What is the current status of ovarian suppression/ablation in women with premenopausal early-stage breast cancer?

The role of ovarian suppression/ablation (OS/OA) in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer has been evolving for more than a century. It is clear that OS/OA is an effective adjuvant therapy for these women, but despite numerous studies enrolling thousands of women, many unanswered questions remain. In particular, a major question is whether additional benefit is gained with combination treatment comprising luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonists and tamoxifen over tamoxifen alone. Ongoing trials also are assessing the coupling of aromatase inhibitors (traditionally contraindicated in these patients because of paradoxic stimulation of estrogen production) and LH-RH agonists. Any potential disease-free or overall survival advantage of combination treatment must be balanced against a possible increase in adverse effects and impairment of quality of life. This review focuses on new data on how to incorporate OS/OA into the rational treatment of this challenging patient population.     

Management of premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: is there a role for ovarian suppression?

There is an overwhelming body of evidence that adjuvant ovarian ablation/suppression has a favorable impact on survival for premenopausal women with hormone-responsive early-stage breast cancer. This article reviews the randomized controlled trials that provide these data and the indirect evidence suggesting that much of the benefit seen for adjuvant chemotherapy in estrogen receptor-positive patients < 50 years of age is an indirect consequence of a chemical castration. Therefore, carefully selected women may have a choice of ovarian suppression with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue, such as goserelin, as an alternative to chemotherapy, which would allow younger premenopausal women to retain fertility. In addition, if chemotherapy is selected and the patient does not develop permanent amenorrhoea, then additional treatment with a GnRH analogue is indicated.     

What is the role of ovarian ablation in the management of primary and metastatic breast cancer today?

Ovarian ablation has been used for more than a century in the treatment of breast cancer. Methods of irreversible ovarian ablation include surgical oophorectomy and ovarian irradiation. Potentially reversible castration can be accomplished medically using luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues. In addition, cytotoxic chemotherapy unpredictably produces amenorrhea and primary ovarian failure in 10%-95% of premenopausal women as a function of patient age, cumulative dose, and the specific agents used. In the metastatic setting, ovarian ablation and tamoxifen monotherapies produce comparable outcomes and may be more effective when used together. While many early adjuvant trials of ovarian ablation were methodologically flawed, a more recent meta-analysis by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group of 12 properly designed randomized trials found significantly greater disease-free and overall survival rates for women under the age of 50, regardless of nodal status, receiving ovarian ablation as a single adjuvant therapy. Several important issues regarding the role of ovarian ablation in the treatment of breast cancer remain unresolved. Data suggest that ovarian ablation followed by some years of tamoxifen produces similar results to those seen with adjuvant chemotherapy in women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer; however, the value of combining these modalities is still unclear. Other areas of ongoing investigation include the appropriate duration of therapy with LHRH analogues in the adjuvant setting, the long-term sequelae of ovarian suppression among young breast cancer survivors, and refinement of the population most likely to benefit from ovarian ablation or suppression.     

What is the burden of axillary disease after neoadjuvant therapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer?

Background

The burden of axillary disease in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (labc) after neoadjuvant therapy (nat) has not been extensively described in a large modern cohort. Here, we describe the extent of nodal metastases after nat in patients with labc.

Methods

All patients with labc treated at a single institution during 2002–2007 were identified. Demographic, radiologic, and pathologic variables were extracted. To assess the extent of lymph node metastases after nat, patients were separated into two groups: those with and without clinical or radiologic evidence of lymph node metastases before nat. Axillary lymph nodes retrieved at surgery that had no evidence of metastases after hematoxylin and eosin (h&e) staining underwent further pathology evaluation.

Results

Of the 116 patients identified, 115 were female (median age: 48.5). Before nat, 26 patients were clinically and radiologically node-negative; of those 26, 14 were histologically negative on final pathology. After serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry, 9 of 26 (35%) were node-negative. Of the 90 patients who had clinical or radiologic evidence of lymph node metastases before nat, 23 (26%) had no evidence of lymph node metastases on h&e staining. After serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry, 19 (21%) had no further axillary lymph node metastases. Overall, 76% of patients had pathology evidence of lymph node metastases after nat.

Conclusions

Most patients with labc have axillary metastases after nat. Our findings support axillary lymph node dissection and locoregional radiation in most patients with labc after nat.     

What is the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of ovarian cancer?

