If axillary lymph node status of breast cancer patients could be accurately predicted from basic clinical information and from characteristics of their primary tumors, then many patients could be ...spared axillary lymph node dissection. Tumor size alone does not allow the identification of groups with very low or high risk of being axillary node positive.
Our goal was to investigate the possibility of using prognostic indicators to predict axillary node status of patients with primary breast cancer.
Data from 26,683 patients from the National Breast Cancer Tissue Resource were used in this study. Patients in this dataset were randomly assigned to a training set (patient information used to construct predictive models) or a validation set (patient information used to prospectively evaluate predictive models). The records of a total of 11,964 case patients that had complete prognostic factors and pathologic data were analyzed: 5963 patients in the training set and 6001 patients in the validation set. All of the patients studied had tumors 5 cm or less in size and at least 15 axillary lymph nodes that had been examined. Data used for construction of the predictive models were available for all patients and included tumor size, number of nodes positive, patient age, quantitative estrogen receptor levels, quantitative progesterone receptor (PgR) levels, DNA flow cytometry-derived ploidy, and S-phase fraction. Logistic regression models were used to predict nodal status.
Multivariate predictive models were produced that used tumor size, patient age, S phase, and PgR as independent predictors. These models allowed identification of patient risks of being node positive ranging from 6%-79% and as having 10 or more positive nodes ranging from less than 1% to slightly more than 30%.
Addition of prognostic indicator information to tumor size can refine estimates of whether a patient is likely to be node positive. However, no patient subsets could be identified as having greater than 95% chance of being node negative or node positive.
These predictive models cannot alleviate the necessity of axillary node dissection for staging of breast cancer patients in situations in which nodal status would affect therapeutic decisions. Subsets of patients could be identified who had a less than 5% chance of having 10 or more positive nodes. Thus, some patients could be spared axillary dissection if it was being performed solely to identify patients with this high-risk feature.
Seven years after the initial studies of the prognostic value of the proto-oncogene c-
erbB-2 in breast cancer, its role is still being defined. The interpretation of studies on the use of this gene ...and its protein product in prognostic and predictive tests for breast cancer is complicated by multiple methodologies and the inherent difficulties in the studies. The work has moved beyond the stage at which small studies with short follow-up (useful for hypothesis generation) are of value, to the stage in which large studies with sufficient statistical power to find significant correlations are central. These larger studies do not lend support for the use of c-
erbB-2 in the evaluation of axillary-node-negative patients, the group of breast cancer patients for whom refinement of prognostic estimates is now most important. There are, however, hints that c-
erbB-2 may have value in predicting response to certain treatments, though the studies so far are too few, often too small and too conflicting to reliably confirm this.
ABSTRACT
Background: Over the past few years, data have been published concerning the relative efficacy and safety profiles of tamoxifen and the aromatase inhibitors (AIs) in the adjuvant therapy ...setting for women with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Recently, debate has centred around trials which have studied primary tamoxifen and AI therapy, switching and equencing strategies and extended adjuvant therapy.
Methods: Here, a group of 24 breast cancer experts review efficacy and safety data from the recent major trials investigating tamoxifen and the third-generation AIs in postmenopausal women, which have challenged the perception of tamoxifen as optimum adjuvant endocrine therapy. Data from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial, Breast International Group (BIG) 1‐98 study, National Cancer Institute of Canada MA 17 trial, Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), Italian Tamoxifen Anastrozole (ITA) trial, Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG) Trial 8 and Arimidex-Nolvadex (ARNO) 95 are considered to provide a rational interpretation of the impact of these data on current practice, and to highlight areas where further investigation is needed.
Conclusion: We can be confident that AIs represent superior adjuvant endocrine treatment to tamoxifen in postmenopausal women, either as initial therapy or as an alternative for women who have started adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen. However, there remain issues regarding the best way to use AIs, such as the optimal length of AI treatment and how a sequence of tamoxifen followed by an AI compares with AI monotherapy; these will require further data to resolve.
Despite trials of mammography and widespread use, optimal screening policy is controversial.
