Search

Surgery has always been the backbone of breast cancer management. Throughout the past century, there have been great advances in chemotherapy regimens, especially in the neo‐adjuvant setting. As a result of this progress, a patient's disease can be potentially down‐staged and thus surgical intervention can therefore be de‐escalated for the breast as well as the axilla. Current clinical trials are evaluating the role of imaging and core needle biopsy as predictive tools for the efficacy of neo‐adjuvant chemotherapy. Results from these trials may help to clarify how the intricate relationship among imaging, pathology, radiotherapy, and surgery will affect the future management of patients undergoing neo‐adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The long-term effects of chemotherapy are sparsely reported. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is one of the most frequent toxicities associated with taxane use for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. We investigated the impact of the three different docetaxel-based regimens and patient characteristics on long-term, patient-reported outcomes of PN and the impact of PN on long-term quality of life (QOL).Methods: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-30 was a randomized trial comparing sequential doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) followed by docetaxel (T) (AC→T), concurrent ACT, or AT in women with node-positive, early-stage breast cancer. The AC→T group had a higher cumulative dose of T. PN was one of the symptoms assessed in a QOL substudy. Statistical methods included simple and mixed ordinal logistic regression and general linear models. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: Of 1512 patients, 41.9% reported PN two years after treatment initiation. Treatment with AT and ACT was associated with less severe long-term PN compared with AC→T (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.58; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.75). Preexisting PN, older age, obesity, mastectomy, and greater number of positive nodes were also associated with higher risk of long-term PN. Patients who reported worse PN symptoms at 24 months had statistically significantly worse QOL (Ptrend < .001).Conclusions: The administration of docetaxel is associated with long-term PN. The lower rate of long-term PN in AT and ACT patients might be an important consideration in supporting choosing these therapies for individuals with preexisting neuropathic symptoms or other risk factors for neuropathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) predicts risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR) in node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. We evaluated the association between RS and LRR in node-positive, ER-positive patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy plus tamoxifen in National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-28.Methods: B-28 compared doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC X 4) with AC X 4 followed by paclitaxel X 4. Tamoxifen was given to patients age 50 years or older and those younger than age 50 years with ER-positive and/or progesterone receptor-positive tumors. Lumpectomy patients received breast radiotherapy. Mastectomy patients received no radiotherapy. The present study includes 1065 ER-positive, tamoxifen-treated patients with RS assessment. Cumulative incidence functions and subdistribution hazard regression models were used for LRR to account for competing risks including distant recurrence, second primary cancers, and death from other causes. Median follow-up was 11.2 years. All statistical tests were one-sided.Results: There were 80 LRRs (7.5%) as first events (68% local/32% regional). RS was low: 36.2%; intermediate: 34.2%; and high: 29.6%. RS was a statistically significant predictor of LRR in univariate analyses (10-year cumulative incidence of LRR = 3.3%, 7.2%, and 12.2% for low, intermediate, and high RS, respectively, P < .001). In multivariable regression analysis, RS remained an independent predictor of LRR (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28 to 5.26, for a 50-point difference, P = .008) along with pathologic nodal status (HR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.20 to 3.03, for four or more vs one to three positive nodes, P = .006) and tumor size (HR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.55, for a 1 cm difference, P = .02).Conclusions: RS statistically significantly predicts risk of LRR in node-positive, ER-positive breast cancer patients after adjuvant chemotherapy plus tamoxifen. These findings can help in the selection of appropriate candidates for comprehensive radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The surgical management of breast cancer has changed considerably since the use of the Halstedian radical mastectomy early in the 20th century. Over the last 50 years, several landmark clinical trials from the USA and Europe have resulted in a paradigm shift in the management of breast cancer toward less radical forms of surgery with the combined use of multi-modality treatments including systemic chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and radiotherapy. Advances in such research have established a new worldwide standard of care for breast cancer