1
|
Hovda T, Sagstad S, Moshina N, Vigeland E, Hofvind S. Initial interpretation scores of screening mammograms and cancer detection in BreastScreen Norway. Eur J Radiol 2024; 179:111662. [PMID: 39159548 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111662] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2024] [Revised: 06/10/2024] [Accepted: 07/31/2024] [Indexed: 08/21/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To explore the association between radiologists' interpretation scores, early performance measures and cumulative reading volume in mammographic screening. METHOD We analyzed 1,689,731 screening examinations (3,379,462 breasts) from BreastScreen Norway 2012-2020, all breasts scored 1-5 by two independent radiologists. Score 1 was considered negative/benign and score ≥2 positive in this scoring system. We performed descriptive analyses of recall, screen-detected cancer, positive predictive value (PPV) 1, mammographic features and histopathological characteristics by breast-based interpretation scores, and cumulative reading volume by examination-based interpretation scores. RESULTS Counting breasts and not women, 3.9 % (132,570/3,379,462) had a score of ≥2 by one or both radiologists. Of these, 84.8 % (112,440/132,570) were given a maximum score 2. Total recall rate was 1.6 % (53,735/3,379,462), 69.3 % (37,220/53,735) given maximum score 2. Among the 0.3 % (9733/3,379,462) diagnosed with screen-detected cancer, 34.6 % (3369/9733) had maximum score 3. The percentages of recall, screen-detected cancer and PPV-1 increased by increasing the sum of scores assigned by two radiologists (p < 0.001 for trend). Higher proportions of masses were observed among recalls and screen-detected cancers with low scores, and higher proportions of spiculated masses were observed for high scores (p < 0.001). Proportions of invasive carcinoma, histological grade 3 and lymph node positive tumors were higher for high versus low scores (p < 0.001). The proportion of examinations scored 1 increased by cumulative reading volume. CONCLUSIONS We observed higher rates of recall and screen-detected cancer and less favorable histopathological tumor characteristics for high versus low interpretation scores. However, a considerable number of recalls and screen-detected cancers had low interpretation scores.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tone Hovda
- Department of Radiology, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, PO Box 800, 3004 Drammen, Norway.
| | - Silje Sagstad
- Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, The Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Nataliia Moshina
- Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, The Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Einar Vigeland
- Department of Radiology, Vestfold Hospital, Tønsberg, Norway
| | - Solveig Hofvind
- Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, The Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abbasvandi F, Mahdavi R, Bayat M, Hajighasemi F, Jahanbakhshi F, Aghaei F, Sami N, Khoundabi B, Ataee H, Yousefpour N, Hoseinpour P, Mousavi Kiasary SMS, Omrani Hashemi M, Shojaeian F, Akbari A, Bagherhosseini N, Moradi A, Akbari ME, Abdolahad M. Electrical lymph node scanning (ELS) system for real-time intra-operative detection of involved axillary lymph nodes in adjuvant breast cancer patients. Sci Rep 2024; 14:12900. [PMID: 38839807 PMCID: PMC11153595 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-61600-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2023] [Accepted: 05/07/2024] [Indexed: 06/07/2024] Open
Abstract
Lymph node (LN) status is an essential prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC) patients, with an important role in the surgical and therapeutic plan. Recently, we have been developed a novel system for real-time intra-operative electrical LN scanning in BC patients. The ELS scores were calibrated by pathological evaluation of the LNs. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy of ELS in a prospective study for non-chemo-treated breast cancer patients. This is a prospective study in which ELS scores are blind for pathologists who declare the clearance or involvement of LNs based on permanent pathology as the gold standard. ELS and frozen-section (FS) pathology results were achieved intra-operatively, and samples were sent for the permanent pathology. The score of ELS did not affect the surgeons' decision, and the treatment approach was carried out based on FS pathology and pre-surgical data, such as imaging and probable biopsies. Patients were recruited from October 2021 through November 2022, and 381 lymph nodes of 97 patients were included in the study. In this study we recruited 38 patients (39.2%) with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and 59 patients (60.8%) with ALND. Of the 381 LNs scored by ELS, 329 sentinel LNs underwent routine pathology, while others (n = 52) underwent both FS and permanent pathology. ELS showed a sensitivity of 91.4% for node-positive patients, decreasing to 84.8% when considering all LNs. Using ROC analysis, ELS diagnosis showed a significant AUC of 0.878 in relation to the permanent pathology gold standard. Comparison of ELS diagnosis for different tumor types and LN sizes demonstrated no significant differences, while increasing LN size correlated with enhanced ELS sensitivity. This study confirmed ELS's efficacy in real-time lymph node detection among non-chemo-treated breast cancer patients. The use of ELS's pathological scoring for intra-operative LN diagnosis, especially in the absence of FS pathology or for non-sentinel LN involvement, could improve prognosis and reduce complications by minimizing unnecessary dissection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fereshteh Abbasvandi
- ATMP Department, Breast Cancer Research Center, Motamed Cancer Institute, ACECR, P.O. Box 1517964311, Tehran, Iran
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
- Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Reihane Mahdavi
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Mahdis Bayat
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Farzane Hajighasemi
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Fahimeh Jahanbakhshi
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Faeze Aghaei
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Nafiseh Sami
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
- Student Research Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
| | - Batoul Khoundabi
- Iran-Helal Institute of Applied Science and Technology, Red Crescent Society of Iran, Tehran, Iran
- Research Center for Health Management in Mass Gathering, Red Crescent Society of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Hossein Ataee
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Narges Yousefpour
