Survival from contralateral breast cancer

Survival Outcomes in Women with Unilateral, Triple-Negative, Breast Cancer Correlated with Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite increased utilization of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), there is insufficient evidence that it improves survival in average-risk women with unilateral breast cancer. CPM may be of heightened interest to patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) because these patients are more likely to have BRCA1 mutation-associated disease and are not candidates for the chemoprevention benefits of adjuvant endocrine therapy.

METHODS

Survival and recurrence outcomes were evaluated for all TNBC patients from a multi-institutional database (1999-2018) at two academic cancer programs in two metropolitan cities of the Northeast and Midwest. Median follow-up time was 3.7 years.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and nighty six TNBC patients were evaluated and 15.45% underwent CPM. Women undergoing CPM were more likely to be white (p < 0.001), younger (p < 0.001), and underwent genetic testing (p < 0.001). A borderline survival benefit was observed for TNBC patients undergoing CPM (5-year overall survival 95.1% vs. 85.0%; p = 0.05). There was no difference in survival when BRCA mutation carriers were excluded (5-year overall survival 94.1% vs. 85.2%; p = 0.12). For BRCA mutation carriers, a numeric trend was observed for improved survival for patients undergoing CPM (5-year overall survival 97.2% vs. 84.1%; p = 0.35). Among patients not undergoing CPM, the rate of developing a new primary breast cancer was 2.2% (15/673). Among these 15 patients, 20% (3/15) were known BRCA mutation carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate no survival benefit for TNBC patients without BRCA1/2 mutations undergoing CPM.

A Multi-State Survival Model for Time to Breast Cancer Mortality among a Cohort of Initially Disease-Free Women

BACKGROUND

Identifying risk factors for aggressive forms of breast cancer is important. Tumor factors (e.g., stage) are important predictors of prognosis, but may be intermediates between prediagnosis risk factors and mortality. Typically, separate models are fit for incidence and mortality postdiagnosis. These models have not been previously integrated to identify risk factors for lethal breast cancer in cancer-free women.

METHODS

We combined models for breast cancer incidence and breast cancer-specific mortality among cases into a multi-state survival model for lethal breast cancer. We derived the model from cancer-free postmenopausal Nurses' Health Study women in 1990 using baseline risk factors. A total of 4,391 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed from 1990 to 2014 of which 549 died because of breast cancer over the same period.

RESULTS

Some established risk factors (e.g., family history, estrogen plus progestin therapy) were not associated with lethal breast cancer. Controlling for age, the strongest risk factors for lethal breast cancer were weight gain since age 18: > 30 kg versus ± 5 kg, RR = 1.94 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.38-2.74], nulliparity versus age at first birth (AAFB) < 25, RR = 1.60 (95% CI = 1.16-2.22), and current smoking ≥ 15 cigarettes/day versus never, RR = 1.42 (95% CI = 1.07-1.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Some breast cancer incidence risk factors are not associated with lethal breast cancer; other risk factors for lethal breast cancer are not associated with disease incidence.

IMPACT

This multi-state survival model may be useful for identifying prediagnosis factors that lead to more aggressive and ultimately lethal breast cancer.

Prognosis of BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer patients with HBOC risk factors compared with sporadic breast cancer patients without HBOC risk factors

OBJECTIVE

Demands for genetic counseling with BRCA1/2 examination have markedly increased. Accordingly, the incidence of uninformative results on BRCA1/2 mutation status has also increased. Because most patients examined for BRCA1/2 mutation have a high risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer, many patients suffer psychological distress even when the BRCA1/2 result is negative. We compared oncological outcomes between BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer with high risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer and sporadic breast cancer without risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer.

METHODS

The criteria for high risk for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer were defined as family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer in first- or second-degree relative, early onset breast cancer at <35 years old and bilateral breast cancer. Patients were matched maximally 1:3 into those who identified as negative for BRCA1/2 mutation with risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (study group) and those who were not examined for BRCA1/2 mutation without risk for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (control group). Matched variables were pathologic stage, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status.

