, radiotherapy (RT) modalities are still under debate. The French expert review board of Nice-Saint-Paul de Vence was asked firstly to conduct a qualitative evidence-based systematic review and then to establish clinical practice guidelines for the use of post operative RT in invasive BC. Methods and materials A search to identify eligible studies was undertaken using the Medline® database. All phase III randomized trials and systematic reviews evaluating the role and modalities of RT in invasive BC were included, together with some noncontrolled studies if no randomized trials were identified. The quality and clinical relevance of the studies were evaluated to determine the level of evidence. Results The maximum delay between surgery and RT should ≤8 weeks when chemotherapy (CT) is not indicated. This should not exceed 24 weeks when adjuvant CT is administered. Whole breast RT delivering 50 Gy in 25 fractions followed by a boost of 10–16 Gy remains the standard of care after conservative surgery (CS). In the elderly population, for certain cases presenting comorbidities associated with a limited life expectancy, RT indication (even hypofractioned) and boost delivery may be unnecessary in the light of an unfavourable risk/benefit ratio. RT technique and indications should not vary in case of neoadjuvant CT followed by CS. After total mastectomy, RT should be indicated in N+ and in N− patients with high risk of local recurrence. The experts recommend to initiate tamoxifen at the end of RT, while aromatase inhibitors could be administered either concomitantly or sequentially with RT. There is no consistent data to delay (or suspend) trastuzumab administration during RT. As for all patients, in case of concurrent RT-trastuzumab administration, reduction of cardiac tissues exposure is highly recommended. After breast reconstruction, RT should be delivered as after standard CS without boost. Conclusion Due to significant variations in practice in the treatment of patients with BC, our group aimed to provide guidelines for clinical practice. The systematic review of the literature formed the basis of our evidence-based recommendations; however expert agreements were necessary on those subjects that are still under debate. Our group will update these guidelines every 4 years, taking in consideration new advances in technology, new drugs administration, biologic tools and innovative therapeutic options.

Purpose We reviewed follow-up of patients treated in 19 randomized trials of adjuvant epirubicin in early breast cancer to determine incidence, risk, and risk factors for subsequent acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Patients and Methods The patients (N = 9,796) were observed from the start of adjuvant treatment (53,080 patient-years). Cases of AML or MDS (AML/MDS) were reported, with disease characteristics. Incidence and cumulative risk were compared for possible risk factors, for assigned regimens, and for administered cumulative doses of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. Results In 7,110 patients treated with epirubicin-containing regimens (92% of whom also received cyclophosphamide), 8-year cumulative probability of AML/MDS was 0.55% (95% CI, 0.33% to 0.78%). The risk of developing AML/MDS increased in relation to planned epirubicin dose per cycle, planned epirubicin dose-intensity, and administered cumulative doses of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. Patients with administered cumulative doses of both epirubicin and cyclophosphamide not exceeding those used in standard regimens (≤ 720 mg/m2 and ≤ 6,300 mg/m2, respectively) had an 8-year cumulative probability of developing AML/MDS of 0.37% (95% CI, 0.13% to 0.61%) compared with 4.97% (95% CI, 2.06% to 7.87%) for patients administered higher cumulative doses of both epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. Conclusion Patients treated with standard cumulative doses of adjuvant epirubicin (≤ 720 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (≤ 6,300 mg/m2) for early breast cancer have a lower probability of secondary leukemia than patients treated with higher cumulative doses. Increased risk of secondary leukemia must be considered when assessing the potential benefit to risk ratio of higher than standard doses.

