1
|
Miller K, Gannon MR, Medina J, Clements K, Dodwell D, Horgan K, Park MH, Cromwell DA. The Association Between Survival and Receipt of Post-mastectomy Radiotherapy According to Age at Diagnosis Among Women With Early Invasive Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2023; 35:e265-e277. [PMID: 36764877 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Revised: 11/08/2022] [Accepted: 01/16/2023] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
AIMS Clinical trials of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for early invasive breast cancer (EIBC) have included few older women. This study examined whether the association between overall survival or breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and receipt of PMRT for EIBC altered with age. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study used patient-level linked cancer registration, routine hospital and radiotherapy data for England and Wales. It included 31 243 women aged ≥50 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 with low- (T1-2N0), intermediate- (T3N0/T1-2N1) or high-risk (T1-2N2/T3N1-2) EIBC who received a mastectomy within 12 months from diagnosis. Patterns of survival were analysed using a landmark approach. Associations between overall survival/BCSS and PMRT in each risk group were analysed with flexible parametric survival models, which included patient and tumour factors; whether the association between PMRT and overall survival/BCSS varied by age was assessed using interaction terms. RESULTS Among 4711 women with high-risk EIBC, 86% had PMRT. Five-year overall survival was 70.5% and BCSS was 79.3%. Receipt of PMRT was associated with improved overall survival [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.87] and BCSS (aHR 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.95) compared with women who did not have PMRT; associations did not vary by age (overall survival, P-value for interaction term = 0.141; BCSS, P = 0.077). Among 10 814 women with intermediate-risk EIBC, 59% had PMRT; 5-year overall survival was 78.4% and BCSS was 88.0%. No association was found between overall survival (aHR 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.11) or BCSS (aHR 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.32) and PMRT. There was statistical evidence of a small change in the association with age for overall survival (P = 0.007), although differences in relative survival were minimal, but not for BCSS (P = 0.362). CONCLUSIONS The association between PMRT and overall survival/BCSS does not appear to be modified by age among women with high- or intermediate-risk EIBC and, thus, treatment recommendations should not be modified on the basis of age alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Miller
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
| | - M R Gannon
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - J Medina
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - K Clements
- National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, NHS Digital, Birmingham, UK
| | - D Dodwell
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - K Horgan
- Department of Breast Surgery, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - M H Park
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - D A Cromwell
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Deutschmann C, Singer CF, Gschwantler-Kaulich D, Pfeiler G, Leser C, Baltzer PAT, Helbich TH, Kraus C, Korbatits R, Marzogi A, Clauser P. Residual fibroglandular breast tissue after mastectomy is associated with an increased risk of a local recurrence or a new primary breast cancer". BMC Cancer 2023; 23:281. [PMID: 36978031 PMCID: PMC10044359 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-10764-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 03/22/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Residual fibroglandular breast tissue (RFGT) following a mastectomy has been claimed to be associated with the occurrence of an in-breast local recurrence (IBLR) or new primary tumor (NP). Yet, scientific evidence proving this assumption is lacking. The primary aim of the study was to verify whether RFGT following a mastectomy is a risk factor for an IBLR or NP. METHODS This retrospective analysis included all patients that underwent a mastectomy and were followed up at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Medical University of Vienna between 01.01.2015 and 26.02.2020. RFGT volume (assessed on magnetic resonance imaging) was correlated with the prevalence of an IBLR and a NP. RESULTS A total of 105 patients (126 breasts) following a therapeutic mastectomy were included. After a mean follow-up of 46.0 months an IBLR had occurred in 17 breasts and a NP in 1 breast. A significant difference in RFGT volume was observed between the disease-free cohort and the subgroup with an IBLR or NP (p = .017). A RFGT volume of ≥ 1153 mm3 increased the risk by the factor 3.57 [95%CI 1.27; 10.03]. CONCLUSIONS RFGT volume is associated with an increased risk for an IBLR or NP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christine Deutschmann
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
| | - Christian F Singer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Georg Pfeiler
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Carmen Leser
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Pascal A T Baltzer
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Thomas H Helbich
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Christine Kraus
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ricarda Korbatits
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Alaa Marzogi
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Paola Clauser
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Facilitating and Inhibiting Factors in Deciding to Start Retreatment in Survivors of Breast Cancer Recurrence. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER MANAGEMENT 2023. [DOI: 10.5812/ijcm-132709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/07/2023]
Abstract
Background: Cancer recurrence is an important care challenge for breast cancer survivors. It is necessary to understand and identify the barriers and facilitators that affect the decision to start retreatment by those facing breast cancer recurrence compared to factors affecting their decision to start the initial treatment, which is different. Objectives: This study is part of a qualitative study with a grounded theory approach, which was conducted to explain the facilitating and inhibiting factors affecting the decision to start retreatment in survivors of breast cancer recurrence, using a qualitative content analysis method. Methods: This study was conducted based on the experiences of 16 patients with breast cancer recurrence and 2 oncologists to confirm the findings of the effective inhibiting and facilitating factors in patients’ decisions to start retreatment for breast cancer recurrence in one of the hospitals in Tehran, Iran. The samples were selected, using the purposeful sampling method trying to have maximum diversity. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews from November 2020 to November 2021 and analyzed, using the conventional content analysis method following the Elo and Kyngas method, which includes 3 phases, including the preparation phase, the organizing phase, and the reporting phase. Credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and authenticity were used for determining the trustworthiness of data. Results: Both groups of inhibiting and facilitating factors were divided into 5 categories, including individual factors, social factors, family factors, illness characteristics, and treatment-related factors. Also, each category included sub-categories in two groups of inhibiting and facilitating factors affecting the decision to start treatment again. Conclusions: Based on the results of the present study, it is necessary to increase the awareness of patients with breast cancer by the treatment staff about the possibility of recurrence and to know the factors influencing their decision-making process to start retreatment. Nurses should play the role of advisors, educators, and supporters of the patients in this field.
Collapse
|
4
|
Chen BF, Tsai YF, Huang CC, Hsu CY, Lien PJ, Wang YL, Lin YS, Feng CJ, King KL, Chiu JH, Chau GY, Tseng LM. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes of luminal B1 breast cancer in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc 2022; 85:190-197. [PMID: 34643617 DOI: 10.1097/jcma.0000000000000632] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor II (HER2)-negative luminal B1 breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of disease relapse than luminal A breast cancer. Therefore, we assessed and compared the distant metastasis pattern and clinical outcomes associated with luminal B1 and luminal A breast cancer in an Asian population. METHODS In this observational study, we assessed patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who underwent surgery from 2009 to 2016. Patients were classified into luminal A or luminal B1 subsets via immunohistochemical analysis. Disease-free survival, post-metastasis survival, and overall survival were estimated; time to disease relapse and patterns of distant metastasis were compared. Risk of relapse and mortality were assessed using Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Patients with luminal B1 breast cancer (n = 677) were significantly younger and had larger tumors and a higher degree of affected axillary lymph nodes, lymphovascular invasion, and tumor necrosis than those with luminal A breast cancer (n = 630). Higher rates of local recurrence and distant metastasis were observed for luminal B1 (both p < 0.05); however, no difference was observed in the specific distant metastatic sites. We observed a significant increase in disease relapse risk in luminal B1 patients compared with that in luminal A (hazard ratio: 2.157, 95% CI: 1.340-3.473, p < 0.05). Patient age, tumor size, stage, lymphovascular invasion, and receiving chemotherapy and hormone therapy were independent risk factors for metastasis and recurrence. Only the luminal B1 subtype (hazard ratio: 5.653, 95% CI: 1.166-27.409, p < 0.05) and stage (hazard ratio: 3.400, 95% CI: 1.512-7.649, p < 0.05) were identified as independent risk factors for post metastatic mortality. CONCLUSION Luminal B1 breast cancer has aggressive tumor biology compared with luminal A breast cancer in the follow-up period. However, there was no significant difference in the disease relapse pattern between the groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bo-Fang Chen
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Yi-Fang Tsai
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Comprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Chi-Cheng Huang
- Comprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Division of Experimental Surgery, Department of Surgery Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- School of Public Health, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Chih-Yi Hsu
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Pei-Ju Lien
- Comprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Department of Nurse, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Yu-Ling Wang
- Division of Experimental Surgery, Department of Surgery Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Yen-Shu Lin
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Comprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Chin-Jung Feng
- Comprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Kuang-Liang King
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Jen-Hwey Chiu
- Comprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Gar-Yang Chau
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Ling-Ming Tseng
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Comprehensive Breast Health Center, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
- Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Dahn HM, Boersma LJ, de Ruysscher D, Meattini I, Offersen BV, Pignol JP, Aristei C, Belkacemi Y, Benjamin D, Bese N, Coles CE, Franco P, Ho A, Hol S, Jagsi R, Kirby AM, Marrazzo L, Marta GN, Moran MS, Nichol AM, Nissen HD, Strnad V, Zissiadis YE, Poortmans P, Kaidar-Person O. The use of bolus in postmastectomy radiation therapy for breast cancer: A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2021; 163:103391. [PMID: 34102286 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2021] [Revised: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 06/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Post mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) reduces locoregional recurrence (LRR) and breast cancer mortality for selected patients. Bolus overcomes the skin-sparing effect of external-beam radiotherapy, ensuring adequate dose to superficial regions at risk of local recurrence (LR). This systematic review summarizes the current evidence regarding the impact of bolus on LR and acute toxicity in the setting of PMRT. RESULTS 27 studies were included. The use of bolus led to higher rates of acute grade 3 radiation dermatitis (pooled rates of 9.6% with bolus vs. 1.2% without). Pooled crude LR rates from thirteen studies (n = 3756) were similar with (3.5%) and without (3.6%) bolus. CONCLUSIONS Bolus may be indicated in cases with a high risk of LR in the skin, but seems not to be necessary for all patients. Further work is needed to define the role of bolus in PMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah M Dahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - Icro Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
| | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
| | | | - Cynthia Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
| | - Yazid Belkacemi
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Henri Mondor Breast Center, University of Paris-Est (UPEC), Creteil, France; INSERM Unit 955, Team 21. IMRB, Creteil, France.