Aggressive cytoreductive surgery followed by aggressive chemotherapy is the standard of care for advanced-stage ovarian cancer patients, among whom the greatest survival benefit is seen in those with no gross disease left after the initial surgical cytoreduction. Since this represents only 23% of stage III patients and 8% of stage IV patients, alternative strategies for patients who do not appear to be surgically cytoreducible to no macroscopic residual disease need to be identified. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which may offer a variety of benefits in this population, is one such strategy that is being evaluated in prospective randomized trials. This article reviews the current status of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the management of women with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.     

What is the current standard of care for anti-HER2 neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer?

Neoadjuvant treatment with a sequential anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in combination with trastuzumab (Herceptin) is currently a preferred therapy for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. This approach is based on the higher pathologic complete response (pCR) of 40% seen with the addition of trastuzumab, compared with a 17% pCR with chemotherapy alone. The pCR can be increased to 75% with dual HER2-receptor blockade and chemotherapy. Higher pCR rates are found in hormone-receptor-negative tumors. Patients with a pCR after chemotherapy and trastuzumab showed a significantly better outcome compared with those who did not have a pCR. The need for additional or alternate treatment options is great in patients who do not achieve a pCR. Addition of lapatinib (Tykerb) or pertuzumab (Omnitarg) to trastuzumab is a therapeutic option. Recent findings suggest pCR might not be the appropriate surrogate for long-term outcome in patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-positive tumors.     

What is the predictor for invasion in non-palpable breast cancer with microcalcifications?

PURPOSE: To assess the presence of invasion in non-palpable breast cancer with microcalcifications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We investigated 157 patients with non-palpable breast cancer with microcalcifications, who had undergone stereotactic core biopsy or vacuum-assisted breast biopsy and operation at the Cancer Institute Hospital between 1995 and 2001. We investigated the correlation between the area of calcification (maximum range of microcalcifications measured in mm by direct mammography), morphology of calcification on mammography, histological subtype of intraductal carcinoma (comedo or non-comedo) and frequency of invasion, and lymph node metastasis. The chi-square test was used in the statistical analysis and p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Invasion was observed in 33 of 157 pts (21%), of whom 23 showed minimal invasion, which is less than 0.5 cm in greatest diameter. The risk of invasion was 13% within 10 mm of the microcalcifications (n =70), 25% from 11 to 30 mm (n =59), and 32% more than 31 mm from the microcalcifications (n =28). The risk of invasion was 16% for punctate-round and amorphous type (n =87) microcalcifications, and 27% for pleomorphic and linear-branching types (n =70)(p =0.092). In addition, invasion was found 10% of the time within 10 mm of punctate-round and amorphous type microcalcifications, and 20% of the time at 11 mm or more. On the other hand, invasion was found 15% of the time within 10 mm of pleomorphic and linear-branching type microcalcifications, and 37% of the time at 11 mm or more. In 72 cases of intraductal carcinoma diagnosed by pathological examination, invasion was found in 10 of 31 (32%) comedo type intraductal carcinomas and in 5 of 41 (12%) non-comedo types (p =0.0379). There were 5 cases (3.2%) with axillary lymph node metastasis, all of which widely extended more than 21 mm from the microcalcifications. CONCLUSION: The risk of invasion was 10% within 10 mm of punctate-round and amorphous type microcalcifications, and 37% at more than 11 mm of pleomorphic, linear-branching microcalcifications.     

Obesity in breast cancer – What is the risk factor?

Environmental factors influence breast cancer incidence and progression. High body mass index (BMI) is associated with increased risk of post-menopausal breast cancer and with poorer outcome in those with a history of breast cancer. High BMI is generally interpreted as excess adiposity (overweight or obesity) and the World Cancer Research Fund judged that the associations between BMI and incidence of breast cancer were due to body fatness. Although BMI is the most common measure used to characterise body composition, it cannot distinguish lean mass from fat mass, or characterise body fat distribution, and so individuals with the same BMI can have different body composition. In particular, the relation between BMI and lean or fat mass may differ between people with or without disease. The question therefore arises as to what aspect or aspects of body composition are causally linked to the poorer outcome of breast cancer patients with high BMI. This question is not addressed in the literature. Most studies have used BMI, without discussion of its shortcomings as a marker of body composition, leading to potentially important misinterpretation. In this article we review the different measurements used to characterise body composition in the literature, and how they relate to breast cancer risk and prognosis. Further research is required to better characterise the relation of body composition to breast cancer.     

