Breast Specimen Radiography: Can It Predict Margin Status of Excised Breast Carcinoma?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study examined the value of intraoperative specimen radiography (SR) in determining margin status of excised breast lesions. Of interest was the concordance between the radiologic and histopathologic interpretation of margins. We investigated the influence of in situ disease and of one versus two radiologic views on this concordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study consisted of 112 women who underwent breast conservation therapy (BCT) during 2002. Margins were examined with one- or two-view SR. Margins were histologically positive if malignant cells resided < or = 1 mm from the specimen edge. The McNemar's test was used to determine concordance between SR and histopathology (HP). Because surgeons excised extra tissue in cases of positive radiologic margins, we believe that a change in margin status occurred in which true positives became false positives. Accordingly, we analyzed our data with multiple iterations in which, one by one, false positives were considered true positives. RESULTS: Concordance between SR and HP reached statistical significance after 5/17 false positives were considered true positives. Data excluding DCIS reached significance after 6 of 6 false positives were considered true positives. One- and two-view SR reached significance when 2 of 8 and 7 of 9 false positives, respectively, were considered true positives. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our study suggests that SR can aid in margin assessment for patients undergoing BCT. We did not find that concordance between SR and HP is higher in cases of purely invasive disease. Concordance was higher in one-view SR in comparison to two-view. A larger sample size should be analyzed before recommending against using two views.     

Breast cancer screening; cost-effective in practice?

The main aim of national breast screening is a reduction in breast cancer mortality. The data on the reduction in breast cancer mortality from three (of the five) Swedish trials in particular gave rise to the expectation that the Dutch programme of 2-yearly screening for women aged 50-70 would produce a 16% reduction in the total population. In all likelihood, many of the years of life gained as a result of screening are enjoyed in good health. According to its critics the actual benefit that can be achieved from the national breast cancer screening programmes is overstated. Considerable benefits have recently been demonstrated in England and Wales. However, the fall was so considerable in such a relatively short space of time that screening (started in 1987) was thought to only have played a small part. As far as the Dutch screening programme is concerned it is still too early to reach any conclusions about a possible reduction in mortality. The first short-term results of the screening are favourable and as good as (or better than) expectations. In Swedish regions where mammographic screening was introduced, a 19% reduction in breast cancer mortality can be estimated at population level, and recently a 20% reduction was presented in the UK. In countries where women are expected to make appointments for screening themselves, the attendance figures are significantly lower and the quality of the process as a whole is sometimes poorer. The benefits of breast cancer screening need to be carefully balanced against the burden to women and to the health care system. Mass breast screening requires many resources and will be a costly service. Cost-effectiveness of a breast cancer screening programme can be estimated using a computer model. Published cost-effectiveness ratios may differ tremendously, but are often the result of different types of calculation, time periods considered, including or excluding downstream cost. The approach of simulation and estimation is here the same for all countries. The effects of a breast-screening program depend on many factors, such as the epidemiology of the disease, the health care system, costs of health care, the quality of the screening programme and the attendance rate. The estimated CE-ratio ranges from 2650 euros per life-year gained in Navarra to 9650 in Germany. Although relatively low incidence levels expected, the CE-ratio in Navarra is most favourable probably due to a relatively unfavourable clinical stage distribution before screening and the increasing incidence. The UK has a screening situation that is almost similar with the Netherlands. Therefore, the CE-ratios of both countries are comparable. The differences between countries make it impossible to set up one uniform screening policy. The theoretical outcomes of the benefit that can be achieved are generally from small-scale trials involving a limited number of experts, persons examined, and areas. On a national scale, with hundreds of professional practitioners, it can be expected to be more difficult to attain uniform quality. Continuous quality control, monitoring and evaluation are therefore crucial.     