| | - Dori Benjamin
- Department of Physics, Radiation Oncology, Sheba medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
| | - Nuran Bese
- Department of Clinical Senology, Research Institute of Senology Acibadem, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | | | - Pierfrancesco Franco
- Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital "Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy.
| | - Alice Ho
- Harvard Medical School, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Sandra Hol
- Instituut Verbeeten, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
| | - Anna M Kirby
- Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
| | - Livia Marrazzo
- Medical Physics Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
| | - Gustavo N Marta
- Department of Radiation Oncology - Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil.
| | | | - Alan M Nichol
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
| | | | - Vratislav Strnad
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
| | | | - Philip Poortmans
- Iridium Netwerk and University of Antwerp, Wilrijk Antwerp, Belgium.
| | - Orit Kaidar-Person
- Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology or GROW (Maastro), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Tang Y, Zhang YJ, Zhang N, Shi M, Wen G, Cheng J, Wang HM, Liu M, Wang XH, Guo QS, Wu HF, Ma CY, Jin J, Liu YP, Song YW, Fang H, Ren H, Wang SL, Li YX. Nomogram predicting survival as a selection criterion for postmastectomy radiotherapy in patients with T1 to T2 breast cancer with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes. Cancer 2021; 126 Suppl 16:3857-3866. [PMID: 32710662 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32963] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2019] [Revised: 04/21/2020] [Accepted: 04/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in women with pT1-T2N1 breast cancer is controversial. The authors developed a nomogram that was predictive for overall survival (OS) and identified patients who derived no benefit from PMRT. METHODS The authors retrospectively evaluated 4869 patients with pT1-T2N1 breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy between 2000 and 2014 in 11 Chinese hospitals. Rates of locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis were calculated using competing risk analysis, and disease-free survival and OS rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Based on the risk factors identified from Cox regression analysis in 3298 unirradiated patients, a nomogram predicting OS was developed. The benefit of PMRT was evaluated in different risk groups stratified by the nomogram model. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 65.9 months, the 5-year OS, disease-free survival, locoregional recurrence, and distant metastasis rates were 93.3%, 84.3%, 5.2%, and 8.3%, respectively. A total of 1571 patients (32.3%) underwent PMRT. On multivariable analyses, PMRT was found to increase OS significantly (hazard ratio, 0.61; P = .002). An OS prediction nomogram evaluated the effect of age; tumor location; tumor size; positive lymph node ratio; estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status; and treatment with trastuzumab. Based on nomogram scores, the entire patient cohort was classified into 3 risk groups. PMRT significantly improved the OS of patients in the intermediate-risk (P < .001) and high-risk groups (P = .004), but not in the low-risk group (P = .728). CONCLUSIONS The authors developed a nomogram that is predictive of OS among women with pT1-T2N1 breast cancer after mastectomy. This nomogram may help to select a subgroup of patients with a good prognosis who will not benefit from PMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu Tang
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Yu-Jing Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Na Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shenyang, China
| | - Mei Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China
| | - Ge Wen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jing Cheng
- Department of Breast Oncology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Hong-Mei Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Min Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
| | - Xiao-Hu Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gansu Cancer Hospital, Lanzhou, China
| | - Qi-Shuai Guo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chonqing, China
| | - Hong-Fen Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jilin Cancer Hospital, Changchun, China
| | - Chang-Ying Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, First Hospital of Qiqihaer, Qiqihaer, China
| | - Jing Jin
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Yue-Ping Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Yong-Wen Song
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Hui Fang
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Hua Ren
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Shu-Lian Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ye-Xiong Li
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fozza A, Giaj-Levra N, De Rose F, Ippolito E, Silipigni S, Meduri B, Fiorentino A, Gregucci F, Marino L, Di Grazia A, Cucciarelli F, Borghesi S, De Santis MC, Ciabattoni A. Lymph nodal radiotherapy in breast cancer: what are the unresolved issues? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2021; 21:827-840. [PMID: 33852379 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2021.1917390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the gold standard in invasive breast cancer. Axillary dissection (ALND) is controversial in some presentations.Areas covered: Key questions were formulated and explored focused on four different scenarios in adjuvant axillary radiation management in early and locally advanced breast cancer. Answers to these questions were searched in MEDLINE, PubMed from June 1946 to August 2020. Clinical trials, retrospective studies, international guidelines, meta-analysis, and reviews were explored.Expert opinion: Analysis according to biological disease characteristics is necessary to establish the impact of ALND avoidance in unexpectedly positive SLNB (pN1) in cN0 patients. A low-risk probability of axillary recurrence was observed if axillary radiotherapy (ART) or ALND were offered without impact on outcomes. Adjuvant RNI in pT1-3 pN1 treated with mastectomy or BCS should be proposed in unfavorable disease and risk factors. In ycN0 after NACT, SLNB can be offered in selected cases or ALND should be performed. After SLNB post-NACT (ypN1), ALND and adjuvant radiotherapy are mandatory.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandra Fozza
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - Niccolò Giaj-Levra
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar Di Valpolicella, Italy
| | | | - Edy Ippolito
- Radiation Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Sonia Silipigni
- Radiation Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Bruno Meduri
- Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy
| | - Alba Fiorentino
- Radiation Oncology Department, General Regional Hospital "F. Miulli", Acquaviva Delle Fonti, Italy
| | - Fabiana Gregucci
- Radiation Oncology Department, General Regional Hospital "F. Miulli", Acquaviva Delle Fonti, Italy
| | | | | | - Francesca Cucciarelli
- Department of Internal Medicine, Radiotherapy Institute, Ospedali Riuniti Umberto I, G.M. Lancisi, G.Salesi, Ancona, Italy
| | - Simona Borghesi
- Unit of Radiation Oncology, S.Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Li M, Yue J, Wan X, Hua B, Yang Q, Yang P, Zhang Z, Pei Q, Han W, Xu Y, Xia X. Risk-Adapted Postmastectomy Radiotherapy Decision Based on Prognostic Nomogram for pT1-2N1M0 Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Study. Front Oncol 2020; 10:588859. [PMID: 33363018 PMCID: PMC7761288 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.588859] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2020] [Accepted: 11/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to develop a widely accepted prognostic nomogram and establish a risk-adapted PMRT strategy based on locoregional recurrence for pT1-2N1M0 breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 3,033 patients with pT1-2N1M0 breast cancer treated at 6 participating institutions between 2000 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. A nomogram was developed to predicted locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS). A propensity score-matched (PSM) analyses was performed in risk-adapted model. RESULTS With the median follow-up of 65.0 months, the 5-year overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS) and LRFS were 93.0, 84.8, and 93.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference between patients who received PMRT or not for the entire group. A nomogram was developed and validated to estimate the probability of 5-year LRFS based on five independent factors including age, primary tumor site, positive lymph nodes number, pathological T stage, and molecular subtype that were selected by a multivariate analysis of patients who did not receive PMRT in the primary cohort. According to the total nomogram risk scores, the entire patients were classified into low- (40.0%), moderate- (42.4%), and high-risk group (17.6%). The 5-year outcomes were significantly different among these three groups (P<0.001). In low-risk group, patients who received PMRT or not both achieved a favorable OS, DFS, and LRFS. In moderate-risk group, no differences in OS, DFS, and LRFS were observed between PMRT and no PMRT patients. In high-risk group, compared with no PMRT, PMRT resulted in significantly different OS (86.8 vs 83.9%, P = 0.050), DFS (77.2 vs 70.9%, P = 0.049), and LRFS (90.8 vs. 81.6%, P = 0.003). After PSM adjustment, there were no significant differences in OS, DFS, and LRFS in low-risk and moderate-risk groups. However, in the high-risk group, PMRT still resulted in significantly better OS, DFS and improved LRFS. CONCLUSIONS The proposed nomogram provides an individualized risk estimate of LRFS in patients with pT1-2N1M0 breast cancer. Risk-adapted PMRT for high-risk patients is a viable effective strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ming Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital/National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China
| | - Jinbo Yue
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University/Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Xiangbo Wan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital - Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Bin Hua
- Department of Breast Cancer Surgery, Beijing Hospital/National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China
