Prognostic validation and therapeutic decision-making of the AJCC eighth pathological prognostic staging for T3N0 breast cancer after mastectomy

Long-term outcomes and risk profile of cT3N0 breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and curative surgery

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the treatment outcomes and failure patterns in cT3N0 breast cancer patients classified for rigorous pretreatment evaluation and treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and curative surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 87 cT3N0 breast cancer patients who received NAC and curative surgery between 2000 and 2015. The clinical high-risk group was defined as having two or more risk factors: age < 40, histologic grade 3, lymphovascular invasion, hormone receptor negativity, and Ki-67 labeling index >20%.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 84 (96.6%) and 79 (90.8%) were initially evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Most patients received anthracycline based NAC regimen (n = 69, 79.3%) and modified radical mastectomy (n = 61, 70.1%). During a 91.5-month median follow-up, ten patients experienced distant metastasis (DM) only, two had isolated local recurrence, one had local recurrence and DM, and another had local recurrence, regional recurrence, and DM. The 5-year rates of locoregional recurrence, DM, any recurrence (AR), and overall survival (OS) were 1.2%, 11.6%, 11.6%, and 90.8%, respectively. The risk group was an independent prognostic factor of recurrence, and the high-risk group had worse rates of DM (19.2% vs. 0%, P = 0.009), AR (19.2% vs. 0%, P = 0.016) and OS (82.8% vs. 100%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with cT3N0 breast cancer classified for rigorous pretreatment evaluation and treated with NAC and radical surgery had favourable oncological outcomes. A clinical risk group based on clinical and immunohistochemical risk factors was an excellent predictor of survival and recurrence.

Validation of the AJCC 8th Edition Breast Cancer Prognostic Staging System in Legacy Alliance Trials (AFT-01)

BACKGROUND

The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system combined anatomic stage (AS) with receptor status and grade to create prognostic stage (PS). PS has been validated in single-institution and cancer registry studies; however, missing human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status and variable treatment and follow-up create limitations.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare the relative prognostic ability of PS versus AS to predict survival using breast cancer clinical trial data.

METHODS

Women with non-metastatic breast cancer enrolled in six Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials were included (enrollment years 1997-2010). AS and PS were constructed using pathological tumor size, nodal status, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2 status, and grade. Unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to predict overall survival within 5 years, with AS and PS as predictor variables. The relative predictive power of staging models was assessed by comparing Harrell concordance indices (C-indices). Kaplan-Meier-based mortality estimates were compared by stage.

RESULTS

Overall, 6924 women were included (median age 53 years); 45.2% were diagnosed with ER+/PR+/HER2- tumors, 26.2% with HER2+ tumors, and 17.1% with ER-/PR-/HER2- tumors. Median follow-up time was 5 years (interquartile range 2.95-5.00). PS significantly improved predictive performance (C-index 0.721) for overall survival compared with AS (0.700) (p = 0.020). Kaplan-Meier hazard estimates suggested PS did not distinguish mortality risk between patients with IIB and IIIA or IB and IIA disease.

CONCLUSIONS

PS has significantly improved predictive performance for OS compared with AS. As systemic therapies evolve, it will be important to re-evaluate the prognostic staging system, particularly for patients with intermediate-stage cancers.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT02171078.

Adjuvant radiation therapy for older women with early-stage breast cancer: a propensity-matched SEER analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose was to evaluate the effect of adjuvant radiation therapy on the survival prognosis of older women with early-stage breast cancer under different surgical treatments.

METHODS

We collected patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Elderly female patients (≥ 70 years) with stage I-IIB diagnosed with invasive carcinoma in 1988-2017 were included. After propensity score matching (PSM), the prognosis of patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy was calculated separately. The effects of radiotherapy on the survival of three special population groups (breast-conserving surgery + T1N0M0 + ER positive, mastectomy + T3N0M0 and mastectomy + T1-2N1M0) were analyzed selectively.

