Impact of multifocal or multicentric disease on surgery and locoregional, distant and overall survival of 6,134 breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

A Prospective Study on Skin-Sparing Mastectomy for Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Latissimus Dorsi Flap After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy in Invasive Breast Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is increasingly used in invasive breast cancer. However, adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) can increase the rate of local complications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the morbidity of SSM-IBR after neoadjuvant CT and RT.

METHODS

A French prospective pilot study of women aged 18-75 years with invasive breast cancer requiring mastectomy after CT and RT. Reconstruction was performed using autologous latissimus dorsi flap with or without prosthesis. The primary endpoint was the skin necrosis rate within 6 months, while secondary endpoints included pathological complete response rate (pCR) and global morbidity.

RESULTS

Among 94 patients included in this study, 83 were analyzed (mean age 45.2 ± 9.5 years, T1 23.6 %, T2 55.6 %, T3 18.1 %). All but one patient received anthracyclines and taxanes, and all patients received RT (49.3 ± 5.2 Gy) before SSM-IBR. Prostheses were used for IBR in 32 patients (mean volume 256 ± 73 mm(3)). Five patients had necrosis (≤2 cm(2), 2-10 cm(2) and >10 cm(2), in three, one, and one cases, respectively), and they all recovered without revision surgery. Among 50 patients who underwent upfront mastectomy, 36 % achieved pCR.

CONCLUSIONS

SSM-IBR performed after CT and RT is safe, with an acceptable local morbidity rate. Long-term data are needed to evaluate recurrence rates.

Neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: controversies in clinical trial design and standard of care

Neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer has been increasingly used in recent years as first-line treatment for operable breast cancer-serving as both a management strategy and a research tool. In addition to the established clinical benefits of down-staging more locally advanced cancers and improving breast-conservation rates, investigators have recognized the potential advantages of this approach in developing new therapies. Preoperative systemic therapy provides the opportunity for in vivo assessment of pharmacodynamic markers to assess biologic effects and allows new compounds to be tested in a more responsive, treatment-naive population. In addition, early surrogates of response, such as pathologic complete response (pCR) and residual cancer burden, provide proximate measures that correlate with long-term outcomes, thus potentially shortening the time needed to identify effective adjuvant therapies. Despite the advantages of neoadjuvant therapy for research and clinical practice, its use is characterized by persistent controversy and healthy debate regarding how to optimally use research findings and when to integrate them into the standard of care for daily management. Among the controversies surrounding neoadjuvant therapy use are questions about defining the best endpoint for assessing treatment efficacy, deciding when results from research should be used in daily clinical practice, and how the growing use of neoadjuvant therapy affects locoregional treatments.

Perspectives of Cosmesis following Breast Conservation for Multifocal and Multicentric Breast Cancers

Background. Contemporary data suggest that breast conservation treatment (BCT) for multifocal and multicentric breast cancer (MFMCBC) may be appropriate with noninferior local control rates. However, there is a paucity of data to evaluate patient's satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes after BCT for MFMCBC. This study was performed to bridge this information gap. Methods. All patients treated at the authors' healthcare facility were included in the study. Patients with MFMCBC who were assessed to be eligible for BCT underwent tumour resection using standard surgical techniques with direct parenchymal closure through a single incision. After at least three years of follow-up, they were invited to participate in a survey regarding their cosmetic outcomes. Results. Of a total of 160 patients, 40 had MFMCBC, of whom 34 (85%) underwent successful BCT. Five-year cancer-specific survival and disease-free survival were 95.7%. Twenty of the 34 patients responded to the survey. No patient rated her cosmetic outcome as "poor." Analysis indicated low agreement between patients' self-assessment and clinician-directed evaluation of aesthetic results. Conclusion. BCT for MFMCBC is feasible with acceptable survival and cosmetic outcomes. However, there appears to be a disparity between patient and clinician-directed evaluation of cosmetic results which warrant further research.

Conservative surgery for multifocal/multicentric breast cancer

Multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancer is regularly considered a relative contraindication for breast-conserving therapy (BCT). There are two reasons for this wide spread notion: However, we concur that if optimal 'cytoreductive surgery' is achieved this will result in good local control (i.e. in-breast relapse <10% at 10 years). This can only be achieved on the basis of the right imaging, image guidance for non-palpable foci, and tumor free (invasive as well as ductal carcinoma in situ) margins after adequate pathological assessment. Surgery must then be followed by whole breast irradiation and systemic treatments as indicated by primary cancer biology. Careful planning and adaptive application of oncoplastic techniques will result in an optimal cosmetic results. The meticulous work of Roland Holland and coworkers(1) in the early 1980's on whole breast specimen showed invasive foci at more then 2 cm distance from the invasive primary cancer in more then 40% of specimen. Although multiple tumor foci may occur in up to 60% of mastectomy specimens, equivalent survival outcomes were observed in prospective trials comparing BCT and mastectomy for clinically unifocal lesions, suggesting that the majority of these foci are not, or do not become, biologically relevant or clinically significant with appropriate treatment. As diagnostic tools advance, MF and MC tumors are more commonly diagnosed. Cancers that previously would have been classified as unifocal now can be detected as MF or MC. In addition, locoregional treatment modalities have improved significantly over the past decade. More recent studies reflect these advances in diagnosis and treatment. Studies evaluated staging MRI showed that up to 19% of woman with diagnosed breast cancer harbor a second malignant ipsilateral lesion. These findings should only have consequences when additional lesions are proven cancer. Multiple enhancing lesions on MRI are in itself not an indication for a mastectomy. The Z0011 trial and the AMAROS trial demonstrated a similar phenomenon for axillary treatment; less surgery does not necessarily lead to inferior local control or survival outcomes. Recent studies supplement the growing evidence that treatment of patients with MF/MC breast cancer with BCS, radiotherapy, and adjuvant systemic therapy can result in low rates of in-breast recurrence.