| | - Qiuan Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China
| | - Pei Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hunan Cancer Hospital/The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine - Central South University, Changsha, China
| | - Zijian Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Xiangya Hospital - Central South University, Changsha, China
| | - Qian Pei
- Department of General Surgery, Xiangya Hospital - Central South University, Changsha, China
| | - Weidong Han
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Yaping Xu
- Geneplus-Beijing Institute, Beijing, China
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Zhao X, Tang Y, Wang S, Yang Y, Fang H, Wang J, Jing H, Zhang J, Sun G, Chen S, Jin J, Song Y, Liu Y, Chen B, Qi S, Li N, Tang Y, Lu N, Ren H, Li Y. Locoregional recurrence patterns in women with breast cancer who have not undergone post-mastectomy radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:212. [PMID: 32887640 PMCID: PMC7487762 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01637-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2020] [Accepted: 08/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To analyze the patterns of locoregional recurrence in breast cancer patients after mastectomy. Methods The retrospective study included 7073 women with breast cancer without post-mastectomy radiotherapy: 4604 (65.1%) had pT1–2 N0 disease (low risk); 2042 (28.9%), pT1–2 N1 (intermediate risk); and 427 (6.0%), pT3–4 and/or pN2–3, or pT1–2 N1 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (high risk). The distribution of cumulative locoregional recurrence was analyzed. The local recurrence and regional recurrence rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences were compared with the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox logistic regression analysis. Results In the median follow-up of 63.0 months, 469 patients had locoregional recurrence: chest wall recurrence in 238 (50.7%) cases, supraclavicular/infraclavicular nodes in 236 (50.3%) cases, axilla in 92 (19.6%), and internal mammary nodes in 50 (10.7%) cases. The 5-year local recurrence and regional recurrence rates were 2.5 and 4.4%, respectively. Subgroup analysis of the three risk groups and five molecular subtypes (luminal A, luminal B-Her2 negative, luminal B-Her2 positive, Her2-enriched, and triple negative) also showed that the chest wall and supraclavicular/infraclavicular nodes were the most common recurrence sites. Age, tumor location, T stage, N stage, and hormone receptor status were independent prognostic factors for both local recurrence and regional recurrence (p < 0.05). Conclusions The chest wall and supraclavicular/infraclavicular nodes are common sites of locoregional recurrence in breast cancer, irrespective of disease stage or molecular subtype, and the prognostic factors for local recurrence and regional recurrence are similar. Therefore, chest wall and supraclavicular/infraclavicular nodes irradiation should always be considered in post-mastectomy radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xuran Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Yu Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Shulian Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China.
| | - Yong Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Hui Fang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Jianyang Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Hao Jing
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Jianghu Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Guangyi Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Siye Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Jing Jin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Yongwen Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Yueping Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Bo Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Shunan Qi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Ning Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Yuan Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Ningning Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Hua Ren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China
| | - Yexiong Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Gross JP, Lynch CM, Flores AM, Jordan SW, Helenowski IB, Gopalakrishnan M, Cutright D, Donnelly ED, Strauss JB. Determining the Organ at Risk for Lymphedema After Regional Nodal Irradiation in Breast Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105:649-658. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2509] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2019] [Revised: 06/14/2019] [Accepted: 06/17/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
11
|
Kaššák F, Rossier C, Picardi C, Bernier J. Postmastectomy radiotherapy in T1-2 patients with one to three positive lymph nodes - Past, present and future. Breast 2019; 48:73-81. [PMID: 31561088 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2019.09.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2019] [Revised: 08/16/2019] [Accepted: 09/16/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PAST: The role of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in patients with tumor <5 cm and one to three positive lymph nodes after axillary dissection (ALND) is vigorously debated. Initial doubts over the efficacy and safety of PMRT in these patients were partially overcome by improvement in technology and systemic treatments. Several randomized controlled clinical trials confirmed benefit of PMRT in N1 patients, which were meta-analyzed by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). This meta-analysis provides the sole high-level evidence to guide clinical decision-making. PRESENT: Nevertheless, concerns have been evoked around these results, most notably concerning the patient selection bias and the era in which the patients were treated. More recent studies, albeit retrospective, are in contrast with this level I evidence, unequivocally reporting inferior recurrence rates in control arms than those of the EBCTCG meta-analysis. Taken together, these results suggest that one solution would not fit all N1 patients and that patient selection for PMRT shall be stratified upon risks factors. Most prominent of such factors identified are: patient age; number and ratio of positive lymph nodes; histological features such as lymphovascular invasion; and hormone receptor expression. FUTURE: A prospective randomized controlled trial SUPREMO will release its final results in 2023 and shed light onto the subject. Genomic tumor cell profiling will likely provide further guidelines in terms of risk stratification. SUPREMO translational sub-study will also offer material for genomic analyses. A cross-field tendency to forgo nodal dissection in favor of sentinel lymph node biopsy followed by nodal irradiation might eventually render the question of PMRT indication after ALND irrelevant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Filip Kaššák
- Radiation Oncology Department, Swiss Oncology Network, Genolier Clinic and Oncological Center of Eaux-Vives, Switzerland
| | - Christine Rossier
- Radiation Oncology Department, Swiss Oncology Network, Genolier Clinic and Oncological Center of Eaux-Vives, Switzerland
| | - Cristina Picardi
- Radiation Oncology Department, Swiss Oncology Network, Genolier Clinic and Oncological Center of Eaux-Vives, Switzerland
| | - Jacques Bernier
- Radiation Oncology Department, Swiss Oncology Network, Genolier Clinic and Oncological Center of Eaux-Vives, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Zhang N, Zhang J, Zhang H, Liu Y, Zhao W, Wang L, Chen B, Moran MS, Haffty BG, Yang Q. Individualized Prediction of Survival Benefit from Postmastectomy Radiotherapy for Patients with Breast Cancer with One to Three Positive Axillary Lymph Nodes. Oncologist 2019; 24:e1286-e1293. [PMID: 31315963 DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2019] [Accepted: 06/28/2019] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE There still exist some arguments regarding the use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for patients with breast cancer carrying one to three positive axillary lymph nodes considering the heterogeneity of this cohort. Here, we developed a prognostic nomogram to estimate the probability of long-term outcome in patients receiving or not receiving PMRT in order to assist in making individually locoregional treatment decisions for this particular cohort. METHODS Altogether, 20,336 women, aged 18 to 80 years, diagnosed with breast cancer, and carrying one to three positive nodes were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We applied multivariant Cox hazard model to determine the impact of covariates on disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). Then, the nomogram was built accordingly. Internal and external validations were performed to examine the accuracy of nomograms. RESULTS Age of diagnosis, tumor grade, size, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, and number of positive nodes were independent factors of DSS and OS in the multivariate analysis. Incorporating these factors into the constructed nomogram showed high accuracy when predicting 5- and 10-year survival, with internally and externally bootstrap-corrected concordance indexes in the range of 0.6 to 0.8. CONCLUSION Besides the number of involved nodes, extra variables existed as predictors of survival outcomes in this cohort; therefore, the recommendation of PMRT or no PMRT requires comprehensive consideration. This clinically validated nomogram provided a useful tool that could aid decision making by estimating DSS and OS benefits from PMRT, useful in predicting 5- and 10-year DSS and OS for patients with one to three positive nodes after mastectomy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE This study evaluated population-based data to identify prognostic factors associated with patients with breast cancer with one to three lymph nodes and help clinicians to weigh the benefit of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data were used to develop a prognostic nomogram to predict the likelihood of long-term survival with and without PMRT in order to optimize the individual locoregional control strategy for this particular cohort. This clinically validated nomogram provides a useful tool to predict 5- and 10-year disease-specific survival and overall survival for patients with one to three positive nodes and can aid tailored clinical decision making by estimating predicted benefit from PMRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ning Zhang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Jiashu Zhang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Hanwen Zhang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Ying Liu
