PURPOSE We review the evidence on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging the affected breast to determine its accuracy and impact on treatment. METHODS Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI in detection of multifocal (MF) and/or multicentric (MC) cancer not identified on conventional imaging. We estimated summary receiver operating characteristic curves, positive predictive value (PPV), true-positive (TP) to false positive (FP) ratio, and examined their variability according to quality criteria. Pooled estimates of the proportion of women whose surgery was altered were calculated. Results Data from 19 studies showed MRI detects additional disease in 16% of women with breast cancer (N = 2,610). MRI incremental accuracy differed according to the reference standard (RS; P = .016) decreasing from 99% to 86% as the quality of the RS increased. Summary PPV was 66% (95% CI, 52% to 77%) and TP:FP ratio was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.09 to 3.34). Conversion from wide local excision (WLE) to mastectomy was 8.1% (95% CI, 5.9 to 11.3), from WLE to more extensive surgery was 11.3% in MF/MC disease (95% CI, 6.8 to 18.3). Due to MRI-detected lesions (in women who did not have additional malignancy on histology) conversion from WLE to mastectomy was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.3 to 3.6) and from WLE to more extensive surgery was 5.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 9.5). CONCLUSION MRI staging causes more extensive breast surgery in an important proportion of women by identifying additional cancer, however there is a need to reduce FP MRI detection. Randomized trials are needed to determine the clinical value of detecting additional disease which changes surgical treatment in women with apparently localized breast cancer.

Tumors that express detectable levels of the product of the ESR1 gene (estrogen receptor-α; ERα) represent the single largest molecular subtype of breast cancer. More women eventually die from ERα+ breast cancer than from either HER2+ disease (almost half of which also express ERα) and/or from triple negative breast cancer (ERα-negative, progesterone receptor-negative, and HER2-negative). Antiestrogens and aromatase inhibitors are largely indistinguishable from each other in their abilities to improve overall survival and almost 50% of ERα+ breast cancers will eventually fail one or more of these endocrine interventions. The precise reasons why these therapies fail in ERα+ breast cancer remain largely unknown. Pharmacogenetic explanations for Tamoxifen resistance are controversial. The role of ERα mutations in endocrine resistance remains unclear. Targeting the growth factors and oncogenes most strongly correlated with endocrine resistance has proven mostly disappointing in their abilities to improve overall survival substantially, particularly in the metastatic setting. Nonetheless, there are new concepts in endocrine resistance that integrate molecular signaling, cellular metabolism, and stress responses including endoplasmic reticulum stress and the unfolded protein response (UPR) that provide novel insights and suggest innovative therapeutic targets. Encouraging evidence that drug combinations with CDK4/CDK6 inhibitors can extend recurrence free survival may yet translate to improvements in overall survival. Whether the improvements seen with immunotherapy in other cancers can be achieved in breast cancer remains to be determined, particularly for ERα+ breast cancers. This review explores the basic mechanisms of resistance to endocrine therapies, concluding with some new insights from systems biology approaches further implicating autophagy and the UPR in detail, and a brief discussion of exciting new avenues and future prospects.

The College does not permit reproduction of any substantial portion of these protocols without its written authorization. The College hereby authorizes use of these protocols by physicians and other health care providers in reporting on surgical specimens, in teaching, and in carrying out medical research for nonprofit purposes. This authorization does not extend to reproduction or other use of any substantial portion of these protocols for commercial purposes without the written consent of the College.The CAP also authorizes physicians and other health care practitioners to make modified versions of the Protocols solely for their individual use in reporting on surgical specimens for individual patients, teaching, and carrying out medical research for non-profit purposes.The CAP further authorizes the following uses by physicians and other health care practitioners, in reporting on surgical specimens for individual patients, in teaching, and in carrying out medical research for non-profit purposes: (1) Dictation from the original or modified protocols for the purposes of creating a text-based patient record on paper, or in a word processing document; (2) Copying from the original or modified protocols into a text-based patient record on paper, or in a word processing document; (3) The use of a computerized system for items (1) and (2), provided that the Protocol data is stored intact as a single text-based document, and is not stored as multiple discrete data fields.Other than uses (1), (2), and (3) above, the CAP does not authorize any use of the Protocols in electronic medical records systems, pathology informatics systems, cancer registry computer systems, computerized databases, mappings between coding works, or any computerized system without a written license from CAP. Applications for such a license should be addressed to the SNOMED Terminology Solutions division of the CAP.Any public dissemination of the original or modified Protocols is prohibited without a written license from the CAP.The College of American Pathologists offers these protocols to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information when reporting results of surgical specimen examinations of surgical specimens. The College regards the reporting elements in the "Surgical Pathology Cancer Case Summary" portion of the protocols as essential elements of the pathology report. However, the manner in which these elements are reported is at the discretion of each specific pathologist, taking into account clinician preferences, institutional policies, and individual practice.The College developed these protocols as an educational tool to assist pathologists in the useful reporting of relevant information. It did not issue the protocols for use in litigation, reimbursement, or other contexts. Nevertheless, the College recognizes that the protocols might be used by hospitals, attorneys, payers, and others. Indeed, effective January 1, 2004, the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons mandated the use of the ...

The platelet P2T receptor plays a major role in platelet aggregation, and its antagonists are predicted to have significant therapeutic potential as antithrombotic agents. We have explored analogues of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which is a weak, nonselective but competitive P2T receptor antagonist. Modification of the polyphosphate side chain to prevent breakdown to the agonist adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and substitution of the adenine moiety to enhance affinity and selectivity for the P2T receptor led to the identification of 10e (AR-C67085MX), having an IC50 of 2.5 nM against ADP-induced aggregation of human platelets. Compound 10e was the first very potent antagonist of the P2T receptor, with a selectivity for that subtype of the P2 receptor family of >1000-fold. Further modification of the structure produced compound 10l (AR-C69931MX) having an IC50 of 0.4 nM. In vivo, at maximally effective antithrombotic doses, there is little prolongation of bleeding time (1.4-fold), which is in marked contrast to the 5-6-fold found with GPIIb/IIIa antagonists.