Search

Ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCIS-MI) is a subtype of breast cancer with a good prognosis, for which both breast conserving surgery plus radiotherapy (BCS + RT) and mastectomy are feasible surgical methods, but no clear conclusion has been made on the choice of these treatments. We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database to extract 5432 DCIS-MI patients. Participants were divided into the BCS + RT group and the mastectomy group. We compared the overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) of the two groups using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regressions before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Before PSM, both univariate and multivariate analyses showed that BCS + RT group had significantly higher OS and BCSS compared with patients in the mastectomy group (P P P = 0.017). In addition, the subgroup analysis showed that BCS + RT is at least equivalent to mastectomy with respect to OS and BCSS in any subgroup. For patients with DCIS-MI, the prognosis of BCS + RT was superior to mastectomy.

Supplemental Material for Tang poetry and tourism: Cultural effects after 1000 years by Hung Wan Kot, Ming-Hsiang Chen, Ching-Hui (Joan) Su and Yu-Xia Lin in Tourism Economics

Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCIS-MI) is a subtype of breast cancer with good prognosis, for which both breast conserving surgery plus radiotherapy (BCS+RT) and mastectomy are feasible surgical methods, but their effects on the prognosis of patients are still unclear. Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database to extracted DCIS-MI patients who underwent BCS+RT or mastectomy between 2000 and 2014. Participants were divided into BCS+RT group and mastectomy group. We compared the breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) of the two groups using Kaplan -Meier method and Cox proportional hazard regressions before and after propensity score matching (PSM) with the landmark. Results: We selected 5432 patients, among which 2834 patients (52.17%) were in the BCS+RT group and 2598 patients (47.83%) were in the mastectomy group. With a 101 months median follow-up time in the overall cohort, both univariate and multivariate analysis showed that BCS + RT group showed significantly higher OS and BCSS compared with patients in the mastectomy group (PPP= 0.017). In addition, the subgroup analysis showed that BCS + RT is at least equivalent to mastectomy with respect to OS and BCSS in any subgroup. Conclusion: For patients with DCIS-MI, the prognosis of BCS+RT was superior to mastectomy.

BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of breast cancer smaller than 2 cm.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify published studies investigating the efficacy and safety of RFA for breast cancer smaller than 2 cm. The main outcomes were technical success rate of the ablation, complete ablation rate, complications and local recurrence. Secondary considerations were mode of anesthesia, pain tolerance, mean ablation time and surgical excision after ablation.ResultsSeventeen studies involving 399 patients and 401 lesions met the inclusion criteria. Nearly 99%(95%CI=0.98-1.00) of lesions achieved good technical success rate.Notably, 83.88% of the patients received RFA under general anesthesia (333/397) whereas 15.87% received RFA under local anesthesia (63/397). Of the 63, 98.41% tolerated the pain associated with the procedure. Majority of patients (65.74%, 261/397) underwent surgical excision of the tumor after ablation whereas in a few patients (34.26%, 136/397), the tumor tissue was retained in the breast after ablation. Complete ablation was achieved in 96% of patients for a mean time of 15.8 minutes (95%CI=0.93-0.99). Overall, only 2% (95%CI=0.01-0.04) of the individuals developed complications. Skin burns (2.02%, 8/397) were the most common complications. There was no local recurrence after a median follow-up of 27.29 months, whether or not they underwent surgical resection following RFA.ConclusionThe results show that RFA for breast cancer smaller than 2 cm is safe and effective. However, prospective studies are needed to validate this conclusion.

Background Trastuzumab is currently the standard treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. However, it is not recommended for HER2-positive breast cancer patients during pregnancy as it may jeopardize safety of the fetus. Nevertheless, there is evidence that fetuses exposed to trastuzumab in early stages of pregnancy remain healthy Methods To evaluate the possible effects of trastuzumab on fetus and provide evidence on the safety of trastuzumab in early pregnancy in HER2-positive breast cancer patients, we analyzed 22 studies involving 22 pregnant women and 23 fetuses. Results Based on the meta-analysis, the gestational week of exposure to trastuzumab is 0–34 weeks, the average duration of use is 17 weeks, and the average gestational week of delivery is 34.3 weeks. Complications occurred in 77.27% of patients during pregnancy and 56.52% of newborns。The main complication during pregnancy was anhydramnios (68.18%), while the main complications at birth were Respiratory distress or tachypnea (30%). After an average of 25.28 months of follow-up, 17.39% (4/23) of the children died. There was no complication during pregnancy or at birth in patients treated with trastuzumab during early pregnancy (P = 0.043). Patients older than 30 who received trastuzumab during pregnancy were more likely to have neonatal complications (OR = 7.778, 95%CI = 1.2–50.424, P = 0.04). Conclusion These results suggest that trastuzumab use during pregnancy can cause pregnancy,fetal and newborn complications. However, exposed to trastuzumab only in the first trimester are less likely to have pregnancy and fetal complications. Patients with gestational age below 30 years are less likely to have neonatal complications after trastuzumab during pregnancy. Terminating pregnancy should not be the only option for such patients. But more evidence is needed to verify this conclusion.