- Department of Breast Surgery, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Wenjing Zhao
- Pathology Tissue Bank, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Lijuan Wang
- Pathology Tissue Bank, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Bing Chen
- Pathology Tissue Bank, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| | - Meena S Moran
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Smilow Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Bruce G Haffty
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson and New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
| | - Qifeng Yang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
- Pathology Tissue Bank, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Adra J, Lundstedt D, Killander F, Holmberg E, Haghanegi M, Kjellén E, Karlsson P, Alkner S. Distribution of Locoregional Breast Cancer Recurrence in Relation to Postoperative Radiation Fields and Biological Subtypes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105:285-295. [PMID: 31212042 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2019] [Revised: 05/28/2019] [Accepted: 06/01/2019] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate incidence and location of locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients who have received postoperative locoregional radiation therapy (LRRT) for primary breast cancer. LRR-position in relation to applied radiotherapy and the primary tumor biological subtype were analyzed with the aim of evaluating current target guidelines and radiation therapy techniques in relation to tumor biology. METHODS AND MATERIALS Medical records were reviewed for all patients who received postoperative LRRT for primary breast cancer in southwestern Sweden from 2004 to 2008 (N = 923). Patients with LRR as a first event were identified (n = 57; distant failure and death were considered competing risks). Computed tomographic images identifying LRR were used to compare LRR locations with postoperative LRRT fields. LRR risk and distribution were then related to the primary breast cancer biologic subtype and to current target guidelines. RESULTS Cumulative LRR incidence after 10 years was 7.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5-9.1). Fifty-seven of the 923 patients in the cohort developed LRR (30 local recurrences and 30 regional recurrences, of which 3 cases were simultaneous local and regional recurrence). Most cases of LRR developed fully (56%) or partially (26%) within postoperatively irradiated areas. The most common location for out-of-field regional recurrence was cranial to radiation therapy fields in the supraclavicular fossa. Patients with an estrogen receptor negative (ER-) (hazard ratio [HR], 4.6; P < .001; 95% CI, 2.5-8.4) or HER2+ (HR, 2.4; P = .007; 95% CI, 1.3-4.7) primary breast cancer presented higher risks of LRR compared with those with ER+ tumors. ER-/HER2+ tumors more frequently recurred in-field (68%) rather than marginally or out-of-field (32%). In addition, 75% of in-field recurrences derived from an ER- or HER+ tumor, compared with 45% of marginal or out-of-field recurrences. A complete pathologic response in the axilla after neoadjuvant treatment was associated with a lower degree of LRR risk (P = .022). CONCLUSIONS Incidence and location of LRR seem to be related to the primary breast cancer biologic subtype. Individualized LRRT according to tumor biology may be applied to improve outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamila Adra
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Dan Lundstedt
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Fredrika Killander
- Division of Oncology and Pathology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Erik Holmberg
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Mahnaz Haghanegi
- Division of Oncology and Pathology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Elisabeth Kjellén
- Division of Oncology and Pathology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Per Karlsson
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Sara Alkner
- Division of Oncology and Pathology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Xu AJ, DeSelm CJ, Ho AY, Gillespie EF, Braunstein LZ, Khan AJ, McCormick B, Powell SN, Cahlon O. Overall Survival of Breast Cancer Patients With Locoregional Failures Involving Internal Mammary Nodes. Adv Radiat Oncol 2019; 4:447-452. [PMID: 31360798 PMCID: PMC6639740 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2018] [Accepted: 02/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Internal mammary node recurrence after definitive breast cancer treatment is poorly characterized, with limited data to guide clinical management. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients with recurrent breast cancer involving internal mammary nodes to understand their natural history and determine prognostic factors associated with improved overall survival. Methods and Materials We performed a retrospective analysis of 553 patients with recurrent breast cancer and identified 161 patients with radiographic evidence of locoregional recurrence as a first event. A total of 67 patients (42%) were identified with internal mammary involvement. Median follow-up times were 76 months from date of initial diagnosis and 30 months from date of recurrence. Results Of the 67 patients identified with internal mammary node failures, 10 (15%) presented with isolated recurrence, 14 (21%) presented with other sites of locoregional disease, and 43 (64%) presented with concomitant distant metastases. Median overall survival was 2.5 years and significantly associated with extent of disease (P < .0001). On multivariable analysis, concomitant distant metastases, inflammatory breast cancer, and triple negative histologic type were associated with worse overall survival, whereas salvage radiation therapy was associated with improved overall survival. Among the 10 patients with isolated internal mammary node failures, median progression-free survival was 6.0 years and salvage therapy with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy were associated with the best outcomes. Conclusions Patients with isolated internal mammary node recurrences achieved long-term survival with aggressive therapies, and salvage radiation therapy was associated with improved survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy J Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Carl J DeSelm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Alice Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Erin F Gillespie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Lior Z Braunstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Atif J Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Beryl McCormick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Simon N Powell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hypofractionated versus conventional fractionated postmastectomy radiotherapy for patients with high-risk breast cancer: a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20:352-360. [PMID: 30711522 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30813-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 225] [Impact Index Per Article: 45.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2018] [Revised: 10/16/2018] [Accepted: 10/18/2018] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To our knowledge, no randomised study has compared postmastectomy hypofractionated radiotherapy with conventional fractionated radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer. This study aimed to determine whether a 3-week schedule of postmastectomy hypofractionated radiotherapy is as efficacious and safe as a 5-week schedule of conventional fractionated radiotherapy. METHODS This randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 study was done in a single academic hospital in China. Patients aged 18-75 years who had undergone mastectomy and had at least four positive axillary lymph nodes or primary tumour stage T3-4 disease were eligible to participate. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) according to a computer-generated central randomisation schedule, without stratification, to receive chest wall and nodal irradiation at a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks (conventional fractionated radiotherapy) or 43·5 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks (hypofractionated radiotherapy). The modified intention-to-treat population (including all eligible patients who underwent randomisation but excluding those who were considered ineligible or withdrew consent after randomisation) was used in primary and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was 5-year locoregional recurrence, and a 5% margin was used to establish non-inferiority (equivalent to a hazard ratio <1·883). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00793962. FINDINGS Between June 12, 2008, and June 16, 2016, 820 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group (n=414) or hypofractionated radiotherapy group (n=406). 409 participants in the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group and 401 participants in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses. At a median follow-up of 58·5 months (IQR 39·2-81·8), 60 (7%) patients had developed locoregional recurrence (31 patients in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group and 29 in the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group); the 5-year cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence was 8·3% (90% CI 5·8-10·7) in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group and 8·1% (90% CI 5·4-10·6) in the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group (absolute difference 0·2%, 90% CI -3·0 to 2·6; hazard ratio 1·10, 90% CI 0·72 to 1·69; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). There were no significant differences between the groups in acute and late toxicities, except that fewer patients in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group had grade 3 acute skin toxicity than in the conventional fractionated radiotherapy group (14 [3%] of 401 patients vs 32 [8%] of 409 patients; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION Postmastectomy hypofractionated radiotherapy was non-inferior to and had similar toxicities to conventional fractionated radiotherapy in patients with high-risk breast cancer. Hypofractionated radiotherapy could provide more convenient treatment and allow providers to treat more patients. FUNDING National Key Projects of Research and Development of China; the Chinese Academy of Medical Science Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; and Beijing Marathon of Hope, Cancer Foundation of China.