Do All Patients of Breast Carcinoma Need 3-Dimensional CT-Based Planning? A Dosimetric Study Comparing Different Breast Sizes

Evaluation of dose distribution in a single plane (i.e., 2-dimensional [2D] planning) is simple and less resource-intensive than CT-based 3-dimensional radiotherapy (3DCRT) planning or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The aim of the study was to determine if 2D planning could be an appropriate treatment in a subgroup of breast cancer patients based on their breast size. Twenty consecutive patients who underwent breast conservation were planned for radiotherapy. The patients were grouped in 3 different categories based on their respective chest wall separation (CWS) and the thickness of breast, as “small,” “medium,” and “large.” Two more contours were taken at locations 5 cm superior and 5 cm inferior to the isocenter plane. Maximum dose recorded at specified points was compared in superior/inferior slices as compared to the central slice. The mean difference for small breast size was 1.93 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.08). For medium breas size, the mean difference was 2.98 (SD = 2.40). For the large breasts, the mean difference was 4.28 (SD = 2.69). Based on our dosimetric study, breast planning only on the single isocentric contour is an appropriate technique for patients with small breasts. However, for large- and medium-size breasts, CT-based planning and 3D planning have a definite role. These results can be especially useful for rationalizing treatment in busy oncology centers.     

Breast Boost - Why, How, When ...?

Background: Breast conservation management including tumorectomy or quadrantectomy and external beam radio-therapy with a dose of 45 to 50 Gy in the treatment of small breast carcinomas is generally accepted. The use of a radiation boost - in particular for specific subgroups - has not been clarified. With regard to the boost technique there is some controversy between groups emphasizing the value of electron boost treatment and groups pointing out the value of interstitial boost treatment. This controversy has become even more complicated as there is an increasing number of institutions reporting the use of HDR interstitial brachytherapy for boost treatment. The most critical issue with regard to interstitial HDR brachytherapy is the assumed serious long-term morbidity after a high single radiation dose as used in HDR-treatments. Methods and Results: This article gives a perspective and recommendations on some aspects of this issue (indication, timing, target volume, dose and dose rate). Conclusion: More information about the indication for a boost is to be expected from the EORTC trial 22881/10882. Careful selection of treatment procedures for specific subgroups of patients and refinement in surgical procedures and radiotherapy techniques may be useful in improving the clinical and cosmetic results in breast conservation therapy. Prospective trials comparing on the one hand different boost techniques and on the other hand particular morphologic criteria in treatments with boost and without boost are needed to give more detailed recommendations for boost indications and for boost techniques. Hintergrund: Die brusterhaltende Mammachirurgie mit Tumorektomie oder Quadrantektomie und anschließender Radiotherapie mit einer Dosis von 45 bis 50 Gy zur Behandlung des frühen Mammakarzinoms ist allgemein akzeptiert. Die Frage der ergänzenden Verabreichung eines Boost, speziell bezüglich bestimmter Untergruppen, ist nicht vollständig geklärt. Es gibt unterschiedliche Auffassungen in der Methode der Boostapplikation, wobei die einen Institutionen den Elektronen-Boost vorziehen, die anderen aber die interstitielle Implantation. Die zunehmende Anwendung der HDR-Quellen in der interstitiellen Brachytherapie hat die Kontroverse verstärkt, gerade im Hinblick auf die schon vor ein bis zwei Jahrzehnten diskutierten Vermutungen, eine einzige hochdosierte HDR-Fraktion verursache schwerwiegende Spätschäden. Material und Ergebnisse: Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über den Boost mit einigen Empfehlungen für die Anwendung. Schlußfolgerung: Nähere Informationen bezüglich der Indikation eines Boosts sind von der EORTC-Studie 22881/10882 zu erwarten. Eine sorgfältige Auswahl der Behandlungsmethode für die für einen Boost in Betracht kommenden Patientinnen und eine Verfeinerung der chirurgischen und strahlentherapeutischen Techniken können die klinischen und kosmetischen Ergebnisse im Rahmen der brusterhaltenden Behandlung verbessern. Für detaillierte Empfehlungen bezüglich Boost-Indikation und Boost-Methode sind prospektive Studien erforderlich, welche die klinischen und kosmetischen Ergebnisse einerseits nach verschiedenen Boost-Techniken und andererseits nach Strahlentherapie mit und ohne Boost in bezug auf spezielle morphologische Kriterien vergleichen.     

Is Grading of Breast Fibrosis with Mammography Feasible?