surgical management and treatment, which has become more patient centric and which places a higher emphasis on cosmesis and improved patient quality of life. In this chapter, we review the landmark clinical trials that have influenced surgical management for non-invasive and invasive breast cancer and that serve to guide current clinical practices to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breast-conserving therapy consisting of segmental mastectomy followed by whole-breast irradiation ( WBI) has become widely accepted as an alternative to mastectomy as a treatment for women with early-stage breast cancer. WBI is typically delivered over the course of 5-6 weeks to the whole breast. Hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation and accelerated partial breast irradiation have developed as alternative radiation techniques for select patients with favorable early-stage breast cancer. These radiation regimens allow for greater patient convenience and the potential for decreased health care costs. We review here the scientific rationale behind delivering a shorter course of radiation therapy using these distinct treatment regimens in this setting as well as an overview of the published data and pending trials comparing these alternative treatment regimens to WBI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) is the most common failure event after lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We evaluated invasive IBTR (I-IBTR) and its influence on survival among participants in two National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) randomized trials for DCIS. Methods In the NSABP B-17 trial (accrual period: October 1, 1985, to December 31, 1990), patients with localized DCIS were randomly assigned to the lumpectomy only (LO, n = 403) group or to the lumpectomy followed by radiotherapy (LRT, n = 410) group. In the NSABP B-24 double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (accrual period: May 9, 1991, to April 13, 1994), all accrued patients were randomly assigned to LRT+ placebo, (n=900) or LRT + tamoxifen (LRT + TAM, n = 899). Endpoints included I-IBTR, DCIS-IBTR, contralateral breast cancers (CBC), overall and breast cancer–specific survival, and survival after I-IBTR. Median follow-up was 207 months for the B-17 trial (N = 813 patients) and 163 months for the B-24 trial (N = 1799 patients). Results Of 490 IBTR events, 263 (53.7%) were invasive. Radiation reduced I-IBTR by 52% in the LRT group compared with LO (B-17, hazard ratio [HR] of risk of I-IBTR = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.33 to 0.69, P < .001). LRT + TAM reduced I-IBTR by 32% compared with LRT + placebo (B-24, HR of risk of I-IBTR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.95, P = .025). The 15-year cumulative incidence of I-IBTR was 19.4% for LO, 8.9% for LRT (B-17), 10.0% for LRT + placebo (B-24), and 8.5% for LRT + TAM. The 15-year cumulative incidence of all contralateral breast cancers was 10.3% for LO, 10.2% for LRT (B-17), 10.8% for LRT + placebo (B-24), and 7.3% for LRT + TAM. I-IBTR was associated with increased mortality risk (HR of death = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.45 to 2.96, P < .001), whereas recurrence of DCIS was not. Twenty-two of 39 deaths after I-IBTR were attributed to breast cancer. Among all patients (with or without I-IBTR), the 15-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer death was 3.1% for LO, 4.7% for LRT (B-17), 2.7% for LRT + placebo (B-24), and 2.3% for LRT + TAM. Conclusions Although I-IBTR increased the risk for breast cancer–related death, radiation therapy and tamoxifen reduced I-IBTR, and long-term prognosis remained excellent after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. Methods: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete. Findings: Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group. Interpretation: Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ. Funding: US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms. Methods: The study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898. Findings: Between Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014). Interpretation: Given the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative. Funding: US National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for patients with early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast-tumour recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. It is unknown whether accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) to only the tumour-bearing quadrant, which shortens treatment duration, is equally effective. In our trial, we investigated whether APBI provides equivalent local tumour control after lumpectomy compared with whole-breast irradiation.Methods: We did this randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial (NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413) in 154 clinical centres in the USA, Canada, Ireland, and Israel. Adult women (>18 years) with early-stage (0, I, or II; no evidence of distant metastases, but up to three axillary nodes could be positive) breast cancer (tumour size ≤3 cm; including all histologies and multifocal breast cancers), who had had lumpectomy with negative (ie, no detectable cancer cells) surgical margins, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a