Collapse
|
16
|
Wöckel A, Festl J, Stüber T, Brust K, Krockenberger M, Heuschmann PU, Jírů-Hillmann S, Albert US, Budach W, Follmann M, Janni W, Kopp I, Kreienberg R, Kühn T, Langer T, Nothacker M, Scharl A, Schreer I, Link H, Engel J, Fehm T, Weis J, Welt A, Steckelberg A, Feyer P, König K, Hahne A, Baumgartner T, Kreipe HH, Knoefel WT, Denkinger M, Brucker S, Lüftner D, Kubisch C, Gerlach C, Lebeau A, Siedentopf F, Petersen C, Bartsch HH, Schulz-Wendtland R, Hahn M, Hanf V, Müller-Schimpfle M, Henscher U, Roncarati R, Katalinic A, Heitmann C, Honegger C, Paradies K, Bjelic-Radisic V, Degenhardt F, Wenz F, Rick O, Hölzel D, Zaiss M, Kemper G, Budach V, Denkert C, Gerber B, Tesch H, Hirsmüller S, Sinn HP, Dunst J, Münstedt K, Bick U, Fallenberg E, Tholen R, Hung R, Baumann F, Beckmann MW, Blohmer J, Fasching P, Lux MP, Harbeck N, Hadji P, Hauner H, Heywang-Köbrunner S, Huober J, Hübner J, Jackisch C, Loibl S, Lück HJ, von Minckwitz G, Möbus V, Müller V, Nöthlings U, Schmidt M, Schmutzler R, Schneeweiss A, Schütz F, Stickeler E, Thomssen C, Untch M, Wesselmann S, Bücker A, Buck A, Stangl S. Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 2 with Recommendations for the Therapy of Primary, Recurrent and Advanced Breast Cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018; 78:1056-1088. [PMID: 30581198 PMCID: PMC6261741 DOI: 10.1055/a-0646-4630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2018] [Accepted: 06/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Method The process of updating the S3 guideline published in 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines. They were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and with the results of a systematic search of literature databases followed by the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point and used them to develop suggestions for recommendations and statements, which were then modified and graded in a structured consensus process procedure. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Loco-regional therapies are de-escalated in the current guideline. In addition to reducing the safety margins for surgical procedures, the guideline also recommends reducing the radicality of axillary surgery. The choice and extent of systemic therapy depends on the respective tumor biology. New substances are becoming available, particularly to treat metastatic breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Achim Wöckel
- Universitätsfrauenklinik Würzburg, Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Jasmin Festl
- Universitätsfrauenklinik Würzburg, Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Tanja Stüber
- Universitätsfrauenklinik Würzburg, Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Katharina Brust
- Universitätsfrauenklinik Würzburg, Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | | | - Peter U. Heuschmann
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (IKE-B), Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Steffi Jírů-Hillmann
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (IKE-B), Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | | | - Wilfried Budach
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | | | | | - Ina Kopp
- AWMF-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement, Marburg, Germany
| | | | - Thorsten Kühn
- Frauenklinik, Klinikum Esslingen, Esslingen, Germany
| | - Thomas Langer
- Office des Leitlinienprogrammes Onkologie, Berlin, Germany
| | - Monika Nothacker
- AWMF-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement, Marburg, Germany
| | - Anton Scharl
- Frauenklinik, Klinikum St. Marien Amberg, Amberg, Germany
| | | | - Hartmut Link
- Praxis für Hämatologie und Onkologie, Kaiserslautern, Germany
| | - Jutta Engel
- Tumorregister München, Institut für medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany
| | - Tanja Fehm
- Universitätsfrauenklinik Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Joachim Weis
- Stiftungsprofessur Selbsthilfeforschung, Tumorzentrum/CCC Freiburg, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anja Welt
- Innere Klinik (Tumorforschung), Westdeutsches Tumorzentrum, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | | | - Petra Feyer
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Vivantes Klinikum, Neukölln Berlin, Germany
| | - Klaus König
- Berufsverband der Frauenärzte, Steinbach, Germany
| | | | | | - Hans H. Kreipe
- Institut für Pathologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Wolfram Trudo Knoefel
- Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Kinderchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Michael Denkinger
- AGAPLESION Bethesda Klinik, Geriatrie der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Sara Brucker
- Universitätsfrauenklinik Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Diana Lüftner
- Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Hämatologie, Onkologie und Tumorimmunologie, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Universitätsklinikum Charité, Berlin, Germany
| | - Christian Kubisch
- Institut für Humangenetik, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Christina Gerlach
- III. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, uct, Interdisziplinäre Abteilung für Palliativmedizin, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg Universität, Mainz, Germany
| | - Annette Lebeau
- Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | | | - Cordula Petersen
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | | | | | - Markus Hahn
- Universitätsfrauenklinik Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Volker Hanf
- Frauenklinik Nathanstift, Klinikum Fürth, Fürth, Germany
| | | | | | - Renza Roncarati
- Frauenselbsthilfe nach Krebs – Bundesverband e. V., Bonn, Germany
| | - Alexander Katalinic
- Institut für Sozialmedizin und Epidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Christoph Heitmann
- Ästhetisch plastische und rekonstruktive Chirurgie, Camparihaus München, München, Germany
| | | | - Kerstin Paradies
- Konferenz Onkologischer Kranken- und Kinderkrankenpflege, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Vesna Bjelic-Radisic
- Universitätsfrauenklinik, Abteilung für Gynäkologie, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Friedrich Degenhardt
- Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Frederik Wenz
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Oliver Rick
- Klinik Reinhardshöhe Bad Wildungen, Bad Wildungen, Germany
| | - Dieter Hölzel
- Tumorregister München, Institut für medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany
| | - Matthias Zaiss
- Praxis für interdisziplinäre Onkologie & Hämatologie, Freiburg, Germany
| | | | - Volker Budach
- Klinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Carsten Denkert
- Institut für Pathologie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Bernd Gerber
- Universitätsfrauenklinik am Klinikum Südstadt, Rostock, Germany
| | - Hans Tesch
- Centrum für Hämatologie und Onkologie Bethanien, Frankfurt, Germany
| | | | - Hans-Peter Sinn
- Pathologisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Dunst
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Karsten Münstedt
- Frauenklinik Offenburg, Ortenau Klinikum Offenburg-Gengenbach, Offenburg, Germany
| | - Ulrich Bick
- Klinik für Radiologie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Eva Fallenberg
- Klinik für Radiologie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Reina Tholen
- Deutscher Verband für Physiotherapie, Referat Bildung und Wissenschaft, Köln, Germany
| | - Roswita Hung
- Frauenselbsthilfe nach Krebs, Wolfsburg, Germany
| | - Freerk Baumann
- Centrum für Integrierte Onkologie Köln, Uniklinik Köln, Köln, Germany
| | - Matthias W. Beckmann
- Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Jens Blohmer
- Klinik für Gynäkologie incl. Brustzentrum, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Peter Fasching
- Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Michael P. Lux
- Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Nadia Harbeck
- Brustzentrum, Frauenklinik, Universität München (LMU), München, Germany
| | - Peyman Hadji
- Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Krankenhaus Nordwest, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Hans Hauner
- Lehrstuhl für Ernährungsmedizin, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, München, Germany
| | | | | | - Jutta Hübner
- Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany
| | - Christian Jackisch
- Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Offenbach, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Volker Möbus
- Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Klinikum Frankfurt Höchst, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Volkmar Müller
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Gynäkologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Ute Nöthlings
- Institut für Ernährungs- und Lebensmittelwissenschaften, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Marcus Schmidt
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Geburtshilfe und Frauengesundheit, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mai, Germany nz, Mainz
| | - Rita Schmutzler
- Zentrum Familiärer Brust- und Eierstockkrebs, Universitätsklinikum Köln, Köln, Germany
| | - Andreas Schneeweiss
- Nationales Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Florian Schütz
- Nationales Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Elmar Stickeler
- Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtsmedizin, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
| | | | - Michael Untch
- Klinik für Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie, Helios Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Arno Bücker
- Klinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie am UKS, Universität des Saarlandes, Homburg, Germany
| | - Andreas Buck
- Nuklearmedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik des Universitätsklinikums Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Stephanie Stangl
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (IKE-B), Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Yin H, Qu Y, Wang X, Ma T, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Li Y, Zhang S, Ma H, Xing E, Liu X, Xu Q. Impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy in T1-2 breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive axillary lymph nodes. Oncotarget 2018; 8:49564-49573. [PMID: 28484094 PMCID: PMC5564788 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2016] [Accepted: 03/31/2017] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
The effect of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on T1-2 breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive axillary lymph nodes is controversial up to now. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of postmastectomy radiotherapy for these patients. The prognostic factor effecting locoregional free-survival (LRFS) was also analyzed. In the retrospective clinical data of 1674 eligible patients, survival analysis was performed using the method of Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank test. Cox regression analysis was applied to identify the significant prognostic factors. We found PMRT increased 5-year LRFS (p=0.003), but could not improve 5-year disease-free survival or overall survival statistically. For patients without PMRT, multivariate analysis revealed that age, lymph node ratio and molecule subtype were risk factors effecting LRFS. To further analyze the role of PMRT, we grouped all the patients into low risk group (0 or 1 risk factor) and high risk group (2 or 3 risk factors) depending on these risk factors. We found that in low-risk group, PMRT increased only 5-year LRFS (p=0.012). However, in high-risk group, PMRT increased both 5-year LRFS (p=0.005) and 5-year disease-free survival (p=0.033), but could not improve 5-year overall survival statistically. Thus, these data provide the evidence that PMRT could improve LRFS for T1-2 breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive axillary lymph nodes. Additionally, PMRT could improve LRFS and disease-free survival for high risk patients. Age, lymph node ratio and molecule subtype were high risk factors effecting LRFS in our study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hang Yin