To evaluate U.S. breast cancer screening strategies.
6 models using common data elements.
National data on ...age-specific incidence, competing mortality, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects.
A contemporary population cohort.
Lifetime.
Societal.
20 screening strategies with varying initiation and cessation ages applied annually or biennially.
Number of mammograms, reduction in deaths from breast cancer or life-years gained (vs. no screening), false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies, and overdiagnosis.
The 6 models produced consistent rankings of screening strategies. Screening biennially maintained an average of 81% (range across strategies and models, 67% to 99%) of the benefit of annual screening with almost half the number of false-positive results. Screening biennially from ages 50 to 69 years achieved a median 16.5% (range, 15% to 23%) reduction in breast cancer deaths versus no screening. Initiating biennial screening at age 40 years (vs. 50 years) reduced mortality by an additional 3% (range, 1% to 6%), consumed more resources, and yielded more false-positive results. Biennial screening after age 69 years yielded some additional mortality reduction in all models, but overdiagnosis increased most substantially at older ages.
Varying test sensitivity or treatment patterns did not change conclusions.
Results do not include morbidity from false-positive results, patient knowledge of earlier diagnosis, or unnecessary treatment.
Biennial screening achieves most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm. Decisions about the best strategy depend on program and individual objectives and the weight placed on benefits, harms, and resource considerations.
National Cancer Institute.
Estrogen is known to play an important role in skeletal health. Female breast cancer patients who receive treatments that reduce estrogen levels, such as aromatase inhibitors, may increase their risk ...of developing osteoporosis and their risk of fracture. Clinical guidelines enable the physician to assess the risk of osteoporosis by patient history and physical examination. For patients identified as being at risk, it is necessary to test bone mineral density (BMD), using the result to determine which patients require treatment. Two groups can be identified as requiring BMD assessment according to general guidelines: patients < 45 years old who become menopausal due to treatment, and breast cancer patients receiving aromatase inhibitors. Bisphosphonates appear to be the logical treatment of choice for breast cancer patients, as they do not interact with the estrogen receptor. Although not all women receiving aromatase inhibitors will require additional treatment for bone health, postmenopausal women with a history of breast cancer at risk of osteoporosis should be identified, monitored, and managed according to practice guidelines.
Summary Background The 21-gene recurrence score assay is prognostic for women with node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. A low recurrence score predicts ...little benefit of chemotherapy. For node-positive breast cancer, we investigated whether the recurrence score was prognostic in women treated with tamoxifen alone and whether it identified those who might not benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy, despite higher risks of recurrence. Methods The phase 3 trial SWOG-8814 for postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer showed that chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) before tamoxifen (CAF-T) added survival benefit to treatment with tamoxifen alone. Optional tumour banking yielded specimens for determination of recurrence score by RT-PCR. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the effect of recurrence score on disease-free survival by treatment group (tamoxifen vs CAF-T) using Cox regression, adjusting for number of positive nodes. Findings There were 367 specimens (40% of the 927 patients in the tamoxifen and CAF-T groups) with sufficient RNA for analysis (tamoxifen, n=148; CAF-T, n=219). The recurrence score was prognostic in the tamoxifen-alone group (p=0·006; hazard ratio HR 2·64, 95% CI 1·33–5·27, for a 50-point difference in recurrence score). There was no benefit of CAF in patients with a low recurrence score (score <18; log-rank p=0·97; HR 1·02, 0·54–1·93), but an improvement in disease-free survival for those with a high recurrence score (score ≥31; log-rank p=0·033; HR 0·59, 0·35–1·01), after adjustment for number of positive nodes. The recurrence score by treatment interaction was significant in the first 5 years (p=0·029), with no additional prediction beyond 5 years (p=0·58), although the cumulative benefit remained at 10 years. Results were similar for overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival. Interpretation The recurrence score is prognostic for tamoxifen-treated patients with positive nodes and predicts significant benefit of CAF in tumours with a high recurrence score. A low recurrence score identifies women who might not benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy, despite positive nodes. Funding National Cancer Institute and Genomic Health.