Can breast MRI help in the management of women with breast cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI was used to monitor breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients underwent CE MRI before and after therapy, together with conventional assessment methods (CAM). CE MRI was carried out at 1.5 T in the coronal plain with 3D sequences before and after bolus injection. An expert panel determined chemotherapy response using both CE MRI and CAM. Histopathological response in the surgical specimen was then used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of CE MRI and CAM. In total, 67 patients with 69 breast cancers were studied (mean age of 46 years). Tumour characteristics showed a high-risk tumour population: median size 49 mm: histopathological grade 3 (55%): oestrogen receptor (ER) negative (48%). Histopathological response was as follows: - complete pathological response (pCR) 17%; partial response (pPR) 68%; no response (NR) 15%. Sensitivity of CAM for pCR or pPR was 98% (CI 91-100%) and specificity was 50% (CI 19-81%). CE MRI sensitivity was 100% (CI 94-100%), and specificity was 80% (CI 44-97%). The absolute agreement between assessment methods and histopathology was marginally higher for CE MRI than CAM (81 vs 68%; P=0.09). In 71%, CE MRI increased diagnostic knowledge, although in 20% it was judged confusing or incorrect. The 2nd MRI study significantly increased diagnostic confidence, and in 19% could have changed the treatment plan. CE MRI persistently underestimated minimal residual disease. In conclusion, CE MRI of breast cancer proved more reliable for predicting histopathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than conventional assessment methods.     

What is the best choice of partner chemotherapy with trastuzumab for metastatic breast cancer?

The HER2 gene and its role in pathogenicity in human breast cancer were detected in the 1980s. Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against the HER2 membrane receptor. The aim of this article is to describe chemotherapy-trastuzumab combinations that have been evaluated in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, and to define the possible standards and options.     

Long-term outcomes among African–American and white women with breast cancer: What is the impact of comorbidity?

ObjectivesWe examined the association between comorbidity and long-term mortality from breast cancer and other causes among African–American and white women with breast cancer.MethodsA total of 170 African–American and 829 white women aged 40–84 years were followed for up to 28 years with median follow-up of 11.3 years in the Health and Functioning in Women (HFW) study. The impact of the Charlson Comorbidity Score (CCS) in the first few months following breast cancer diagnosis on the risk of mortality from breast cancer and other causes was examined using extended Cox models.ResultsMedian follow-up was significantly shorter for African–American women than their white counterparts (median 8.5 years vs. 12.3 years). Compared to white women, African–American women had significantly fewer years of education, greater body mass index, were more likely to have functional limitations and later stage at breast cancer diagnosis, and fewer had adequate financial resources (all P < 0.05). Proportionately more African–American women died of breast cancer than white women (37.1% vs. 31.4%, P = 0.15). A positive and statistically significant time-varying effect of the Charlson Comorbidity Score (CCS) on other-cause mortality persisted throughout the first 5 years of follow-up (P < 0.001) but not for its remainder.ConclusionsHigher CCS was associated with increased risk of other-cause mortality, but not breast cancer specific mortality; the association did not differ among African–American and white women.     

What is the Japanese consensus on adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer?

The international conference of adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer in St. Gallen and the National Institute of Health Consensus Conference for Breast Cancer Treatment have recommended appropriate treatment for individual subgroups by recurrence risk. However, evidence provided by Japanese clinical trials did not contribute to the consensus recommendations. To compare the risk of recurrence in breast cancer patients between Japan and western countries, a database of Japanese breast cancer patients was analyzed. From 1991 to 2001, approximately 12100 articles listed on MEDLINE were reviewed by abstract, and articles were then selected and reviewed by the authors. According to the AHPC (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research), quality assessment and strength for recommendation of the evidence from clinical trials were classified. Even though there are likely some unknown ethnic differences, we should provide Japanese patients with state of the art treatment for breast cancer in accordance with global standard therapies, which have been evaluated by breast cancer specialists in western countries.     

The aromatase inhibitors (plus ovarian function suppression) in premenopausal breast cancer patients: Ready for prime time?

Tamoxifen alone or the combination of ovarian function suppression (OFS) and tamoxifen are the mainstay of hormonal therapy in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer. The results of large trials conducted with the third generation of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) in the metastatic, neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, indicated better outcomes among postmenopausal breast cancer patients with endocrine responsive disease given AIs than among those given tamoxifen. These results supported the investigation of AIs in combination with OFS in premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive breast cancer. In this article we reviewed the efficacy and toxicity data on the use of AIs combined with OFS in premenopausal breast cancer patients in metastatic, neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.