PURPOSE: To establish a grading system for mammographic fibrosis and correlate it with clinical fibrosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analogous to the LENT/SOMA scale a four-tiered scoring scale of breast fibrosis in mammography (G0 = absent, G1 = barely increased density, G2 = definitely increased density to G3 = very marked density) was established by two observers in a group of 16 patients. Reference mammograms were selected. Independently and blinded to clinical results, three observers scored the fibrosis in mammograms of further 31 patients examined by one radiation oncologist in a cross-sectional follow-up study. Pretreatment parenchyma density was judged according to the American College of Radiology (ACR). Interobserver correlation of mammography scoring as well as correlation of mammography and clinical findings were calculated with Cohen's weighted kappa. All patients had breast-conserving surgery and axillary resection for breast carcinoma T1-2N0-1. The breast was irradiated to a median reference dose of 55 Gy (range 50-60 Gy) with 2 Gy five times weekly or 2.5 Gy four times weekly. Two patients received chemotherapy, 14 patients tamoxifen. Median age was 55 years, median follow-up 8 years (4-15 years). RESULTS: 14 of 31 patients had clinical fibrosis, twelve G1 and two G2. In mammography, mild fibrosis (G1) was seen in 12/12/18 patients (observer 1/2/3) and moderate fibrosis (G2) in 9/10/2 patients. Interobserver correlation for observers 1 and 2 who had developed the score was fair (Cohen's weighted kappa 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.4-0.88). However, it was weak for observer 3 (0.36 and 0.42, respectively) who relied on reference mammograms only. Independent interobserver correlation of pretreatment breast density was good for all observers (Cohen's weighted kappa 0.73-0.8). The correlation of fibrosis by mammography and palpation was weak (Cohen's weighted kappa 0.32-0.42). CONCLUSION: Grading fibrosis as depicted by mammography is possible, especially if observers prepare by jointly analyzing a training group. It may be useful to study treatment effects, e. g., of fractionation or drugs, because retrospective and repeated analysis is possible. The correlation of mammography with clinical grading should be further evaluated with more objective clinical reference tools.     

Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough?

The amount of breast compression that is applied during mammography potentially influences image quality and the discomfort experienced. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between applied compression force, breast thickness, reported discomfort and image quality. Participants were women attending routine breast screening by mammography at BreastScreen New South Wales Central and Eastern Sydney. During the mammographic procedure, an 'extra' craniocaudal (CC) film was taken at a reduced level of compression ranging from 10 to 30 Newtons. Breast thickness measurements were recorded for both the normal and the extra CC film. Details of discomfort experienced, cup size, menstrual status, existing breast pain and breast problems were also recorded. Radiologists were asked to compare the image quality of the normal and manipulated film. The results indicated that 24% of women did not experience a difference in thickness when the compression was reduced. This is an important new finding because the aim of breast compression is to reduce breast thickness. If breast thickness is not reduced when compression force is applied then discomfort is increased with no benefit in image quality. This has implications for mammographic practice when determining how much breast compression is sufficient. Radiologists found a decrease in contrast resolution within the fatty area of the breast between the normal and the extra CC film, confirming a decrease in image quality due to insufficient applied compression force.     

Breast screening policy: are we heading in the right direction?

There is a large body of evidence supporting 2-yearly screening of women aged 50-69 years. There is good evidence for a mortality reduction from mammographic screening in women aged 40 to 49 years but a 1-year interval is required. The lack of specificity of screening in young women does remain a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that a single screen between the ages of 47 and 50 years within a programme screening at 3-year intervals will reduce mortality; the trials showing a mortality benefit in women in their 40s included multiple screening episodes and shorter screening intervals. There is no randomized, controlled trial evidence to support screening in women aged above 70 years and screening this age group will cause greater harm than in younger women through higher rates of over-diagnosis and consequent over-treatment. The randomized phase of the screening age extension, which at the moment is planned to last only 6 years, should not be immediately followed by general implementation of the policy. Only if and when additional mortality reductions and an acceptable balance between benefit and harms are shown to be achieved by the extra screens should the 2007 Cancer Reform Strategy policy on age extension be implemented. Resources saved by delaying or abandoning the roll-out of the age extension could potentially be redirected towards reducing the current 3 year screening interval to 2 years in women aged 50-69 years. However, reducing the screening interval to 2 years for women aged 50-69 years would require significantly more screening invitations and resources than the proposed age extension.