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Parisa Hoseinpour
- ATMP Department, Breast Cancer Research Center, Motamed Cancer Institute, ACECR, P.O. Box 1517964311, Tehran, Iran
- SEPAS Pathology Laboratory, Tehran, Iran
| | - Seyed Mohamad Sadegh Mousavi Kiasary
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Maryam Omrani Hashemi
- Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Fatemeh Shojaeian
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
| | - Atieh Akbari
- Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Najmeh Bagherhosseini
- Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Afshin Moradi
- Department of Pathology, Shohada Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | | | - Mohammad Abdolahad
- Nano Bioelectronics Devices Lab, Cancer Electronics Research Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
- Cancer Institute, Imam-Khomeini Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Corso G, Fusco N, Guerini-Rocco E, Leonardi MC, Criscitiello C, Zagami P, Nicolò E, Mazzarol G, La Vecchia C, Pesapane F, Zanzottera C, Tarantino P, Petitto S, Bianchi B, Massari G, Boato A, Sibilio A, Polizzi A, Curigliano G, De Scalzi AM, Lauria F, Bonanni B, Marabelli M, Rotili A, Nicosia L, Albini A, Calvello M, Mukhtar RA, Robson ME, Sacchini V, Rennert G, Galimberti V, Veronesi P, Magnoni F. Invasive lobular breast cancer: Focus on prevention, genetics, diagnosis, and treatment. Semin Oncol 2024; 51:106-122. [PMID: 38897820 DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2024.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2023] [Revised: 05/05/2024] [Accepted: 05/05/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
Invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is the most common of the breast cancer special types, accounting for up to 15% of all breast malignancies. The distinctive biological features of ILC include the loss of the cell adhesion molecule E-cadherin, which drives the tumor's peculiar discohesive growth pattern, with cells arranged in single file and dispersed throughout the stroma. Typically, such tumors originate in the lobules, are more commonly bilateral compared to invasive ductal cancer (IDC) and require a more accurate diagnostic examination through imaging. They are luminal in molecular subtype, and exhibit estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity and HER2 negativity, thus presenting a more unpredictable response to neoadjuvant therapies. There has been a significant increase in research focused on this distinctive breast cancer subtype, including studies on its pathology, its clinical and surgical management, and the high-resolution definition of its genomic profile, as well as the development of new therapeutic perspectives. This review will summarize the heterogeneous pattern of this unique disease, focusing on challenges in its comprehensive clinical management and on future insights and research objectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Corso
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Fusco
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy; Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Elena Guerini-Rocco
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy; Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Carmen Criscitiello
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy; Division of New Drugs and Early Drug Development, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paola Zagami
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy; Division of New Drugs and Early Drug Development, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Eleonora Nicolò
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Giovanni Mazzarol
- Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Carlo La Vecchia
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Filippo Pesapane
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Cristina Zanzottera
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Tarantino
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy; Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Salvatore Petitto
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Beatrice Bianchi
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Giulia Massari
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Anthony Boato
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Sibilio
- Division of Breast Surgery Forlì (Ravenna), AUSL Romagna, Ravenna, Italy
| | - Andrea Polizzi
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Curigliano
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy; Division of New Drugs and Early Drug Development, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Federica Lauria
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Bernardo Bonanni
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Monica Marabelli
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Anna Rotili
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Luca Nicosia
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Adriana Albini
- Scientific Directorate, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Mariarosaria Calvello
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Division of Hematology, Clinica Moncucco, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Rita A Mukhtar
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Mark E Robson
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Virgilio Sacchini
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Gad Rennert
- B. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion and the Association for Promotion of Research in Precision Medicine (APRPM), Haifa, Israel
| | - Viviana Galimberti
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Veronesi
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesca Magnoni
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Schulze AK, Hoskin TL, Moldoveanu D, Sturz JL, Boughey JC. Tumor Characteristics of Bilateral Breast Cancer Compared with Unilateral Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2024; 31:947-956. [PMID: 37906382 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14451-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2023] [Accepted: 10/02/2023] [Indexed: 11/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bilateral breast cancer (BC) has an incidence of 1 to 3 %. This study aimed to describe the clinicopathologic characteristics and management of bilateral BC, estimate disease-free survival (DFS), and compare DFS with unilateral BC. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed for patients who had bilateral invasive BC or unilateral invasive BC and contralateral ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated at Mayo Clinic Rochester from 2008 to 2022. A 4:1 matched cohort of patients with unilateral invasive BC was used for comparison. The groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum or chi-square tests. Disease-free survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test, with Cox proportional hazards regression used for multivariable analysis. RESULTS The study identified 278 cases of bilateral breast cancer (177 cases of bilateral invasive cancer and 101 cases of unilateral invasive cancer with contralateral DCIS), representing 4.1 % of invasive BCs. Biologic subtype was concordant between sides in 79.8 % of the patients. Initial surgery was bilateral mastectomy for 76.6 %, bilateral lumpectomy for 20.5 %, and unilateral mastectomy with unilateral lumpectomy for 2.9 % of the patients. Pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes were present in 21.7 % of those tested. The patients who had bilateral BC presented with a higher cT category than the patients who had unilateral BC (p = 0.02), and a higher proportion presented with ILC (17.3 % vs 10.9 %; p = 0.004), estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) disease (89.2 % vs 84.2 %; p = 0.04), multicentric/multifocal disease (37.1 % vs 24.3 %; p < 0.001), breast cancer pathogenic variant (21.7 % vs 12.4 %; p = 0.02), and palpable presentation (48.2 % vs 40.8 %; p = 0.03). The patients with bilateral BC showed DFS similar to that for the unilateral BC cohort (p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS Bilateral BCs most commonly are biologically concordant between sides. Bilateral BC presented more commonly with larger tumors, lobular histology, ER+ status, multicentricity or multifocality, pathogenic variant, and palpable disease. Bilateral BC is not associated with worse DFS than unilateral BC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy K Schulze
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Tanya L Hoskin
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Dan Moldoveanu
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Jenna L Sturz
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Judy C Boughey
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Nicosia L, Rotili A, Pesapane F, Bozzini AC, Battaglia O, Pellegrino G, Fusco N, Porta FM, Frassoni S, Bagnardi V, Corso G, Sangalli C, Cassano E. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) compared to Breast Magnetic Resonance (MRI) in the evaluation of breast lobular neoplasia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2024; 203:135-143. [PMID: 37787819 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-07096-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2023] [Accepted: 08/13/2023] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the diagnostic performance (detection, assessment of correct disease extent and multifocality/centricity) of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Versus Breast Magnetic Resonance (MRI) in the study of lobular neoplasms. METHODS We retrospectively selected all the patients who underwent surgery for a lobular breast neoplasm, either an in situ or an invasive tumor, and had undergone both breast CEM and MRI examinations during the pre-surgical planning. Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was performed to assess the differences between size measurements using the different methods and the post-surgical pathological measurements, considered the gold standard. The agreement in identifying multifocality/multicentricity among the different methods and the pathology was assessed using the Kappa statistics. RESULTS We selected 19 patients, of which one presented a bilateral neoplasm. Then, the images of these 19 patients were analyzed, for a total of 52 malignant breast lesions. We found no significant differences between the post-surgical pathological size of the lesions and the calculated size with CEM and MRI (p-value of the difference respectively 0.71 and 0.47). In all 20 cases, neoplasm detection was possible both with CEM and MRI. CEM and MRI showed an excellent ability to identify multifocal and multicentric cases (K statistic equal to 0.93 for both the procedures), while K statistic was 0.11 and 0.59 for FFDM and US, respectively. CONCLUSION The findings of this study suggest that CEM is a reliable imaging technique in the preoperative setting of patients with lobular neoplasm, with comparable results to breast MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Nicosia
- Breast Imaging Division, Radiology Department, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.
| | - Anna Rotili
- Breast Imaging Division, Radiology Department, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy
| | - Filippo Pesapane
- Breast Imaging Division, Radiology Department, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy
| | - Anna Carla Bozzini
- Breast Imaging Division, Radiology Department, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy
| | - Ottavia Battaglia
- Postgraduation School of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Pellegrino
- Postgraduation School of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Fusco
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122, Milan, Italy
- Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesca Maria Porta
- Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- School of Pathology, University of Milan, 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Samuele Frassoni
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, 20126, Milan, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Bagnardi
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, 20126, Milan, Italy
| | - Giovanni Corso
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122, Milan, Italy
- Division of Breast Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Via Ripamonti, 435, 20141, Milan, Italy
- European Cancer Prevention Organization (ECP), 20122, Milan, Italy
| | - Claudia Sangalli
- European Cancer Prevention Organization (ECP), 20122, Milan, Italy
- Data Management, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy
| | - Enrico Cassano
- Breast Imaging Division, Radiology Department, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Breast carcinomas classified based on traditional morphologic assessment provide useful prognostic information. Although morphology is still the gold standard of classification, recent advances in molecular technologies have enabled the classification of these tumors into four distinct subtypes based on its intrinsic molecular profile that provide both predictive and prognostic information. This article describes the association between the different molecular subtypes with the histologic subtypes of breast cancer and illustrates how these subtypes may affect the appearance of tumors on imaging studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Madhuchhanda Roy
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin - Madison, B1761 WIMR, 1111 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53705, USA.