- The Department of Breast Radiotherapy, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Yuanyuan Qu
- The Department of Breast Radiotherapy, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Xiaoyuan Wang
- The Department of Internal Medical Oncology, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Tengchuang Ma
- The Department of Nuclear Medicine, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Haiyang Zhang
- The Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Yu Zhang
- The Department of Breast Radiotherapy, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Yang Li
- The Department of Breast Radiotherapy, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Siliang Zhang
- The Department of Breast Radiotherapy, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Hongyu Ma
- The Department of Breast Radiotherapy, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Enkang Xing
- The Department of Breast Radiotherapy, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Xueying Liu
- The Department of Breast Radiotherapy, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| | - Qingyong Xu
- The Department of Breast Radiotherapy, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Wapnir IL, Price KN, Anderson SJ, Robidoux A, Martín M, Nortier JWR, Paterson AHG, Rimawi MF, Láng I, Baena-Cañada JM, Thürlimann B, Mamounas EP, Geyer CE, Gelber S, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Rastogi P, Regan MM, Wolmark N, Aebi S. Efficacy of Chemotherapy for ER-Negative and ER-Positive Isolated Locoregional Recurrence of Breast Cancer: Final Analysis of the CALOR Trial. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:1073-1079. [PMID: 29443653 PMCID: PMC5891132 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.76.5719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 88] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Isolated locoregional recurrence (ILRR) predicts a high risk of developing breast cancer distant metastases and death. The Chemotherapy as Adjuvant for LOcally Recurrent breast cancer (CALOR) trial investigated the effectiveness of chemotherapy (CT) after local therapy for ILRR. A report at 5 years of median follow-up showed significant benefit of CT for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative ILRR, but additional follow-up was required in ER-positive ILRR. Patients and Methods CALOR was an open-label, randomized trial for patients with completely excised ILRR after unilateral breast cancer. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive CT or no CT and stratified by prior CT, hormone receptor status, and location of ILRR. Patients with hormone receptor-positive ILRR received adjuvant endocrine therapy. Radiation therapy was mandated for patients with microscopically involved margins, and anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 therapy was optional. End points were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival, and breast cancer-free interval. Results From August 2003 to January 2010, 162 patients were enrolled: 58 with ER-negative and 104 with ER-positive ILRR. At 9 years of median follow-up, 27 DFS events were observed in the ER-negative group and 40 in the ER-positive group. The hazard ratios (HR) of a DFS event were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.67; 10-year DFS, 70% v 34%, CT v no CT, respectively) in patients with ER-negative ILRR and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.00; 10-year DFS, 50% v 59%, respectively) in patients with ER-positive ILRR ( Pinteraction = .013). HRs were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.67) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.85), respectively, for breast cancer-free interval ( Pinteraction = .034) and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.19 to 1.20) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.32 to 1.55), respectively, for overall survival ( Pinteraction = .53). Results for the three end points were consistent in multivariable analyses adjusting for location of ILRR, prior CT, and interval from primary surgery. Conclusion The final analysis of CALOR confirms that CT benefits patients with resected ER-negative ILRR and does not support the use of CT for ER-positive ILRR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene L Wapnir
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Karen N Price
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Stewart J Anderson
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - André Robidoux
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Miguel Martín
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Johan W R Nortier
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Alexander H G Paterson
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Mothaffar F Rimawi
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - István Láng
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - José Manuel Baena-Cañada
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Beat Thürlimann
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Eleftherios P Mamounas
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Charles E Geyer
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Shari Gelber
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Alan S Coates
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Richard D Gelber
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Priya Rastogi
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Meredith M Regan
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Norman Wolmark
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Stefan Aebi
- Irene L. Wapnir, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Karen N. Price and Shari Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Richard D. Gelber, Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Meredith M. Regan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Stewart J. Anderson, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Priya Rastogi, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Norman Wolmark, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; André Robidoux, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec; Alexander H.G. Paterson, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Miguel Martín, CIBERONC, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañon, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; José Manuel Baena-Cañada, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain; Johan W.R. Nortier, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, Netherlands; Mothaffar F. Rimawi, Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; István Láng, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Beat Thürlimann, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen; Stefan Aebi, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland; Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Orlando Health University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando, FL; Charles E. Geyer Jr, Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; and Alan S. Coates, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Li ZH, Hu PH, Tu JH, Yu NS. Luminal B breast cancer: patterns of recurrence and clinical outcome. Oncotarget 2018; 7:65024-65033. [PMID: 27542253 PMCID: PMC5323135 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.11344] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2016] [Accepted: 07/28/2016] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
In recent years, most studies on breast cancer relapse and metastasis have focused on non-luminal breast cancers (including the basal-like and HER-2 subtypes) because of their poor prognosis. However, the luminal B subtype is more common, but this type has not been investigated as thoroughly. In the current study, we collected data on 258 patients with luminal-B breast cancer patients with recurrence and metastasis served as the observation group, and 189 patients with non-luminal breast cancer during the same period served as the control group. This study aimed to investigate the pattern of recurrence and clinical outcome after follow-up treatment for luminal B breast cancer. We found a higher proportion of local recurrence and single bone metastasis in patients with luminal B breast cancer than in patients in the non-luminal groups. The risk of recurrence and metastasis in patients with luminal B breast cancer during a 2- to 5-year period and after 5 years was still present, but the risk in patients with non-luminal breast cancers had obviously decreased during the same period. Patients with luminal B breast cancer with recurrence or/and metastasis had a better prognosis after reasonable treatment. The recurrence patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with luminal B breast cancer according to HER2 status were also different, to some degree. These results are of potential clinical relevance especially for the monitoring of clinical prognosis and targeted therapy intervention for luminal B breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhi-Hua Li
- Prevention and Cure Center of Breast Disease, The Third Hospital of Nanchang City, Key Laboratory Of Breast Diseases In Jiangxi Province, Nanchang, JiangXi 330009, People's Republic of China
| | - Ping-Hua Hu
- Prevention and Cure Center of Breast Disease, The Third Hospital of Nanchang City, Key Laboratory Of Breast Diseases In Jiangxi Province, Nanchang, JiangXi 330009, People's Republic of China
| | - Jian-Hong Tu
- Department of Pathology, The Third Hospital of Nanchang City, JiangXi Breast Specialist Hospital, Nanchang, JiangXi 330009, People's Republic of China
| | - Ni-Si Yu
- Department of Gynaecology, The Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi traditional Chinese Medicine University, Nanchang, Jiangxi 330006, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Shimada H, Hasebe T, Sugiyama M, Shibasaki S, Sugitani I, Ueda S, Gotoh Y, Yasuda M, Arai E, Osaki A, Saeki T. Fibrotic focus: An important parameter for accurate prediction of a high level of tumor-associated macrophage infiltration in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Pathol Int 2017; 67:331-341. [PMID: 28590017 DOI: 10.1111/pin.12550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2017] [Accepted: 05/22/2017] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Our group and others have previously reported that a fibrotic focus is a very useful histological factor for the accurate prediction of the outcome of patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. We classified 258 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma into those with and those without a fibrotic focus to investigate whether the presence of a fibrotic focus was significantly associated with the degree of tumor-associated macrophage (CD68, CD163 or CD204-positive) infiltration or whether the presence of tumor-associated macrophage infiltration heightened the malignant potential of invasive ductal carcinoma with a fibrotic focus. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that a fibrotic focus was the only factor that was significantly associated with a high level of CD68-, CD163- or CD204-positive tumor-associated macrophage infiltration. The combined assessment of the presence or absence of a fibrotic focus and a high or a low level of CD204-positive tumor-associated macrophage infiltration clearly demonstrated that CD204-positive tumor-associated macrophage infiltration had a significant prognostic power only for patients with invasive ductal carcinoma with a fibrotic focus in multivariate analyses; CD204-positive tumor-associated macrophages might only exert a significant effect on tumor progression when a fibrotic focus is present within the invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiroko Shimada
- Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan.,Department of Breast Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| | - Takahiro Hasebe
- Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| | - Michiko Sugiyama
- Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan.,Department of Breast Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| | - Satomi Shibasaki
- Community Health Science Center, Saitama Medical University, 29,, Morohongou, Moroyama Town, Iruma district, 350-0495, Saitama, Japan
| | - Ikuko Sugitani
- Department of Breast Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| | - Shigeto Ueda
- Department of Breast Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| | - Yoshiya Gotoh
- Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| | - Masanori Yasuda
- Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| | - Eiichi Arai
- Department of Pathology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| | - Akihiko Osaki
- Department of Breast Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| | - Toshiaki Saeki
- Department of Breast Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1, Yamane, Hidaka City, 350-1298, Saitama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Wang XV, Cole B, Bonetti M, Gelber RD. Meta-STEPP: subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot for individual patient data meta-analysis. Stat Med 2016; 35:3704-16. [PMID: 27073066 DOI: 10.1002/sim.6958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2014] [Revised: 03/03/2016] [Accepted: 03/11/2016] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
We have developed a method, called Meta-STEPP (subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot for meta-analysis), to explore treatment effect heterogeneity across covariate values in the meta-analysis setting for time-to-event data when the covariate of interest is continuous. Meta-STEPP forms overlapping subpopulations from individual patient data containing similar numbers of events with increasing covariate values, estimates subpopulation treatment effects using standard fixed-effects meta-analysis methodology, displays the estimated subpopulation treatment effect as a function of the covariate values, and provides a statistical test to detect possibly complex treatment-covariate interactions. Simulation studies show that this test has adequate type-I error rate recovery as well as power when reasonable window sizes are chosen. When applied to eight breast cancer trials, Meta-STEPP suggests that chemotherapy is less effective for tumors with high estrogen receptor expression compared with those with low expression. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Victoria Wang
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, U.S.A.,Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, U.S.A
| | - Bernard Cole
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Vermont, 16 Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT 05401, U.S.A
| | - Marco Bonetti
- Bocconi University and Carlo F. Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy, Via Röntgen 1, 20136 Milan, Italy
| | - Richard D Gelber
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, U.S.A.,Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Nordenskjöld AE, Fohlin H, Albertsson P, Arnesson LG, Chamalidou C, Einbeigi Z, Holmberg E, Nordenskjöld B, Karlsson P. No clear effect of postoperative radiotherapy on survival of breast cancer patients with one to three positive nodes: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 2015; 26:1149-1154. [PMID: 25839671 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2014] [Accepted: 03/16/2015] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In published radiotherapy trials, the failure rate in the control arm among patients with one to three positive nodes is high compared with that seen with modern adjuvant treatments. Therefore, the generalizability of the results has been questioned. The aim of the present study was to compare relative survival in breast cancer patients between two Swedish regions with screening mammography programs and adjuvant treatment guidelines similar with the exception of the indication of radiotherapy for patients with one to three positive nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between 1989 and 2006, breast cancer patients were managed very similarly in the west and southeast regions, except for indication for postoperative radiotherapy. In patients with one to three positive nodes, postmastectomy radiotherapy was generally given in the southeast region (89% of all cases) and generally not given in the west region (15% of all cases). For patients with one to three positive nodes who underwent breast-conserving surgery, patients in the west region had breast radiotherapy only, while patients in the southeast region had both breast and lymph nodes irradiated. RESULTS The 10-year relative survival for patients with one to three positive lymph nodes was 78% in the west region and 77% in the southeast region (P = 0.12). Separate analyses depending on type of surgery, as well as number of examined nodes, also revealed similar relative survival. CONCLUSION Locoregional postoperative radiotherapy has well-known side-effects, but in this population-based study, there was little or no influence of this type of radiotherapy on survival when one to three lymph nodes were involved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A E Nordenskjöld
- Department of Medicine, Southern Älvsborg Hospital, Borås; Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg
| | - H Fohlin
- Regional Cancer Center South East Sweden, Linköping; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine and Department of Oncology, Linköping University, Linköping
| | - P Albertsson
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg
| | - L G Arnesson
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Linkoping
| | - C Chamalidou
- Department of Medicine, Southern Älvsborg Hospital, Borås; Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg
| | - Z Einbeigi
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg
| | - E Holmberg
- Regional Cancer Center, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - B Nordenskjöld
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine and Department of Oncology, Linköping University, Linköping
| | - P Karlsson
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Hess C, Lee A, Fish K, Daly M, Cress RD, Mayadev J. Socioeconomic and racial disparities in the selection of chest wall boost radiation therapy in californian women after mastectomy. Clin Breast Cancer 2014; 15:212-8. [PMID: 25499694 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2014.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2014] [Revised: 11/20/2014] [Accepted: 11/25/2014] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED To better elucidate the socioeconomic and racial differences in women who received postmastectomy radiation therapy with or without a chest wall boost, the records from 4747 women included in the California Cancer Registry were reviewed. Poor and Hispanic women were more likely to receive a chest wall boost than were more affluent and non-Hispanic women. INTRODUCTION Healthcare disparities in breast cancer treatment have been well documented. We investigated the socioeconomic status (SES) and racial factors in women with locally advanced breast cancer from the California Cancer Registry who had received postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) with or without a chest wall boost (CWB). PATIENTS AND METHODS The records of 4747 women with invasive breast cancer, diagnosed from 2005 to 2009, who had undergone PMRT, were reviewed and stratified by treatment with (n = 2686 [57%]) or without (n = 2061 [43%]) a CWB. Various patient demographic and biologic factors were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS Receipt of a CWB was associated with race/ethnicity (P < .001), SES (P < .001), tumor size (P = .038), tumor grade (P = .033), human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) status (P = .015), American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (P = .001), number of nodes examined (P = .001), and number of positive nodes (P = .037) on univariate analysis. After controlling for confounding factors, race/ethnicity and SES remained independently predictive of a CWB. Hispanic women were more likely to receive a CWB than Asian (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.90), black (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83), or white (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95) women. Also, women of low SES were more likely to receive a CWB than women of high SES (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86). CONCLUSION We found that poor and Hispanic women were more commonly treated with a CWB than were more affluent and non-Hispanic women with a similar cancer stage, cancer biology, and treatment paradigm.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clayton Hess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Davis, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA
| | - Anna Lee
- Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, GA
| | - Kari Fish
- Public Health Institute, Cancer Registry of Greater California, Sacramento, CA
| | - Megan Daly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Davis, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA
| | - Rosemary D Cress
- Public Health Institute, Cancer Registry of Greater California, Sacramento, CA; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Davis, CA
| | - Jyoti Mayadev
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Davis, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Dunn J, Donnelly P, Marshall A, Wilcox M, Watson E, Young A, Balmer C, Ramirez M, Hartup S, Maxwell A, Evans A. Follow-up in Early Breast Cancer — A Surgical and Radiological Perceptive. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2014; 26:625-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2014.06.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2014] [Accepted: 06/19/2014] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
|
25
|
Post-mastectomy radiotherapy benefits subgroups of breast cancer patients with T1-2 tumor and 1-3 axillary lymph node(s) metastasis. Radiol Oncol 2014; 48:314-22. [PMID: 25177247 PMCID: PMC4110089 DOI: 10.2478/raon-2013-0085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2013] [Accepted: 10/20/2013] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Background To determine the role of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in breast cancer patients with T1–2 and N1 disease. Patients and methods. A total of 207 postmastectomy women were enrolled. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of locoregional recurrence rate (LRR), distant recurrence rate (DRR) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by different tumor characteristics. Multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results With median follow-up 59.5 months, the 5-year LRR, DRR and OS were 9.1%, 20.3% and 84.4%, respectively. On univariate analysis, age < 40 years old (p = 0.003) and Her-2/neu over-expression (p = 0.016) were associated with higher LRR, whereas presence of LVI significantly predicted higher DRR (p = 0.026). Negative estrogen status (p = 0.033), Her-2/neu overexpression (p = 0.001) and LVI (p = 0.01) were significantly correlated with worse OS. PMRT didn’t prove to reduce 5-year LRR (p = 0.107), as well as 5-year OS (p = 0.918). In subgroup analysis, PMRT showed significant benefits of improvement LRR and OS in patients with positive LVI. Conclusions For patients with T1–2 and N1 stage breast cancer, PMRT can decrease locoregional recurrence and increase overall survival only in patients with lymphovascular invasion.
