The impact of method of biopsy on the incidence of breast cancer sentinel lymph node metastases

Outcomes in patients with non‐invasive breast carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Non-invasive breast carcinoma is considered to be localized disease and is distinguished from invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas. The local recurrence of non-invasive carcinoma after surgery may lead to development of invasive carcinoma and promote distant metastasis, which worsens the prognosis for breast cancer mortality. The distant metastasis of non-invasive carcinoma may involve the ductal microvasculature without invasion. The outcomes of non-invasive breast carcinoma were examined in this retrospective cohort study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of 872 primary breast cancers diagnosed at a single center between May 2008 and March 2022, 93 (10.6%) were found to be non-invasive carcinomas and were examined in this study. The breast cancer recurrence and survival rates of patients with non-invasive carcinoma were analyzed retrospectively. The median follow-up period was 1891 (range, 5-4804) days. All patients underwent surgical treatment [mastectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and partial mastectomy with or without SLNB, tumorectomy, and microdochectomy]. Postoperatively, radiation therapy was administered to 73 (78.4%) of the patients and endocrine therapy was administered to 64 (81.0%) of 79 patients with hormone-receptor positivity. Of 26 patients who underwent partial mastectomy with SLNB, 24 (92.3%) showed isolated tumor cells in the SLNs on one-step nucleic acid amplification. Local recurrence was observed in three (0.3%) patients; no distant metastasis was observed. One patient died of a noncancerous disease. The overall survival rate was 98.0% and the breast cancer-specific survival rate was 100.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-invasive breast carcinoma, like invasive breast carcinoma, causes local recurrence, but has a good prognosis without distant metastasis. The clinical significance of isolated tumor cells in the SLNs as a systemic component of non-invasive breast carcinoma remains to be elucidated.

Factors analysis on the use of key quality indicators for narrowing the gap of quality of care of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

There are differences in the quality of care among breast cancer patients. Narrowing the quality differences could be achieved by increasing the utilization rate of indicators. Here we explored key indicators that can improve the quality of care and factors that may affect the use of these indicators.

METHODS

A total of 3669 breast cancer patients were included in our retrospective study. We calculated patient quality-of-care composite score based on patient average method. Patients were divided into high- and low-quality groups according to the mean score. We obtained the indicators with large difference in utilization between the two groups. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to analyze the factors influencing quality of care and use of indicators.

RESULTS

The mean composite score was 0.802, and the number of patients in the high- and low-quality groups were 1898 and 1771, respectively. Four indicators showed a difference in utilization between the two groups of over 40%. Histological grade, pathological stage, tumor size and insurance type were the factors affecting the quality of care. In single indicator evaluation, besides the above factors, age, patient income and number of comorbidities may also affect the use of these four indicators. Number of comorbidities may have opposite effects on the use of different indicators, as does pathological stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying key indicators for enhancing the quality-of-care of breast cancer patients and factors that affect the indicator adherence may provide guides for enhancing the utilization rate of these indicators in clinical practice.

Breast cancer neoplastic seeding in the setting of image-guided needle biopsies of the breast

PURPOSE

To identify clinicopathologic, technical, and imaging features associated with neoplastic seeding (NS) following image-guided needle breast biopsy.

METHODS

We performed an institutional review board-approved retrospective review of patients presenting with a new diagnosis of breast cancer or suspicious breast findings requiring biopsy with subsequent diagnosis of NS. The time from biopsy to NS diagnosis was calculated. Histology, grade, estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor (PR) status, HER2 status, T category, and N category were recorded. Biopsy guidance method, needle gauge, and number of passes were reviewed in addition to the mammographic and sonographic features of the primary tumors and the NS.

RESULTS

Eight cases of NS were identified in 4010 patients. The mean time from biopsy to NS diagnosis was 60.8 days. The most frequent histology was invasive ductal carcinoma (7/8). Six cases were grade 3 (75.0%). Five primary breast cancers were ER, PR, and HER2 negative (62.5%). Seven patients underwent biopsy with ultrasound guidance. Multiple-insertion, non-coaxial ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy was done in 6 cases. Mammographic presentation of NS was focal asymmetry (3/7 cases), mass (1/7), calcifications only (1/7), or occult (2/7). Sonographic presentation of NS was most often a mass (7/8) with irregular shape (5/7) and without circumscribed margins (6/7) and was occult in 1 case (1/8). NS distribution was subdermal and intradermal.

CONCLUSION

High-grade, triple-negative breast cancers and multiple-insertion, non-coaxial biopsies may be risk factors for NS. NS should be suspected on the basis of the superficial and linear pattern of disease progression in these patients.

Breast cancer prognosis and isolated tumor cell findings in axillary lymph nodes after core needle biopsy and fine needle aspiration cytology: Biopsy method and breast cancer outcome

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether performing a core needle biopsy (CNB) to diagnose breast cancer increases the incidence of isolated tumor cells (ITC) in the axillary sentinel lymph nodes.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with unilateral invasive pT1 breast cancer (≤2 cm in diameter, n = 1525) at a single center between February 2001 and August 2005 were included in this prospective observational cohort study. The patients were categorized into two groups according to the type of the preoperative breast needle biopsy performed, the CNB and the fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) groups, and followed up for a median of 9.5 years after breast surgery.

RESULTS

868 (56.9%) patients had FNAC and 657 (43.2%) CNB. In the subset of patients with no axillary metastases (pN0, n = 1005) 70 patients had ITC, 37 (4.3%) out of the 546 patients in FNAC group and 33 (5.0%) out of the 459 patients in the CNB group (p = 0.798). The type of tumor biopsy did not influence breast cancer-specific survival (p = 0.461) or local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.814) in univariable survival analyses. Overall, survival favored the CNB group in a univariable analysis, but no difference in survival emerged in a multivariable analysis (p = 0.718).

CONCLUSIONS

CNB was not associated with a greater incidence of ITC in axillary lymph nodes as compared with FNAC, and did not have an adverse effect on survival outcomes in a patient population treated with modern adjuvant therapies.

Impact of sentinel node tumor burden on outcome of invasive breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The tumor status of the axillary lymph nodes is one of the most important prognostic factors in women with early breast cancer (BC). Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has become the standard staging procedure for patients with invasive BC, largely replacing axillary lymph nodes dissection (ALND). The exact impact on prognosis of SLN tumor burden is still object of controversy. The aim of this study was to correlate the tumor burden in the SLN with the outcome in a large cohort of women.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

1040 consecutive patients with clinical stage I-III invasive BC were prospectively collected on our Institutional BC database from January 2001 to January 2007. Patients were stratified into the following four groups based on the tumor burden of the SLN: macrometastases, tumor deposit ≥2 mm; micrometastases, tumor deposit ≥0.2 mm and <2 mm; isolated tumor cells (ITC), isolated tumor cells or tumor deposit <0.2 mm; negative, in case of patients with no evidence of tumor.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 8.5 years, the tumor burden of SLN metastases resulted significant predictor of DFS (P < 0.0001) and OS (P = 0.042). Multivariate analysis showed that the tumor burden of SLN metastases and Ki 67 proliferative index maintained the statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Patients with SLN micrometastases or ITC, do not seem to have a worse DFS or OS compared with SLN negative cases. There is a significant decrease in DFS and OS in patients with macrometastatic disease in the SLN.