European Guidelines on the Organisation of Breast Centres and Voluntary Certification Processes

Baseline and early 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluations as predictors of progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with targeted anti-CDK therapy

BACKGROUND

Exploring the value of baseline and early 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluations in prediction PFS in ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor in combination with an endocrine therapy.

METHODS

Sixty-six consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent a pre-therapeutic 18F-FDG PET/CT and a second PET/CT within the first 6 months of treatment were retrospectively included. Metabolic tumour volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and Dmax, which represents tumour dissemination and is defined as the distance between the two most distant lesions, were computed. The variation in these parameters between baseline and early evaluation PET as well as therapeutic evaluation using PERCIST were assessed as prognosticators of PFS at 18 months.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was equal to 22.5 months. Thirty progressions occurred (45.4%). The average time to event was 17.8 ± 10.4 months. At baseline, Dmax was the only predictive metabolic parameter. Patients with a baseline Dmax ≤ 18.10 cm had a significantly better 18 m-PFS survival than the others: 69.2% (7.7%) versus 36.7% (8.8%), p = 0.017. There was no association between PERCIST evaluation and 18 m-PFS status (p = 0.149) and there was no difference in 18 m-PFS status between patients classified as complete, partial metabolic responders or having stable metabolic disease.

CONCLUSION

Disease spread at baseline PET, as assessed by Dmax, is predictive of an event occurring within 18 months. In the absence of early metabolic progression, which occurs in 15% of patients, treatment should be continued regardless of the quality of the initial response to treatment.

Freehand 1.5T MR-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy (MR-VABB): Contribution of Radiomics to the Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Lesions

Radiomics and artificial intelligence have been increasingly applied in breast MRI. However, the advantages of using radiomics to evaluate lesions amenable to MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (MR-VABB) are unclear. This study includes patients scheduled for MR-VABB, corresponding to subjects with MRI-only visible lesions, i.e., with a negative second-look ultrasound. The first acquisition of the multiphase dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) sequence was selected for image segmentation and radiomics analysis. A total of 80 patients with a mean age of 55.8 years ± 11.8 (SD) were included. The dataset was then split into a training set (50 patients) and a validation set (30 patients). Twenty out of the 30 patients with a positive histology for cancer were in the training set, while the remaining 10 patients with a positive histology were included in the test set. Logistic regression on the training set provided seven features with significant p values (<0.05): (1) ‘AverageIntensity’, (2) ‘Autocorrelation’, (3) ‘Contrast’, (4) ‘Compactness’, (5) ‘StandardDeviation’, (6) ‘MeanAbsoluteDeviation’ and (7) ‘InterquartileRange’. AUC values of 0.86 (95% C.I. 0.73–0.94) for the training set and 0.73 (95% C.I. 0.54–0.87) for the test set were obtained for the radiomics model. Radiological evaluation of the same lesions scheduled for MR-VABB had AUC values of 0.42 (95% C.I. 0.28–0.57) for the training set and 0.4 (0.23–0.59) for the test set. In this study, a radiomics logistic regression model applied to DCE-MRI images increased the diagnostic accuracy of standard radiological evaluation of MRI suspicious findings in women scheduled for MR-VABB. Confirming this performance in large multicentric trials would imply that using radiomics in the assessment of patients scheduled for MR-VABB has the potential to reduce the number of biopsies, in suspicious breast lesions where MR-VABB is required, with clear advantages for patients and healthcare resources.

Management of patients with BRCA mutation from the point of view of a breast surgeon

Germ-line mutation in BRCA (BReast CAncer gene) 1 or BRCA2 are found in 3–4% of all women with breast cancer. These patients have a significant increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. They are often younger when diagnosed with the mutation, and the possible breast cancer they get is often aggressive with inferior outcome. There are risk reducing strategies, and the most powerful strategy is risk reducing surgery, both risk reducing bilateral mastectomy (RRM) and risk reducing bilateral salpino-oophorectomy (PBSO). This review is meant to address breast surgery in patients with germline BRCA mutation. The guidelines and techniques applied is under continuous change and it is important for the clinicians to be well informed to provide the patient with the information needed for them to make an informed decision on what risk strategy to choose.

•

Patients with germ-line mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have a significant increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

•

There are different risk reducing strategies and the most powerful strategy is risk-reducing surgery, both risk reducing bilateral mastectomy and risk reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

•

Guidelines and techniques for the risk reducing surgery of the breast are under continuous change and improvement.

•

Breast conserving therapy is not associated with worse survival and is a good option for a BRCA mutation carrier diagnosed with breast cancer. Risk-reducing mastectomy can be performed in a later setting.

•

The management of BRCA mutation carriers, both affected and unaffected, should be performed in a multidisciplinary team. Physicians need to be systematically educated and updated on the most recent literature.

Modern surgical treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer in women all over the world. The prognosis is generally good, with a five-year overall survival rate above 90% for all stages. It is still the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Surgical treatment of breast cancer has changed dramatically over the years. Initially, treatment involved major surgery with long hospitalization, but it is now mostly accomplished as an outpatient procedure with a quick recovery. Thanks to well-designed retrospective and randomly controlled prospective studies, guidelines are continually changing. We are presently in an era where safely de-escalating surgery is increasingly emphasized. Breast cancer is a heterogenous disease, where a "one-size-fits-all" treatment approach is not appropriate. There is often more than one surgical solution carrying equal oncological safety for an individual patient. In these situations, it is important to include the patient in the treatment decision-making process through well informed consent. For this to be optimal, the physician must be fully updated on the surgical options. A consequence of an improved prognosis is more breast cancer survivors, and therefore physical appearance and quality of life is more in focus. Modern breast cancer treatment is increasingly personalized from a surgical point of view but is dependent on a multidisciplinary approach. Detailed algorithms for surgery of the breast and the axilla are required for optimal treatment and quality control. This review illustrates how breast cancer treatment has changed over the years and how the current standard is based on high quality scientific research.

The Effect of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on Breast Cancer Teamwork: A Multicentric Survey

BACKGROUND/AIM

Despite the large amount of clinical data available of Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19), not many studies have been conducted about the psychological toll on Health Care Workers (HCWs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicentric descriptive study, surveys were distributed among 4 different Breast Cancer Centers (BCC). BCCs were distinguished according to COVID-19 tertiary care hospital (COVID/No-COVID) and district prevalence (DP) (High vs. Low). DASS-21 score, PSS score and demographic data (age, sex, work) were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 51 HCWs were analyzed in the study. Age, work and sex did not demonstrate statistically significant values. Statistically significant distribution was found between DASS-21-stress score and COVID/No-COVID (p=0.043). No difference was found in the remaining DASS-21 and PSS scores, dividing the HCWs according to COVID-19-hospital and DP.

CONCLUSION

Working in a COVID-19-hospital represents a factor that negatively affects psychosocial well-being. However, DP seems not to affect the psychosocial well-being of BCC HCWs. During the outbreak, psychological support for low risk HCWs should be provided regardless DP.