Tailoring therapies--improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015

The 14th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference (2015) reviewed substantial new evidence on locoregional and systemic therapies for early breast cancer. Further experience has supported the adequacy of tumor margins defined as 'no ink on invasive tumor or DCIS' and the safety of omitting axillary dissection in specific cohorts. Radiotherapy trials support irradiation of regional nodes in node-positive disease. Considering subdivisions within luminal disease, the Panel was more concerned with indications for the use of specific therapies, rather than surrogate identification of intrinsic subtypes as measured by multiparameter molecular tests. For the treatment of HER2-positive disease in patients with node-negative cancers up to 1 cm, the Panel endorsed a simplified regimen comprising paclitaxel and trastuzumab without anthracycline as adjuvant therapy. For premenopausal patients with endocrine responsive disease, the Panel endorsed the role of ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or exemestane for patients at higher risk. The Panel noted the value of an LHRH agonist given during chemotherapy for premenopausal women with ER-negative disease in protecting against premature ovarian failure and preserving fertility. The Panel noted increasing evidence for the prognostic value of commonly used multiparameter molecular markers, some of which also carried prognostic information for late relapse. The Panel noted that the results of such tests, where available, were frequently used to assist decisions about the inclusion of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with luminal disease, but noted that threshold values had not been established for this purpose for any of these tests. Multiparameter molecular assays are expensive and therefore unavailable in much of the world. The majority of new breast cancer cases and breast cancer deaths now occur in less developed regions of the world. In these areas, less expensive pathology tests may provide valuable information. The Panel recommendations on treatment are not intended to apply to all patients, but rather to establish norms appropriate for the majority. Again, economic considerations may require that less expensive and only marginally less effective therapies may be necessary in less resourced areas. Panel recommendations do not imply unanimous agreement among Panel members. Indeed, very few of the 200 questions received 100% agreement from the Panel. In the text below, wording is intended to convey the strength of Panel support for each recommendation, while details of Panel voting on each question are available in supplementary Appendix S2, available at Annals of Oncology online.

Expanding the Indications for Total Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Is It Safe for Patients with Locally Advanced Disease?

BACKGROUND

Indications for total skin-sparing mastectomy (TSSM) continue to expand. Although initially used only for early-stage breast cancer, TSSM currently is offered in many centers to patients with locally advanced disease. However, despite this practice change, limited data on oncologic outcomes in this population have been reported.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of all patients undergoing TSSM and immediate reconstruction from 2005 to 2013 was performed. The outcomes for patients with stage 2b and stage 3 cancer were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes included the development of locoregional or distant recurrences.

RESULTS

Of 753 patients undergoing TSSM, 139 (18 %) presented with locally advanced disease. Of these 139 patients, 25 (18 %) had stage 2b disease, and 114 (82 %) had stage 3 disease. Most of the patients (97 %) received chemotherapy (77 % neoadjuvant, 20 % adjuvant), whereas 3 % received adjuvant hormonal therapy alone. Of the neoadjuvant patients, 13 (12 %) had a pathologic complete response (pCR) to treatment. During a mean follow-up period of 41 months (range 4-111 months), seven patients (5 %) had a local recurrence, 21 patients (15.1 %) had a distant recurrence, and three patients (2.2 %) had simultaneous local and distant recurrences. None of the local recurrences occurred in the preserved nipple-areolar complex skin.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with locally advanced breast cancer are most at risk for distant rather than local recurrence, even after TSSM. When used in conjunction with appropriate multimodal therapy, TSSM is not associated with an increased risk for local recurrence in this population, even in the setting of low pCR rates.

The evolution of cancer surgery and future perspectives

Surgery is the oldest oncological discipline, dating back thousands of years. Prior to the advent of anaesthesia and antisepsis 150 years ago, only the brave, desperate, or ill-advised patient underwent surgery because cure rates were low, and morbidity and mortality high. However, since then, cancer surgery has flourished, driven by relentless technical innovation and research. Historically, the mantra of the cancer surgeon was that increasingly radical surgery would enhance cure rates. The past 50 years have seen a paradigm shift, with the realization that multimodal therapy, technological advances, and minimally invasive techniques can reduce the need for, or the detrimental effects of, radical surgery. Preservation of form, function, and quality of life, without compromising survival, is the new mantra. Today's surgeons, no longer the uneducated technicians of history, are highly trained medical professionals and together with oncologists, radiologists, scientists, anaesthetists and nurses, have made cancer surgeries routine, safe, and highly effective. This article will review the major advances that have underpinned this evolution.