We determined the prognostic impact of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in a large, national, multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients with early breast cancer (BC) according to numerous factors.
...We collected data on 17 322 early BC patients treated in 13 French cancer centers from 1991 to 2013. Survival functions were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and multivariate survival analyses were carried out using the Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for significant variables associated with LVI or not. Two propensity score-based matching approaches were used to balance differences in known prognostic variables associated with LVI status and to assess the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in LVI-positive luminal A-like patients.
LVI was present in 24.3% (4205) of patients. LVI was significantly and independently associated with all clinical and pathological characteristics analyzed in the entire population and according to endocrine receptor (ER) status except for the time period in binary logistic regression. According to multivariate analyses including ER status, AC, grade, and tumor subtypes, the presence of LVI was significantly associated with a negative prognostic impact on overall (OS), disease-free (DFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) in all patients hazard ratio (HR) = 1.345, HR = 1.312, and HR = 1.415, respectively; P < 0.0001, which was also observed in the propensity score-based analysis in addition to the association of AC with a significant increase in both OS and DFS in LVI-positive luminal A-like patients. LVI did not have a significant impact in either patients with ER-positive grade 3 tumors or those with AC-treated luminal A-like tumors.
The presence of LVI has an independent negative prognostic impact on OS, DFS, and MFS in early BC patients, except in ER-positive grade 3 tumors and in those with luminal A-like tumors treated with AC. Therefore, LVI may indicate the existence of a subset of luminal A-like patients who may still benefit from adjuvant therapy.
•In a study of 17 322 early BC patients, LVI had a significant independent negative prognostic impact on survival.•LVI negatively impacted survival in almost every patient category and cancer subtype, with and without AC.•LVI did not have a negative survival impact in patients with ER+ grade 3 or with luminal A-like tumors with chemotherapy.•Results suggest a possible benefit of AC in LVI-positive luminal A-like patients.
Breast cancer is the primary female cancer. In cancerology, it is essential to give to the patient some support. The advent of outpatient surgery optimizes the care path. This need for support of ...patients raises the question of its compatibility with the day surgery. The purpose is to compare the satisfaction of outpatients with those who stay overnight after surgery of breast cancer. MéTHODS: Patients who underwent breast conservative surgery were included. It is a mixed study, a quantitative, observational and prospective one using a satisfaction survey and a qualitative one which consisted on semi - directive individual interviews. We compared the satisfaction rate (highest marks).
There were 91 patientes, 38 in the ambulatory group and 53 in the overnight group. There was no significant difference in satisfaction between the two groups (P=0.18). The difficulties frequently highlighted by the patients during their stay were the organizational management, the lack of hospital comfort and the sometimes long wait. The need for human support was unanimous.
The satisfaction was excellent in the study. The mode of hospitalization does not seem to play a role here on satisfaction. This hospitalization mode can only be envisaged by providing sufficient human and technical resources. Enhanced recovery after surgery appears to be an alternative to outpatient surgery.
Lipomodelling (LM) is an increasingly used technique to reconstruct or correct an aesthetic defect linked to a loss of substance. In France, the Haute Autorité de santé (HAS) published ...recommendations in 2015 and 2020 concerning the conditions of use of LM on the treated and contralateral breast. These appear to be inconsistently followed.
Twelve members of the Senology Commission of the Collège national des gynécologues-obstétriciens français (French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians) reviewed the carcinological safety of LM and the clinical and radiological follow-up of patients after breast cancer surgery, based on French and international recommendations and a review of the literature. The bibliographic search was conducted via Medline from 2015 to 2022, selecting articles in French and English and applying PRISMA guidelines.
A total of 14 studies on the oncological safety of LM, 5 studies on follow-up and 7 guidelines were retained. The 14 studies (6 retrospective, 2 prospective and 6 meta-analyses) had heterogeneous inclusion criteria and variable follow-up, ranging from 38 to 120 months. Most have shown no increased risk of locoregional or distant recurrence after LM. A retrospective case-control study (464 LMs and 3100 controls) showed, in patients who had no recurrence at 80 months, a subsequent reduction in recurrence-free survival after LM in cases of luminal A cancer, highlighting the number of lost to follow-up (more than 2/3 of luminal A cancers). About follow-up after LM, the 5 series showed the high frequency after LM of clinical mass and radiological images (in ¼ of cases), most often corresponding to cytosteatonecrosis. Most of the guidelines highlighted the uncertainties concerning oncological safety of LM, due to the lack of prospective data and long-term follow-up.