| | - Amy M Fowler
- Department of Radiology, Section of Breast Imaging and Intervention, University of Wisconsin - Madison, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA
| | - Gary A Ulaner
- Hoag Family Cancer Institute, 16105 Sand Canyon Avenue, Ste 215, Irvine, CA 92618, USA; Department of Radiology, Department of Translational Genomics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA
| | - Aparna Mahajan
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin - Madison, B1781 WIMR, 1111 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53705, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Davey MG, Keelan S, Lowery AJ, Kerin MJ. The Impact of Chemotherapy Prescription on Long-Term Survival Outcomes in Early-Stage Invasive Lobular Carcinoma - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 2022; 22:e843-e849. [PMID: 36229335 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.09.005] [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: 06/04/2022] [Revised: 09/06/2022] [Accepted: 09/14/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILCs) are typically endocrine responsive breast cancers which respond poorly to chemotherapy. The long-term survival advantage of prescribing chemotherapy in such cases remains unclear. To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing, the impact of prescribing chemotherapy in such patients on long-term disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival outcomes. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Ten-year DFS and OS were pooled as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Time-to-effect modelling was performed using the generic inverse variance method. RESULTS Overall, 9 studies including 28,218 patients were included. The mean follow-up was 74 months (range: 0-150 months) and mean age was 60 years (range: 22-90 years). Of these, 34.7% received chemotherapy (9,797/28,218) and 66.3% did not receive chemotherapy (18,421/28,218). Chemotherapy prescription failed to improve 10-year DFS (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.23) and OS (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.18). When using time-to-effect modelling, chemotherapy prescription failed to improve DFS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.01, 95% CI: 0.78-1.31) and OS (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.89-1.27, I2= 67%). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis illustrates no long-term survival advantage associated with chemotherapy prescription in the setting of early-stage ILC. In the absence of well-designed, prospective clinical trials evaluating the impact of chemotherapy on long-term outcomes in ILC, these results should be considered by the multidisciplinary team when deciding on the value of systemic chemotherapy prescription in ILC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew G Davey
- Discipline of Surgery, Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
| | - Stephen Keelan
- Discipline of Surgery, Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland
| | - Aoife J Lowery
- Discipline of Surgery, Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland
| | - Michael J Kerin
- Discipline of Surgery, Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Prediction for Distant Metastasis of Breast Cancer Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Images under Deep Learning. COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND NEUROSCIENCE 2022; 2022:6126061. [PMID: 35720877 PMCID: PMC9200535 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6126061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2022] [Revised: 05/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
This research aimed to explore the effect of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomic features to establish a model for predicting distant metastasis under dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI imaging with deep learning algorithms. The deep learning algorithm was used to segment the images. A total of 96 cases with 100 lesions were included in the metastatic group, including 2 cases of bifocal breast cancer and 2 cases of multifocal breast cancer. There were 192 cases in the nonmetastatic group, with 197 lesions, including 5 cases of multifocal breast cancer. After dynamic contrast-enhancement, the morphological features and grayscale statistical features were extracted from the lesions to establish a prediction model through sum-sum check and feature dimension reduction. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of prediction models based only on imaging features were compared with those created by combining radiomic features with clinical and pathological features. The created predictive model based on radiomic features for distant metastases in breast cancer showed a sensitivity of 66.7%, a specificity of 84.2%, an accuracy of 78.3%, and an AUC of 0.744. The sensitivity of the prediction model for distant metastasis of breast cancer was 67.7%, the specificity was 86.8%, the accuracy was 80.5%, and the AUC was 0.763. Bone, lung, and liver were the most common distant metastatic sites of breast cancer. Under the dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of deep learning, the prediction model combining radiomic features with clinical and pathological features showed better predictive performance.
Collapse
|
9
|
Cocco D, Valente SA. ASO Author Reflection: Updating our Knowledge on Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 29:545-546. [PMID: 34370144 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10615-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela Cocco
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Stephanie A Valente
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Calvillo KZ, Blair SL, Kuerer HM. 22nd Annual Virtual Meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons: Science, Innovation, and Practice Changes. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:5453-5455. [PMID: 34365558 PMCID: PMC8349232 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10523-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2021] [Accepted: 07/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sarah L Blair
- Department of General Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Henry M Kuerer
- Division of Surgery, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|