Collapse
|
26
|
DEGRO practical guidelines: radiotherapy of breast cancer III--radiotherapy of the lymphatic pathways. Strahlenther Onkol 2014; 190:342-51. [PMID: 24638236 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-013-0543-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2013] [Accepted: 12/12/2013] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
AIM The purpose of this work is to update the practical guidelines for adjuvant radiotherapy of the regional lymphatics of breast cancer published in 2008 by the breast cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). METHODS A comprehensive survey of the literature concerning regional nodal irradiation (RNI) was performed using the following search terms: "breast cancer", "radiotherapy", "regional node irradiation". Recent randomized trials were analyzed for outcome as well as for differences in target definition. Field arrangements in the different studies were reproduced and superimposed on CT slices with individually contoured node areas. Moreover, data from recently published meta-analyses and guidelines of international breast cancer societies, yielding new aspects compared to 2008, provided the basis for defining recommendations according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. In addition to the more general statements of the German interdisciplinary S3 guidelines updated in 2012, this paper addresses indications, targeting, and techniques of radiotherapy of the lymphatic pathways after surgery for breast cancer. RESULTS International guidelines reveal substantial differences regarding indications for RNI. Patients with 1-3 positive nodes seem to profit from RNI compared to whole breast (WBI) or chest wall irradiation alone, both with regard to locoregional control and disease-free survival. Irradiation of the regional lymphatics including axillary, supraclavicular, and internal mammary nodes provided a small but significant survival benefit in recent randomized trials and one meta-analysis. Lymph node irradiation yields comparable tumor control in comparison to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), while reducing the rate of lymph edema. Data concerning the impact of 1-2 macroscopically affected sentinel node (SN) or microscopic metastases on prognosis are conflicting. CONCLUSION Recent data suggest that the current restrictive use of RNI should be scrutinized because the risk-benefit relationship appears to shift towards an improvement of outcome.
Collapse
|
27
|
Dieterich M, Hartwig F, Stubert J, Klöcking S, Kundt G, Stengel B, Reimer T, Gerber B. Accompanying DCIS in breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma is predictive of improved local recurrence-free survival. Breast 2014; 23:346-51. [PMID: 24559611 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.01.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2013] [Revised: 10/28/2013] [Accepted: 01/19/2014] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) often accompanies invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). The presence of co-existing DCIS is postulated to present as a less aggressive phenotype than IDC alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving mastectomy were evaluated. Only patients without adjuvant radio- and chemotherapy were included to decrease treatment bias on local recurrence (LR). RESULTS Of 2239 breast cancer patients, 198 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall LR rate was 11.6%. Tumor stage (p = 0.002), nodal status (pN2 vs. pN0, p = 0.023) and pure IDC compared with IDC-DCIS (p = 0.029) were multivariate independent factors for increased LR risk. Patients with IDC-DCIS were significantly younger (p < 0.001), had smaller tumors (p = 0.001), less lymph node involvement (p = 0.012). The LR rate was significantly increased in patients with pure IDC (p = 0.012). The time to distant metastases was decreased in patients with pure IDC compared with that observed in patients with IDC-DCIS (log rank = 0.030). CONCLUSION Invasive ductal carcinoma accompanied by DCIS is associated with lower LR. The prognostic value of co-existing DCIS in the adjuvant decision-making process may be considered a new independent prognostic marker. This finding needs further studies to evaluate its usefulness in premenopausal women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Dieterich
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Unit, University of Rostock, Suedring 81, 18059 Rostock, Germany.
| | - F Hartwig
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Unit, University of Rostock, Suedring 81, 18059 Rostock, Germany
| | - J Stubert
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Unit, University of Rostock, Suedring 81, 18059 Rostock, Germany
| | - S Klöcking
- Cancer Registry Rostock, Department of Radiotherapy, University of Rostock, Suedring 75, 18059 Rostock, Germany
| | - G Kundt
- Institute for Biostatistics and Informatics in Medicine, University of Rostock, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 8, 18057 Rostock, Germany
| | - B Stengel
- Institute for Pathology, Hospital Suedstadt, Suedring 81, 18059 Rostock, Germany
| | - T Reimer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Unit, University of Rostock, Suedring 81, 18059 Rostock, Germany
| | - B Gerber
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Unit, University of Rostock, Suedring 81, 18059 Rostock, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Behnke NK, Crosby SN, Stutz CM, Holt GE. Periscapular amputation as treatment for brachial plexopathy secondary to recurrent breast carcinoma: a case series and review of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013; 39:1325-31. [PMID: 24176674 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.10.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2013] [Revised: 09/30/2013] [Accepted: 10/07/2013] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
AIMS Recurrent breast carcinoma with brachial plexus involvement is often misinterpreted as a radiation- or chemotherapy-induced brachial plexopathy. We review a case series of 4 patients at our institution within a 1-year period, and describe their diagnostic workup and treatment with a palliative periscapular amputation. Our aim is to describe this entity, indications and benefits of this procedure, when required for progressive disease, with the goal of raising a collective index of suspicion to aid in earlier diagnosis. METHODS Four patients with recurrent axillary breast cancer and symptoms consistent with a brachial plexopathy were prospectively collected over a 1-year period. A Pubmed search was conducted; pertinent articles were reviewed and reported. RESULTS Patients presented with intractable pain and flaccid paralysis of the ipsilateral limb. All had been previously treated with surgical resection, axillary lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Average time from breast surgery to presentation was 78.75 months (range 11-216 months.) Workup included MRI and biopsy to confirm recurrence. Periscapular amputation was performed for each patient, all of who experienced subjective pain relief postoperatively. Three of the 4 patients are still living; one patient died of disease. CONCLUSION Breast cancer survivors presenting with a brachial plexopathy should raise suspicion for recurrent disease. Close evaluation with MRI is the best first step in diagnosis. Although periscapular amputation is an aggressive surgical treatment, it is an acceptable option when disease has progressed to neurovascular involvement and a functionless limb.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N K Behnke
- Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Medical Center East, South Tower, Suite 4200, 1215 21st Ave South, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Lin PH, Yeh MH, Liu LC, Chen CJ, Tsui YC, Su CH, Wang HC, Liang JA, Chang HW, Wu HS, Yeh SP, Li LY, Chiu CF. Clinical and pathologic risk factors of tumor recurrence in patients with node-negative early breast cancer after mastectomy. J Surg Oncol 2013; 108:352-7. [PMID: 23996583 DOI: 10.1002/jso.23403] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2013] [Accepted: 07/16/2013] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Patients with node-negative breast cancer (NNBC) usually have a good prognosis, but tumor recurrence still compromises survival. In this study, we sought to identify clinical and pathologic factors that predict recurrence. METHODS A total of 716 patients who were proved with pT1-2N0M0 breast cancer between 2005 and 2009 were enrolled in this study. RESULTS Forty-seven of the 716 patients developed tumor recurrence during the 47.0 months of median follow-up. The significant risk factors of recurrence were lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.60, 95% CI. 2.32-9.10) and Nottingham grade 3 (HR = 4.99, 95% CI. 1.06-23.48); adjuvant radiotherapy (HR = 0.35, 95% CI. 0.14-0.92) prevented tumor recurrence. Furthermore, we investigate the therapeutic impact of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy on patients with LVI and Nottingham grade 3. The adverse effect of LVI and grade 3 can be abrogated by adjuvant radiotherapy in recurrence-free survival (RFS) (LVI((+)) radiotherapy((+)) , no recurrence; grade 3((+)) radiotherapy((+)) , HR = 0.82, 95% CI. 0.18-3.70). However, adjuvant chemotherapy did not. CONCLUSIONS LVI and Nottingham grade 3 were the independent risk factors predicting tumor recurrence for patients with NNBC. Adjuvant radiotherapy might be considered in NNBC patients with these unfavorable factors to improve the RFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Po-Han Lin
- Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine Science, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; Department of Medical Genetics, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; Department of Medical Genetics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|