Background: Metaplastic breast cancer (MBC) are rare. The survival outcomes of MBC patients after breast conserving surgery plus radiotherapy (BCS+RT) or mastectomy have not been established. The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of MBC patients subjected to BCS+RT or mastectomy therapeutic options.Methods: Patients who were subjected to BCS+RT or mastectomy between 2004 and 2014 were enrolled in this study through the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and the overall survival (OS) of the participants were determined. Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan Meier method were used to determine the correlation between the two surgical methods and survival outcomes. Results: A total of 1197 patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 439 patients were subjected to BCS+RT, while 758 patients were subjected to mastectomy. Multivariate analysis showed a significantly high OS for MBC patients who were subjected to BCS+RT compared to those subjected to mastectomy (HR = 0.697, 95% CI = 0.527- 0.922, P=0.012). However, the BCSS for the two groups were statistically comparable (HR = 0.806,95% CI = 0.561-1.158, P= 0.244). After PSM, the BCS+RT and mastectomy groups consisted of 321 patients, respectively. The univariate and multivariate analysis with a 6-month landmark all indicate that patients receiving BCS+RT has higher OS than patients receiving mastectomy (HR = 0.701,95% CI = 0.496-0.990, P=0.044; HR = 0.684,95% CI = 0.479-0.977, P=0.037) while the BCSS was no difference between the two groups(HR = 0.739,95% CI = 0.474-1.153, P = 0.183; HR = 0.741,95% CI = 0.468-1.173, P = 0.200). Conclusion: The BCS+RT therapeutic option exhibits a high OS in MBC patients compared to the mastectomy approach.

Background: The effect of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) on T1-2N1M0 triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) remains unclear. The population-based study aimed to investigate the survival outcomes of T1-2N1M0 TNBC patients who underwent PMRT or not. Methods: We selected 1743 patients with T1-2N1M0 TNBC who underwent mastectomy between 2010 and 2015 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. After propensity score matching (PSM) , the PMRT and no-PMRT groups consisted of 586 matched patients, respectively.The Kaplan-Meier method was applied to calculate breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and cox proportional hazard model were used to determine the prognostic factors of T1-2N1M0 TNBC.Results: The 5-year BCSS for the PMRT group and no-PMRT group was 79.1% and 74.7%, respectively. TNBC patients with stage T1-2N1M0 receiving PMRT did not show better BCSS than those did not (HR =0.800, 95% CI =0.605-1.056, P =0.115). Subgroup analysis showed that in patients with three nodes positive, radiotherapy could significantly improve BCSS(HR=0.396, 95% CI = 0.175-0.900, P = 0.027), but it brought no significant advantage in BCSS in patients with one or two nodes positive(HR =1.061, 95% CI =0.725-1.552, P =0.761; HR =0.657, 95% CI =0.405-1.065, P =0.088).In addition, PMRT improves the BCSS in TNBC patients with T2 tumor concomitant with three positive lymph nodes(HR =0.343, 95% CI =0.132-0.890, P =0.028).Conclusion: TNBC patients with T2 tumor concomitant with three positive lymph node can benefit from PMRT.

Background: The survival outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) remain unclear. Therefore, in this study, a meta-analysis was conducted to analyze current evidence on the survival outcomes of NACT versus ACT in TNBC. Methods: A systematic search was performed on the PubMed and Embase databases to identify relevant articles investigating the survival outcomes of NACT versus ACT in TNBC. Results: A total of nine studies involving 36480 patients met the selection criteria. Among them,10728 (29.41%) received NACT, and 25752 (70.59%) received ACT. The pathological complete response (pCR) rate was 35% (95% CI = 0.23-0.48). Compared with ACT, the overall survival (OS) of NACT was poor (HR = 1.59; 95%CI = 1.25-2.02; P=0.0001), and there was no significant difference in disease-free survival (DFS) between the two treatments (HR = 0.85; 95%CI = 0.54-1.34; P=0.49). NACT with pCR significantly improved the OS (HR = 0.53; 95%CI = 0.29-0.98; P=0.04) and DFS (HR = 0.52; 95%CI = 0.29-0.94; P=0.03), while the OS (HR = 1.18; 95%CI = 1.09-1.28; PP=0.0008) of patients with residual disease (RD) following NACT were worse compared to those receiving ACT. Conclusion: These findings suggest that, for TNBC, NACT with pCR is superior to ACT in improving OS and DFS. and it turns to be opposite when patients receiving NACT with RD.