RESULTS

All matching variables were successfully matched. Median follow-up duration was 57.8 months. There was no significant difference between the groups in disease-free survival (log-rank P = 0.197); however, the study group showed significantly better overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival (both P < 0.0001). We conducted subgroup analysis in the middle-aged group (36-54) and showed no significant difference for disease-free survival (P = 0.072) but significantly better overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival in the study group (P = 0.002 and P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer patients who had hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer risk factors showed similar disease-free survival and better overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival compared with those with sporadic breast cancer without hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer risk factors.

Inferior survival for young patients with contralateral compared to unilateral breast cancer: a nationwide population-based study in the Netherlands

To compare overall survival between women with unilateral breast cancer (UBC) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Women with UBC (N = 182,562; 95 %) and CBC (N = 8,912; 5 %) recorded in the Netherlands Cancer Registry between 1989 and 2008 were included and followed until 2010. We incorporated CBC as a time-dependent covariate to compute the overall mortality rate ratio between women with CBC and UBC. Prognostic factors for overall death were examined according to age at first breast cancer. Women with CBC exhibited a 30 % increase in overall mortality (Hazard Ratio (HR), 95 % Confidence Interval: 1.3, 1.3-1.4) compared with UBC, decreasing with rising age at diagnosis of first breast cancer (<50 years: 2.3, 2.2-2.5 vs. ≥70 years: 1.1, 1.0-1.1). Women older than 50 years at CBC diagnosis and diagnosed 2-5 years after their first breast cancer exhibited a 20 % higher death risk (1.2, 1.0-1.3) compared to those diagnosed within the first 2 years. In women younger than 50 years, the HR was significantly lower if the CBC was diagnosed >5 years after the first breast cancer (0.7, 0.5-0.9). The prognosis for women with CBC significantly improved over time (2004-2008: 0.6, 0.5-0.7 vs. 1989-1993). Women with CBC had a lower survival compared to women with UBC, especially those younger than 50 years at first breast cancer diagnosis. A tailored follow-up strategy beyond current recommendations is needed for these patients who, because of their age and absence of known familial risk, are currently not invited for population-based screening.

Survival after bilateral breast cancer: results from a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists on the impact of bilaterality of breast cancer on survival. We used population-based data to compare survival of women with unilateral versus bilateral breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

At the Geneva cancer registry, we identified all 7,912 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1970 and 2002. Breast cancers were categorized as unilateral, synchronous bilateral (contralateral tumour diagnosed within six months after the first tumour) and metachronous bilateral (contralateral tumour diagnosed over six months after the first tumour). With multivariate modelling we compared characteristics and survival between women with unilateral and bilateral disease.

RESULTS

Patients with synchronous bilateral tumours (n = 155, 2.0%) had more often lobular histology and less frequently stage I disease than women with unilateral disease. Women with metachronous breast cancer (n = 219, 2.8%) received less often chemotherapy or hormone therapy for their first tumours. Ten-year disease-specific survival was similar (66%) after unilateral and metachronous bilateral breast cancer, but worse after synchronous bilateral cancer (51%). After adjustment, breast cancer mortality risks were not significantly increased for women with either synchronous or metachronous bilateral disease (Hazard ratios 1.1 (0.8-1.5) and 0.8 (0.5-1.4), respectively).

CONCLUSION

This large population-based study indicates that bilaterality of breast cancer is not associated with impaired survival.

Contralateral Breast Cancer: Factors Associated with Stage and Size at Presentation

Few reports have evaluated factors associated with the stage at presentation of contralateral breast cancer and whether contralateral cancer presentation has changed in recent years, during which increased screening and enhanced adjuvant therapy of the initial tumor has been introduced. Patients with initial cancers staged 0-IIIB diagnosed between 1980 and 1999 who subsequently developed contralateral breast cancer were evaluated for stage, primary tumor size and histologic features, patient age and year of diagnosis, synchronous or metachronous presentation, and time from initial tumor to diagnosis of contralateral breast cancer. Tumor presentation was compared with contemporaneously diagnosed unilateral breast cancer patients. A total of 171 patients were diagnosed with contralateral breast cancer; 161 cases if lobular carcinoma in situ for either the initial or the contralateral tumor were excluded. Contralateral tumors were of significantly smaller size and of earlier stage than initial tumors. Contralateral cancers demonstrated earlier stage distributions with more recent year of diagnosis; initial tumors in contralateral patients did not. Earlier stage at presentation of contralateral tumors was associated in a multivariate model with more recent year of contralateral tumor diagnosis and earlier stage at presentation of the initial tumor; contralateral tumor size was associated with the size of the initial tumor. More recently diagnosed contralateral breast cancers are presenting with earlier stages of disease. The stages of initial tumors in these patients have not undergone such an improvement. Initial tumor size and stage is strongly associated with contralateral breast cancer size and stage; this association is independent of the year of diagnosis. Increased compliance with screening might be expected to improve both initial tumor stage and tumor size presentations in contralateral tumor patients, as well as the presentation of contralateral cancers.