RESULTS

Of 106,553 older women with early-stage breast cancer were identified. 48,630 patients had received radiotherapy, while 57,923 patients had not. After PSM, older women undergoing breast-conserving surgery benefited significantly from radiotherapy (both OS and BCSS p < 0.001), for patients with T1N0M0 and ER-positive breast cancer (both OS and BCSS p < 0.001). In the subgroup of T1-2N1M0 breast cancer treated by mastectomy, patients undergoing radiotherapy had a worse survival as well (OS p < 0.001; BCSS p = 0.0907). While in the subgroup of T3N0M0 breast cancer treated by mastectomy, survival analyses showed no statistical differences between patients receiving radiation or not (OS p = 0.1778, BCSS p = 0.6957).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated the clinical effects of radiation on older women who received different surgical treatments. Our study suggested that radiotherapy should be omitted in older women undergoing mastectomy + T3N0M0 or T1-2N1M0 and radiotherapy could be considered in women with T1N0M0 + ER-positive undergoing breast-conserving surgery.

Stage-Specific Survival in Breast Cancer in Chinese and White Women: Comparative Data Analysis

BACKGROUND

Stage-specific survival, according to the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pathological prognostic staging (PPS) on breast cancer (BC), between Chinese and White American women remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess stage-specific survival in BC between Chinese and White American women according to the eighth AJCC PPS.

METHODS

We included Chinese and White American women with BC diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. A chi-square test, the Kaplan-Meier method, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

We included 376,818 individuals in this study: 369,522 White American and 7296 Chinese. Of them, 149,452 (39.7%) migrated from the seventh AJCC anatomic staging (AS) to the eighth AJCC PPS, 22,516 (6.0%) were upstaged, and 126,936 (33.7%) were downstaged. With a median follow-up duration of 44 months, the 5-year overall survival and cancer-specific survival (CSS) for the entire group were 87.4% and 95.9%, respectively. The seventh AJCC AS (P<.001) and the eighth AJCC PPS (P<.001) could significantly predict the survival outcomes of BC, and multivariate analysis revealed that both staging systems were significant prognostic indicators of CSS. The ROC curve revealed that the PPS had a better discriminating ability than the AS (area under the curve [AUC] 0.769 vs 0.753, P<.001). Similar trends were observed after stratification by the 2 ethnic groups. The eighth AJCC PPS had better discriminating ability than the seventh AJCC AS among both White American (AUC 0.769 vs 0.753, P<.001) and Chinese patients (AUC 0.790 vs 0.776, P<.001). In the seventh AJCC AS, Chinese women had better CSS in stage IA (P=.02), stage IIA (P=.005), and stage IIIB (P=.04) disease than White American women, but no significant CSS was observed in stage IB, IIB, IIIA, and IIIC disease between the 2 ethnic groups. Regarding the eighth AJCC PPS, Chinese women had better CSS in stage IA (P=.002) and IIIA (P=.046) disease than White American women, and CSS was similar in Chinese and White American women in other substages.

CONCLUSIONS

The eighth AJCC PPS has a similar discriminative ability between White American and Chinese individuals with BC compared with the seventh AJCC AS. Therefore, the eighth AJCC PPS is also applicable to Chinese individuals with BC.

The Predictive Effect of the 8th AJCC Pathological Prognostic Staging on the Benefit of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy in N2/N3 Breast Cancer

Background

The role of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pathological prognostic staging (PPS) on treatment-decision making of breast cancer (BC) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the predictive effect of the 8th AJCC PPS on the benefit of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in N2/N3 BC.

Methods

We included women with stage N2/3 BC diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The effect of PMRT on breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) was evaluated using the multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models.

Results

A total of 13,445 patients were identified, including 10,547 (78.4%) patients treated with PMRT. All patients had reassigned stages based on the 8th AJCC PPS. There were 7102 patients (52.8%) that had stage changed, including 1160 patients (8.6%) were upstaged and 5942 patients (44.2%) were downstaged from the 7th AJCC anatomical staging (AS) to the 8th AJCC PPS. Regarding the 7th AJCC AS, 7603 (56.5%), 948 (7.1%), and 4895 (36.4%) were stage IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC diseases, respectively. Using the 8th AJCC PPS, 3525 (26.2%), 460 (3.4%), 1335 (9.9%), 3457 (25.7%), 2169 (19.1%), and 2100 (15.6%) patients were restaged as IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC diseases, respectively. The PPS displayed increased prognostic accuracy and improved model fit with respect to BCSS compared to the 7th AS (C-index, 0.731 vs 0.605, P < 0.001; Akaike Information Criterion, 42141 vs 43118). Regarding the AS, the receipt of PMRT was associated with a better BCSS in those with stage IIIA (P = 0.004), IIIB (P = 0.003), and IIIC (P < 0.001) diseases. Using the PPS, the receipt of PMRT was not associated with a better BCSS among patients with stage IB (P = 0.446), IIA (P = 0.140), and IIB (P = 0.248) disease, while the receipt of PMRT was associated with a better BCSS for those with stage IIIA (P = 0.009), IIIB (P < 0.001), and IIIC (P < 0.001) disease.