The members of the Senology Commission agree with the conclusions of the HAS working group, in particular by advising against LM "without cautionary periods", excessively, or in cases of high risk of relapse, and recommend clear, detailed information to patients before undergoing LM, and the need for postoperative follow-up. The creation of a national registry could address most questions regarding both the oncological safety of this procedure and the modalities of patient follow-up.
Abstract Objectives Primary objective: To analyse the impact of restaging, on recurrences and survival, in BLOT. Secondary objective: To cluster patients who could be exempted from restaging. Study ...design This retrospective study, included patients operated for a BLOT, between January 1990, and December 2007, in gynaecological surgery units of the University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand. Two groups were evaluated: patients with and without optimal restaging. Results One hundred and forty-two patients were included. Optimal initial staging rate was 38.7% ( n = 55). Among the eighty-seven women not initially staged, two groups were compared: restaged ( n = 45) and non-restaged patients ( n = 42). Mean follow-up was 80.5 months. Overall survival was 93.7%. Relapse rate was 7.7% ( n = 11). Disease free survival (DFS) was 88% after a mean follow-up of 80.5 months. One death was noted. Optimal restaging rate was 31.7% ( n = 45, 43 by laparoscopy). Mean follow-up was of 87.1 months among restaged patients, 84.5 months among non-restaged patients ( p = 0.93). Relapse incidence was significantly higher in non restaged, than in restaged patients ( p = 0.008). DFS was significantly longer among restaged than non-restaged patients, ( p = 0.072). Younger age ( p = 0.04), conservative treatment ( p < 10−4 ) or non-diploidy ( p = 0.04) increased the incidence of relapse. Conclusions When initial staging is missing, restaging improves the patients outcome in comparison to non-restaged groups. Laparoscopy is a valuable surgical option. This study suggests that a selected group of patients, older than 30 years old, submitted to a radical treatment, presenting a diploid, non micropapillar, mucinous BLOT, without visible implants during careful peritoneal inspection, could be exempted from restaging. They represented 11.6% of our population.
Prognostic impact of lymph node micro-metastases (pN1mi) has been discordantly reported in the literature. The need to clarify this point for decision-making regarding adjuvant therapy, particularly ...for patients with endocrine receptor (ER)-positive status and HER2-negative tumors, is further reinforced by the generalization of gene expression signatures using pN status in their recommendation algorithm.
We retrospectively analyzed 13 773 patients treated for ER-positive breast cancer in 13 French cancer centers from 1999 to 2014. Five categories of axillary lymph node (LN) status were defined: negative LN (pN0i−), isolated tumor cells pN0(i+), pN1mi, and pN1 divided into single (pN1 = 1) and multiple (pN1 > 1) macro-metastases (>2 mm). The effect of LN micro-metastases on outcomes was investigated both in the entire cohort of patients and in clinically relevant subgroups according to tumor subtypes. Propensity-score-based matching was used to balance differences in known prognostic variables associated with pN status.
As determined by sentinel LN biopsy, 9427 patients were pN0 (68.4%), 546 pN0(i+) (4.0%), 1446 pN1mi (10.5%) and 2354 pN1 with macro-metastases (17.1%). With a median follow-up of 61.25 months, pN1 status, but not pN1mi, significantly impacted overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and breast-cancer-specific survival. In the subgroup of patients with known tumor subtype, pN1 = 1, as pN1 > 1, but not pN1mi, had a significant prognostic impact on OS. DFS and MFS were only impacted by pN1 > 1. Similar results were observed in the subgroup of patients with luminal A-like tumors (n = 7101). In the matched population analysis, pN1macro, but not pN1mi, had a statistically significant negative impact on MFS and OS.
LN micro-metastases have no detectable prognostic impact and should not be considered as a determining factor in indicating adjuvant chemotherapy. The evaluation of the risk of recurrence using second-generation signatures should be calculated considering micro-metastases as pN0.
•LN micro-metastases have no detectable prognostic impact.•pN1 status, but not pN1mi, significantly impacted overall survival, disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival.•In the subgroup of patients with known tumor subtype, pN1=1, as pN1>1, but not pN1mi, had a significant prognostic impact on OS.•LN micro-metastases should not be considered as a determining factor in indicating adjuvant chemotherapy.
PDF