Breast cancer prognosis in relation to family history of breast and ovarian cancer

We linked four nationwide Swedish population-based registries to identify first-degree family history of breast and ovarian cancer among breast cancer cases diagnosed between 1991 and 1998 and followed them until death, emigration or end of follow-up in December 1998. The median follow-up was 36 months. Using Cox proportional hazards models, the hazard ratio of death (HR) due to breast cancer was estimated. Women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer (n=2175, 12.7%) had a nonsignificantly better prognosis than women without any family history, HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.71–1.05); this appeared unrelated to age at diagnosis either in the index case or in relative(s) with breast and/or ovarian cancer. Our study shows that prognostic outlook is not worse among breast cancer patients with family history.

Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer recurrence

PURPOSE

To determine the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting breast cancer recurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty women conservatively treated for breast cancer underwent MRI and confirmation on histology and cytology of suspected local recurrence. In these patients both clinical and mammographic/ultrasound features of local recurrence were nonspecific or suspicious. All patients were examined at least 1 year after completion of radiation treatment. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging was performed with a 1.5 T unit using a dedicated bilateral breast coil. Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained. Statistical analysis was also performed with the Student T-test.

RESULTS

Breast cancer recurrence was confirmed on histology in 22 patients. MRI identified all the 22 breast recurrent cancers. False-positive contrast enhancement was seen in only two patients. In four patients recurrence was classified as multifocal. In one patient the tumor was detected in the contralateral breast. MRI showed 95% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, 88.8% specificity with 5% false-positives and 100% negative predictive value.

CONCLUSION

Dynamic MRI appears a valuable technique for differentiation of post-treatment changes from recurrent carcinoma and for guiding the histological confirmation. Its high negative predictive value may have an impact on follow-up of treated breast.

Does family history influence survival in breast cancer cases?

A few studies have suggested a relatively better prognosis for breast cancer (BC) cases reporting a positive family history (FH). We aimed at comparing the survival of patients according to FH in a large hospital-based series of 1,278 BC cases. Information on FH for BC was obtained at diagnosis by interview. All cases reporting a first- or second-degree FH for breast carcinoma were compared with cases without FH. Overall survival was estimated using a product-limit method. Hazard ratios (HRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), adjusted for confounding factors, were computed using proportional hazard models. Overall, 240 (18.8%) cases reporting, at diagnosis, a positive FH (156 with at least 1 first-degree relative and 84 with at least 1 second-degree relative) were compared with 1,038 patients without FH for BC. No significant differences were found in terms of distribution of age at diagnosis, tumor stage, nodal involvement, receptor status and histology. Cumulative survival rates at 5 years for cases without FH and with first-degree and second-degree FH for BC were 79.8 (95% CI 77.0-83.0), 78.6 (95% CI 70.0-88.0) and 80.2 (95% CI 68.0-92.0), respectively (log-rank test, chi(2) (2) = 0.02, p = 1.0). After adjustment for age, pathologic size and nodal involvement, the HR among cases of invasive cancer with a first-degree FH of BC was 0.91 (95% CI 0.55-1.48); however, the HR for cases with second-degree FH was 1.18 (95% CI 0.62-2.25) compared to cases without FH. Our study, based on a large series of consecutive invasive BC cases, did not find any significant survival differences associated with a positive FH for breast carcinoma, suggesting the existence of a large heterogeneity among BC cases with FH.