Identification of biologically and clinically distinct breast cancer subtypes could improve prognostic assessment of primary tumors. The characteristics of "molecular" breast cancer subtypes suggest ...that routinely assessed histopathologic features in combination with limited biomarkers may provide an informative classification for routine use.
Hierarchical cluster analysis based on components of histopathologic grade (tubule formation, nuclear pleomorphism, and mitotic score), expression of ER, cytokeratin 5/6, and HER2 amplification identified four breast cancer subgroups in a cohort of 270 cases. Cluster subgroup membership was compared with observed and Adjuvant! Online predicted 10-year survival. Survival characteristics were confirmed in an independent cohort of 300 cases assigned to cluster subgroups using a decision tree model.
Four distinct breast cancer cluster subgroups (A-D) were identified that were analogous to molecular tumor types and showed a significant association with survival in both the original and validation cohorts (P < 0.001). There was a striking difference between survival for patients in cluster subgroups A and B with ER(+) breast cancer (P < 0.001). Outcome for all tumor types was well estimated by Adjuvant! Online, with the exception of cluster B ER(+) cancers where Adjuvant! Online was too optimistic.
Breast cancer subclassification based on readily accessible pathologic features could improve prognostic assessment of ER(+) breast cancer.
According to the Institute of Medicine, high-quality cancer care should include effective communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits, expected response, and impact on ...quality of life of a recommended therapy. In the delivery of oncology care, the barriers to and facilitators of communication about potential long-term and late effects, post-treatment expectations, and transition to survivorship care have not been fully defined.
We collected qualitative data through semistructured interviews with medical oncologists and focus groups with breast cancer survivors and applied the Theoretical Domains Framework to systematically analyze and identify the factors that may influence oncologists' communication with patients with breast cancer about the long-term and late effects of adjuvant therapy.
Eight key informant interviews with medical oncologists and two focus groups with breast cancer survivors provided data. Both oncologists and patients perceived information on long-term effects as valuable in terms of improved clinical communication but had concerns about the feasibility of inclusion before treatment. They described the current approaches to communication of therapy risks as a brief laundry list that emphasized acute adverse effects and minimized more long-term issues. We describe the barriers to communication about potential long-term effects from the perspectives of both groups.
This study provides insight into oncologists' communication with patients with breast cancer regarding the potential long-term and late effects of adjuvant chemotherapy and about setting realistic expectations for life after treatment. Opportunities to improve oncologists' communication about the potential toxicities of therapy, particularly regarding long-term and late effects, should be examined further.
Decisions regarding the use of adjuvant cytotoxic and hormonal therapies for women with breast cancer ideally should be made jointly by the patient and oncologist. For patients to be adequately ...involved in this decision-making process, they must be provided with appropriate education regarding the potential benefits and risks of adjuvant therapies. The recommended steps for doing this are: 1) understand baseline prognosis with locoregional therapy (surgery, radiation, or both) alone for the individual patient at hand; 2) determine the estimated benefit afforded by adjuvant therapy options for the individual patient; 3) estimate the risk of side effects of adjuvant therapy options; 4) convey the above information to the individual patient; 5) facilitate the individual patient's decision regarding adjuvant systemic therapy; and 6) support the patient's decision. Two computer-based tools (Numeracy and Adjuvant!) are available to facilitate this process.
This article discusses the rationale for 2 methods of making estimates of the benefit of letrozole as extended adjuvant hormonal therapy after 5 years of tamoxifen. It uses information from the ...Overview metaanalyses to develop general rules for making estimates of remaining risk of relapse for women completing 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen without relapse. The first derived method shows that the expected benefit for such a woman is approximately one tenth of her risk of relapse in years 0–10 if untreated. The second method uses a modification of Adjuvant!, a decision support tool, and makes similar estimates. The decision tool supplies needed estimates of initial risk and allows adjustment for competing mortality. Uncertainties involved in making these estimates are also discussed.
PDF