biased-coin-based minimisation algorithm to receive either whole-breast irradiation (whole-breast irradiation group) or APBI (APBI group). Whole-breast irradiation was delivered in 25 daily fractions of 50 Gy over 5 weeks, with or without a supplemental boost to the tumour bed, and APBI was delivered as 34 Gy of brachytherapy or 38·5 Gy of external bream radiation therapy in 10 fractions, over 5 treatment days within an 8-day period. Randomisation was stratified by disease stage, menopausal status, hormone-receptor status, and intention to receive chemotherapy. Patients, investigators, and statisticians could not be masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of invasive and non-invasive IBTR as a first recurrence was analysed in the intention-to-treat population, excluding those patients who were lost to follow-up, with an equivalency test on the basis of a 50% margin increase in the hazard ratio (90% CI for the observed HR between 0·667 and 1·5 for equivalence) and a Cox proportional hazard model. Survival was assessed by intention to treat, and sensitivity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00103181.Findings: Between March 21, 2005, and April 16, 2013, 4216 women were enrolled. 2109 were assigned to the whole-breast irradiation group and 2107 were assigned to the APBI group. 70 patients from the whole-breast irradiation group and 14 from the APBI group withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up at this stage, so 2039 and 2093 patients respectively were available for survival analysis. Further, three and four patients respectively were lost to clinical follow-up (ie, survival status was assessed by phone but no physical examination was done), leaving 2036 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in the APBI group evaluable for the primary outcome. At a median follow-up of 10·2 years (IQR 7·5-11·5), 90 (4%) of 2089 women eligible for the primary outcome in the APBI group and 71 (3%) of 2036 women in the whole-breast irradiation group had an IBTR (HR 1·22, 90% CI 0·94-1·58). The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR was 4·6% (95% CI 3·7-5·7) in the APBI group versus 3·9% (3·1-5·0) in the whole-breast irradiation group. 44 (2%) of 2039 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 49 (2%) of 2093 patients in the APBI group died from recurring breast cancer. There were no treatment-related deaths. Second cancers and treatment-related toxicities were similar between the two groups. 2020 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group and 2089 in APBI group had available data on adverse events. The highest toxicity grade reported was: grade 1 in 845 (40%), grade 2 in 921 (44%), and grade 3 in 201 (10%) patients in the APBI group, compared with grade 1 in 626 (31%), grade 2 in 1193 (59%), and grade 3 in 143 (7%) in the whole-breast irradiation group.Interpretation: APBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to whole-breast irradiation in controlling IBTR for breast-conserving therapy. Our trial had broad eligibility criteria, leading to a large, heterogeneous pool of patients and sufficient power to detect treatment equivalence, but was not designed to test equivalence in patient subgroups or outcomes from different APBI techniques. For patients with early-stage breast cancer, our findings support whole-breast irradiation following lumpectomy; however, with an absolute difference of less than 1% in the 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR, APBI might be an acceptable alternative for some women.Funding: National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health and Human Services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyze the effect of post-radiation therapy (XRT) mammographic timing and radiation technique in relation to additional downstream workup for 569 breast conservation therapy patients treated with adjuvant XRT after their initial surveillance mammogram (MMG).Methods and Materials: From January 2011 to December 2014, 569 breast cancer patients treated with breast conservation surgery and adjuvant XRT with a follow-up MMG were reviewed. Patients were stratified by the time interval until their first post-XRT MMG, and by XRT technique-whole breast (472), accelerated partial breast (96), conventional fractionation (373), hypofractionation (94), surgical cavity boosts (407), or no boost (66). The primary endpoint was further imaging after the initial MMG.Results: Additional workup for those receiving an MMG within 3 months of completing XRT was 51% (73 of 143), compared with 40% (84 of 210) with MMG between 3 and 6 months and 34.5% (75 of 216) with MMG after 6 months (P=.04). Radiation boost to the postoperative bed was associated with further downstream imaging, whereas accelerated partial-breast irradiation and hypofractionated treatment were not.Conclusions: Breast conservation therapy patients who underwent screening MMG before 6 months after completion of XRT were more likely to undergo downstream workup, including additional biopsies. Accelerated and hypofractionated radiation techniques were not associated with supplementary workup. Further study is needed to assess appropriate selection of high-risk patients and possible negative implications of earlier post-XRT screening MMG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]