A case-control study of unilateral and bilateral breast carcinoma patients

BACKGROUND

Women with unilateral breast carcinoma are at increased risk for developing contralateral disease. The clinical significance of bilateral breast carcinoma has not been fully defined, and the subset of patients who may benefit from medical or surgical risk-reduction intervention has not yet been characterized. The purpose of this study was to evaluate risk factors and outcomes for bilateral breast carcinoma.

METHODS

A subject group of 70 bilateral breast carcinoma patients (62% metachronous) was matched by age and survival interval with a control group of 70 unilateral breast carcinoma patients. Median follow-up was 103 months.

RESULTS

Eighty-two percent of the unilateral patients and 80% of the bilateral patients had Stage I or II disease at diagnosis. Median age at presentation was 53 years. In the bilateral group, the contralateral cancer was diagnosed at the same or earlier stage than the first cancer in 87% of cases. Bilateral patients were significantly more likely to have multicentric disease and to have a positive family history for breast carcinoma compared with the unilateral group. There were no significant differences regarding history of exogenous hormone exposure, lobular histology, hormone-receptor status, or HER-2/neu expression. Five-year disease-free survival was 94% for the unilateral breast carcinoma patients and 91% for the bilateral breast carcinoma patients (P = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival for patients with bilateral breast carcinoma is similar to that of patients with unilateral disease; however, prophylactic risk-reduction intervention for the contralateral breast should be considered in patients who have multicentric unilateral disease or a positive family history for breast carcinoma.

Educational Review: Role of the Surgeon in Hereditary Breast Cancer

Up to 10% of the breast cancers detected in the United States are related to an inherited germline mutation, usually in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, and the majority of these patients will at some point require surgical evaluation and/or treatment. Women who harbor a genetic predisposition for breast cancer face an increased risk for early onset disease, bilateral tumors, and other non-breast malignancies, such as ovarian cancer. These issues raise questions regarding the appropriate surveillance regimen, and the potential efficacy of risk reduction strategies that should be considered. Once a breast cancer diagnosis has been established, the prognosis appears to be similar to stage-controlled sporadic breast cancer, despite an increased prevalence of adverse primary tumor features. However, the role of breast conservation therapy for these patients and the optimal means of addressing the substantially increased risk for contralateral tumors is not yet defined. The reported literature in this area, including a discussion of the value of genetic counseling and genetic testing, is reviewed.

Epidemiology, prevention, and early detection of breast cancer

Decreases in the incidence of breast cancer have not been achieved, but there is a downward trend in age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates in the United States. Recent epidemiologic investigations continue to refine our understanding of the role of established breast cancer risk factors, such as reproductive characteristics and body mass index, and in the process advance understanding of the etiology of breast cancer. Important strides are being made in the chemoprevention of breast cancer, but clarifying the potential contributions of factors such as diet, physical activity, and cigarette smoke to the breast cancer burden is a high priority because these lifestyle behaviors also have important implications for primary prevention. The role of both environmental and endogenous exposures in breast carcinogenesis will be more clearly elucidated by studies that account for genetic polymorphisms, some of which may lead to differential susceptibility to harmful agents.

Prophylactic mastectomy

The Society of Surgical Oncology has developed a position statement54 that lists conditions warranting consideration of prophylactic mastectomy (Table 4). It must be stressed that there are no absolute indications for prophylactic mastectomy. The data are limited about the efficacy of prophylactic mastectomy in humans, but recent studies suggest that it results in up to 90% reduction in the risk for breast cancer. Total mastectomy is technically a more definitive procedure, although reported series have had a predominance of patients undergoing subcutaneous, nipple-sparing procedures. Prophylactic mastectomy may improve longevity in BRCA mutation carriers, but this must be balanced against the impact on quality of life. The benefits of prophylactic mastectomy relative to chemoprevention are unclear because there are no prospective randomized studies comparing these two strategies. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with a unilateral cancer is unlikely to improve survival, but this approach may be considered for high-risk or difficult-to-observe patients, to facilitate breast reconstruction, and for the psychologic benefits. Patients considering prophylactic mastectomy should be well informed of risk-reduction alternatives and the limitations in the efficacy and cosmetic results of the procedure.