Expert consensus on diagnosis, treatment and fertility management of young breast cancer patients

The Prognoses of Young Women With Breast Cancer (≤35 years) With Different Surgical Options: A Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Compared with older patients, young women with breast cancer (YWBCs) have a poorer prognosis and a higher risk of recurrence. Ages ≤35 years are independent risk factors for local recurrence of breast cancer. Surgery is the most important local treatment for YWBC, and there is still a lack of prospective studies comparing surgical options for recurrence and survival. We retrospectively compared the effects of surgical options on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of YWBC at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC).

Methods

YWBCs (age ≤35 years) who underwent surgery at FUSCC between 2008 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into three groups according to surgical options: 1) breast-conserving surgery (BCS), 2) mastectomy alone (M), and 3) mastectomy with reconstruction (RECON). The DFS and OS outcome rates from the three surgical options were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model. Propensity score matching (PSM) was also used to balance the baseline characteristics to eliminate selection bias.

Results

A total of 1,520 YWBCs were enrolled with a median follow-up of 5.1 years, including 524 patients (34.5%) who underwent BCS, 676 patients (44.5%) who underwent M, and 320 patients (21.1%) who underwent RECON. The 5-year DFS rates were 96%, 87%, and 93%, respectively (P < 0.001); the 5-year OS rates were 98%, 94%, and 97%, respectively (P = 0.002). Multivariate Cox analysis showed that DFS and OS were significantly improved in patients undergoing BCS compared with those undergoing M, with hazard ratios (HR) of 0.448 (95% CI 0.276-0.728; P = 0.001) and 0.405 (95% CI 0.206-0.797, P = 0.009), respectively. After PSM, DFS and OS rates were significantly improved in patients undergoing BCS compared to patients undergoing M (DFS, P = 0.001; OS, P = 0.009); RECON was also improved compared to patients undergoing M in terms of DFS and OS, but the difference was not statistically significant (DFS, P = 0.164; OS, P = 0.130).

Conclusions

The surgical options were independent factors affecting DFS and OS in YWBC, and the DFS and OS rates were significantly improved in the BCS group compared to those in the M group. BCS is preferred for early YWBC, and RECON is the best option for remodeling the body images of YWBC who do not have breast-conserving conditions.

The Distinct Performances of Ultrasound, Mammograms, and MRI in Detecting Breast Cancer in Patients With Germline Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes

A proportion of up to 10% of breast cancer resulted from hereditary germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in cancer predisposition genes (CPGs), which been demonstrated distinct clinical features and imaging manifestations. However, the performance of imaging modalities for breast cancer surveillance in CPG mutation-carriers is still unclear, especially in Asian women. A population of 3002 breast cancer patients who received germline genetic testing of CPGs was enrolled from three hospitals in China. In total, 343 (11.6%) patients were found to harbor GPVs in CPGs, including 137 (4.6%) in BRCA1 and 135 (4.6%) in BRCA2. We compared the performances of ultrasound, mammograms, MRI, and the combining strategies in CPG mutation carriers and non-carriers. As a result, the ultrasound showed a higher detection rate compared with mammograms regardless of the mutation status. However, its detection rate was lower in CPG mutation carriers than in non-carriers (93.2% vs 98.0%, P=2.1×10-4), especially in the BRCA1 mutation carriers (90.9% vs 98.0%, P=2.0×10-4). MRI presented the highest sensitivity (98.5%) and the lowest underestimation rate (14.5%) in CPG mutation carriers among ultrasound, mammograms, and their combination. Supplemental ultrasound or mammograms would add no significant value to MRI for detecting breast cancer (P>0.05). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the family or personal cancer history could not replace the mutation status as the impact factor for the false-negative result and underestimation. In summary, clinicians and radiologists should be aware of the atypical imaging presentation of breast cancer in patients with GPVs in CPGs.