Data on survival of BRCA1/2-associated primary breast cancer (PBC) patients who opt for subsequent contralateral riskreducing mastectomy (CRRM) are scarce and inconsistent. We examined the efficacy of CRRM on overall survival in mutation carriers with a history of PBC. From a Dutch multicentre cohort, we selected 583 BRCA-associated PBC patients, being diagnosed between 1980 and 2011. Over time, 242 patients (42%) underwent CRRM and 341 patients (58%) remained under surveillance. Survival analyses were performed using Cox models, with CRRM as a time-dependent covariate. The median follow-up after PBC diagnosis was 11.4 years. In the CRRM group, four patients developed contralateral breast cancer (2%), against 64 patients (19%) in the surveillance group (p < 0.001). The mortality was lower in the CRRM group than in the surveillance group (9.6 and 21.6 per 1000 person-years of observation, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.29-0.82). Survival benefit was especially seen in young PBC patients (<40 years), in patients having a PBC with differentiation grade 1/2 and/or no triple-negative phenotype, and in patients not treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.
BackgroundAfter curative treatment for breast cancer women frequently attend scheduled follow-up examinations. Usually the follow-up is most frequent in the first 2–3 years (2–4 times a year); thereafter the frequency is reduced to once a year in most countries. Its main aim is to detect local disease recurrence, or a second primary breast cancer, but also to provide information and psychosocial support. However, the cost-effectiveness of these frequent visits is under much debate, leading to a search for less intensive and more cost-effective follow-up strategies.In this paper the design of the MaCare trial is described. This trial compares the cost-effectiveness of four follow-up strategies for curatively treated breast cancer patients. We investigate the costs and effects of nurse-led telephone follow-up and a short educational group programme.Methods/designThe MaCare trial is a multi centre randomised clinical trial in which 320 breast cancer patients are randomised into four follow-up strategies, focussed on the first 18 months after treatment: 1) standard follow-up; 2) nurse-led telephone follow-up; 3) arm 1 with the educational group programme; 4) arm 2 with the educational group programme. Data is collected at baseline and 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after treatment. The primary endpoint of the trial is cancer-specific quality of life as measured by the global health/QoL scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Secondary outcomes are perceived feelings of control, anxiety, patients' satisfaction with follow-up and costs. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective.DiscussionReduced follow-up strategies for breast cancer have not yet been widely applied in clinical practice. Improvement of psychosocial support and information to patients could lead to a better acceptance of reduced follow-up. The MaCare trial combines a reduced follow-up strategy with additional psychosocial support. Less frequent follow-up can reduce the burden on medical specialists and costs. The educational group programme can improve QoL of patients, but also less frequent follow-up can improve QoL by reducing the anxiety experienced for each follow-up visit. Results of the trial will provide knowledge on both costs and psychosocial aspects regarding follow-up and are expected in 2009.
Objective: The aim was to investigate whether pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast is correlated with absence of axillary lymph node metastases at final pathology (ypN0) in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for different breast cancer subtypes. Background: Pathologic complete response rates have improved on account of more effective systemic treatment regimens. Promising results in feasibility trials with percutaneous image-guided tissue sampling for the identification of breast pCR after NST raise the question whether breast surgery is a redundant procedure. Thereby, the need for axillary surgery should be reconsidered as well. Methods: Patients diagnosed with cT1-3N0-1 breast cancer and treated with NST, followed by surgery between 2010 and 2016, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were compared according to the pathologic response of the primary tumor with associated pathologic axillary outcome. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine clinicopathological variables correlated with ypN0. Results: A total of 4084 patients were included for analyses, of whom 986 (24.1%) achieved breast pCR. In clinically node negative patients (cN0), 97.7% (432/442) with breast pCR had ypN0 compared with 71.6% (882/1232) without breast pCR (P < 0.001). In clinically node positive patients (cN1), 45.0% (245/544) with breast pCR had ypN0 compared with 9.4% (176/1866) without breast pCR (P < 0.001). The odds of ypN0 was decreased in case of clinical T3 stage (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40–0.87), cN1 (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.02–0.04) and ER+HER2- subtype (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.20–0.44), and increased in case of breast pCR (OR 4.53, 95% CI 3.27–6.28). Conclusions: Breast pCR achieved after NST is strongly correlated with ypN0 in cN0 patients, especially in ER+HER2+, ER-HER2+, and triple negative subtypes. These results provide data to proceed with future clinical trials to investigate if axillary surgery can be safely omitted in these selected patients when image-guided tissue sampling identifies a breast pCR.
Objectives To assess whether MRI can exclude axillary lymph node metastasis, potentially replacing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), and consequently eliminating the risk of SLNB-associated morbidity. Methods PubMed, Cochrane, Medline and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications up to July 2014. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and independently assessed by two reviewers using a standardised extraction form. Results Sixteen eligible studies were selected from 1,372 publications identified by the search. A dedicated axillary protocol [sensitivity 84.7 %, negative predictive value (NPV) 95.0 %] was superior to a standard protocol covering both the breast and axilla simultaneously (sensitivity 82.0 %, NPV 82.6 %). Dynamic, contrast-enhanced MRI had a lower median sensitivity (60.0 %) and NPV (80.0 %) compared to non-enhanced T1w/T2w sequences (88.4, 94.7 %), diffusionweighted imaging (84.2, 90.6 %) and ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (USPIO)-enhanced T2*w sequences (83.0, 95.9 %). The most promising results seem to be achievable when using non-enhanced T1w/T2w and USPIO-enhanced T2*w sequences in combination with a dedicated axillary protocol (sensitivity 84.7 % and NPV 95.0 %). Conclusions The diagnostic performance of some MRI protocols for excluding axillary lymph node metastases approaches the NPV needed to replace SLNB. However, current observations are based on studies with heterogeneous study designs and limited populations. Main Messages• Some axillary MRI protocols approach the NPVof an SLNB procedure.• Dedicated axillary MRI is more accurate than protocols also covering the breast.• T1w/T2w protocols combined with USPIO-enhanced sequences are the most promising sequences.
Dedicated high-spatial-resolution axillary T2-weighted MR imaging showed good specificity on the basis of node-by-node and patient-by-patient validation, with good interobserver agreement. However, its NPV is still insufficient to substitute it for SLNB for exclusion of axillary lymph node metastasis. DW MR imaging and ADC measurement were of no added value.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.