Summary Aim: Immediate adjuvant tamoxifen reduces disease recurrence and improves survival in patients with early breast cancer. However, is it too late to administer tamoxifen to patients who have already undergone treatment, but were unable to benefit from this adjuvant therapy? The French National Cancer Centers (FNCLCC) have investigated the efficacy of delayed tamoxifen administration in a randomized controlled trial. Patients and methods: From September 1986 to October 1989, women with primary breast cancer, who had undergone surgery, radiotherapy, and/or received adjuvant chemotherapy but not hormone therapy more than two years earlier, were randomized to receive either 30 mg/day tamoxifen or no treatment. The 10-year disease-free and overall survival rates of the two groups of patients and of various subgroups were determined according to the Kaplan-Meyer method and compared by the log-rank test. Results: This intention-to-treat analysis comprised 250 women in the tamoxifen group and 244 in the control group. Patient characteristics (age, T stage, number of positive nodes, receptor status, and interval since tumor treatment) were comparable in both groups. Delayed adjuvant tamoxifen significantly improved overall survival only in node-positive patients and in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) or progesterone receptor-positive (PR+) tumors. Disease-free survival, however, was significantly improved in the global population and in several patient subgroups (node-positive, ER+, PR+). Patients in whom the interval between primary treatment and delayed adjuvant tamoxifen was greater than five years also had significantly improved disease-free survival. Conclusions: Overall and disease-free survival results indicate that delayed adjuvant tamoxifen administration (30 mg/day) is justified in women with early breast cancer, even if this treatment is initiated two or more years after primary treatment.

The survival of patients with breast cancer depends on parameters known as prognostic factors. The first generation of prognostic factors are simple, have been validated, and have proved their usefulness. We know the importance of examining axillary lymph nodes. However, because there has been a constant increase in the percentage of patients with no invaded lymph nodes, tumor size has become an important parameter. The 10-year survival rate of patients with tumors less than 1 cm in diameter exceeds 90% suggesting that there might seem to be no need for adjuvant therapy. According to histological grade assessed by the Scarff-Bloom and Richardson method, grade I tumors have a better prognosis than grade II or III tumors. Knowledge of the concentration of estrogen and progesterone receptors in tumors provides not only prognostic information but also indicates whether hormone therapy is justified. All these first generation factors are intimately linked and, taken together, they are the main factors on which the oncologist bases his decision whether or not to prescribe adjuvant therapy. There is still no consensus regarding the assay methods and normal levels of second generation prognostic factors. Amongst these factors, the most promising are those, like S-phase determination by flow cytometry, that evaluate cell proliferation potential and those that investigate tumor invasiveness by assaying urokinase plasminogen activator or its inhibitor.

The authors describe 10 cases of malignant non Hodgkin's lymphoma in a mammary site in women aged 38 to 82 years. The clinical examination and the sometimes suggest an adenocarcinomatous lesion, thus leading to a useless surgical exeresis. An initial histological study provides the diagnosis. A complete assessment of extension allows an accurate staging and the refinement of the therapeutic schedule. Exclusive radiation therapy seems to be justified in low-malignancy forms remaining strictly confined to the breast. For the high- and medium-malignancy forms, the essential weapon is chemotherapy, which seems to improve the duration and rate of remission.

Between 1975 and 1980, 108 cancers of the breast (T1 and small T2) were treated by associated conservative surgery and radiotherapy. Axillary glands were curetted in 92 patients; 17% showed lymph node invasion. Radiotherapy was by telecobalt: 45 grays to the whole breast and 60 grays to the tumor bed. Esthetic results were satisfactory. Intramammary recurrence was rare (6%) and was independent of site or size of tumor and of degree of lymph node involvement. Metastases not associated with local recurrence were very rarely observed (4% of cases) and were present only in patients without glandular involvement. The 5-year actuarial survival rate was 95%.

To evaluate the utility of bone scans for the follow-up of patients with small breast cancers (T less than or equal to 3 cm), the files for 133 patients whose disease was diagnosed between Jan. 1, 1979 and Dec. 31, 1980 were reviewed. At initial presentation, two of these patients already had bone metastases. During their disease course, 30 patients developed metastases and 16 of them had at least one bone metastasis. In 7 of these 16 cases, the bone metastasis was solitary; in 4 cases bone lesions were symptomatic. A total of 178 bone scans were performed during the follow-up of these 133 patients; 16 of these scans were positive, but only 4 examinations allowed the diagnosis of bone metastasis. Despite the slight prognostic value of initial bone scanning in this series, the technique is of little value unless it is combined with clinical examinations aimed at early detection of disease recurrence or metastasis. Except as part of clinical trial protocols, systematic bone scans appear unnecessary for the staging and follow-up of patients with small breast cancers.