Conclusion

The 8th AJCC staging provides superior risk stratification and a better tool to predict the benefit of PMRT in N2/3 BC.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Triple-negative breast cancer outcomes: Does AJCC 8th staging improve chemotherapy decision-making

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pathological prognostic staging on chemotherapy decision-making for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients with T1-2N0M0 disease.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with T1-2N0M0 TNBC were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Statistical methods including Kaplan-Meier survival curve, receiver operating characteristics curve, and Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

We identified 12,156 patients, including 9371 (77.1%) patients who received chemotherapy. Overall, 57.4% of patients (n = 6975) were upstaged after being reassigned by the 8th AJCC staging. However, the 8th staging of AJCC did not have a greater prognostic value compared to the 7th staging (P = 0.064). The receipt of chemotherapy significantly improved the breast cancer-specific survival for stage T1c and T2 tumors (P < 0.001), but not for stage T1a (P = 0.188) and T1b (P = 0.376) tumors. Using AJCC 8th staging, chemotherapy benefit was only found in stage IIA patients (P = 0.002), but not for stage IA (P = 0.653) and IB (P = 0.492) patients. There were 9564 patients with stage T1c and T2 diseases and 4979 patients with 8th AJCC stage IIA disease. Therefore, approximately half of patients (47.9%, n = 4585) may be safe to omit chemotherapy using the AJCC 8th staging compared to the current chemotherapy recommendation for T1-2N0M0 TNBC.

CONCLUSION

The 8th AJCC staging system did not demonstrate the superior discriminatory ability of prognostic stratification than the 7th AJCC staging system in T1-2N0M0 TNBC. However, this new AJCC staging could more accurately predict the chemotherapy benefit, thereby enabling more patients to avoid unnecessary chemotherapy.

Review of Breast Cancer Pathologigcal Image Processing

Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies. Pathological image processing of breast has become an important means for early diagnosis of breast cancer. Using medical image processing to assist doctors to detect potential breast cancer as early as possible has always been a hot topic in the field of medical image diagnosis. In this paper, a breast cancer recognition method based on image processing is systematically expounded from four aspects: breast cancer detection, image segmentation, image registration, and image fusion. The achievements and application scope of supervised learning, unsupervised learning, deep learning, CNN, and so on in breast cancer examination are expounded. The prospect of unsupervised learning and transfer learning for breast cancer diagnosis is prospected. Finally, the privacy protection of breast cancer patients is put forward.

Prognostic validation and treatment decision making of the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer pathological staging system for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer

Purpose: To determine the prognostication and treatment decision making of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8^th pathological staging system in elderly women (aged ≥65 years) with T1-2N0M0 breast cancer (BC).

Results: We included 67699 patients, and patients were restaged into stage IA (84.9%), IB (8.9%), and IIA (6.2%) using the 8^th AJCC edition criteria. Overall, 69.4% and 30.6% of them underwent breast-conservation surgery (BCS) and mastectomy (MAST), respectively. In patients who received BCS, 30.3% of them underwent postoperative radiotherapy (RT). Patients with a higher pathological stage were more likely to receive MAST. The 5-year breast cancer-specific mortality rate was 2.2%, 6.5% and 13.7% in stage IA, IB, and IIA, respectively. Patients treated with BCS and RT had significantly lower risk of breast cancer-specific mortality compared to those treated with MAST or with BCS alone regardless of the pathological prognostic stages (P<0.001).

Conclusions: The 8^th AJCC pathological prognostic staging system provides accurate risk stratification and impacts the treatment decision making for elderly women with early-stage BC.

Methods: We identified stage T1-2N0M0 BC patients using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Statistical analyses were used binomial logistic regression, and multivariable competing risk models in the Cox model framework.