Outcome without any adjuvant systemic treatment in stage I ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients included in the MINDACT trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant systemic treatments (AST) reduce mortality, but have associated short- and long-term toxicities. Careful selection of patients likely to benefit from AST is needed. We evaluated outcome of low-risk breast cancer patients of the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT trial who received no AST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative tumors ≤2 cm who received no AST were matched 1 : 1 to patients with similar tumor characteristics treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), using propensity score matching and exact matching on age, genomic risk (70-gene signature) and grade. In a post hoc analysis, distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios (HR) by Cox regression. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) were assessed with competing risk analyses. RESULTS: At 8 years, DMFI rates were 94.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7% to 96.9%] in 509 patients receiving no AST, and 97.3% (95% CI 95.8% to 98.8%) in 509 matched patients who received only ET [absolute difference: 2.5%, HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.30-1.03)]. No statistically significant difference was seen in 8-year OS rates, 95.4% (95% CI 93.5% to 97.4%) in patients receiving no AST and 95.6% (95% CI 93.8% to 97.5%) in patients receiving only ET [absolute difference: 0.2%, HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.53-1.41)]. Cumulative incidence rates of LRR and CBC were 4.7% (95% CI 3.0% to 7.0%) and 4.6% (95% CI 2.9% to 6.9%) in patients receiving no AST versus 1.4% (95% CI 0.6% to 2.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI 0.6% to 3.1%) in patients receiving only ET. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage I low-risk breast cancer, the effect of ET on DMFI was limited, but overall significantly fewer breast cancer events were observed in patients who received ET, after the relatively short follow-up of 8 years. These benefits and side-effects of ET should be discussed with all patients, even those at a very low risk of distant metastasis.

Combining method of detection and 70-gene signature for enhanced prognostication of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Studies have shown that screen detection by national screening programs is independently associated with better prognosis of breast cancer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between tumor biology according to the 70-gene signature (70-GS) and survival of patients with screen-detected and interval breast cancers. METHODS: All Dutch breast cancer patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial (EORTC-10041/BIG3-04) accrued 2007-2011, who participated in the national screening program (biennial screening, ages 50-75) were included (n = 1102). Distant Metastasis-Free Interval (DMFI) was evaluated according to the 70-GS for patients with screen-detected (n = 754) and interval cancers (n = 348). RESULTS: Patients with screen-detected cancers had 8-year DMFI rates of 98.2% for 70-GS ultralow-, 94.6% for low-, and 93.8% for high-risk tumors (p = 0.4). For interval cancers, there was a significantly lower 8-year DMFI rate for patients with 70-GS high-risk tumors (85.2%) compared to low- (92.2%) and ultralow-risk tumors (97.4%, p = 0.0023). Among patients with 70-GS high-risk tumors, a significant difference in 8-year DMFI rate was observed between interval (85.2%, n = 166) versus screen-detected cancers (93.8%, n = 238; p = 0.002) with a HR of 2.3 (95%CI 1.2-4.4, p = 0.010) adjusted for clinical-pathological characteristics and adjuvant systemic treatment. CONCLUSION: Among patients with 70-GS high-risk tumors, a significant difference in DMFI was observed between screen-detected and interval cancers, suggesting that method of detection is an additional prognostic factor in this subgroup and should be taken into account when deciding on adjuvant treatment strategies.

De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017.

The 15th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2017 in Vienna, Austria reviewed substantial new evidence on loco-regional and systemic therapies for early breast cancer. Treatments were assessed in light of their intensity, duration and side-effects, seeking where appropriate to escalate or de-escalate therapies based on likely benefits as predicted by tumor stage and tumor biology. The Panel favored several interventions that may reduce surgical morbidity, including acceptance of 2 mm margins for DCIS, the resection of residual cancer (but not baseline extent of cancer) in women undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, acceptance of sentinel node biopsy following neoadjuvant treatment of many patients, and the preference for neoadjuvant therapy in HER2 positive and triple-negative, stage II and III breast cancer. The Panel favored escalating radiation therapy with regional nodal irradiation in high-risk patients, while encouraging omission of boost in low-risk patients. The Panel endorsed gene expression signatures that permit avoidance of chemotherapy in many patients with ER positive breast cancer. For women with higher risk tumors, the Panel escalated recommendations for adjuvant endocrine treatment to include ovarian suppression in premenopausal women, and extended therapy for postmenopausal women. However, low-risk patients can avoid these treatments. Finally, the Panel recommended bisphosphonate use in postmenopausal women to prevent breast cancer recurrence. The Panel recognized that recommendations are not intended for all patients, but rather to address the clinical needs of the majority of common presentations. Individualization of adjuvant therapy means adjusting to the tumor characteristics, patient comorbidities and preferences, and managing constraints of treatment cost and access that may affect care in both the developed and developing world.

Combined PET-CT and axillary lymph node marking with radioactive iodine seeds (MARI procedure) for tailored axillary treatment in node-positive breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of axillary lymph node metastases after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) remains debatable and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is still the standard of care. Marking axillary lymph nodes with radioactive iodine seeds (MARI procedure) is accurate in restaging the axilla after NST (false-negative rate 7 per cent). Here, the potential of tailored axillary treatment, determined by combining the results of PET-CT before NST with those of the MARI procedure after NST, was analysed. METHODS: A cohort of axillary node-positive patients was used to construct a hypothetical treatment algorithm based on a combination of PET-CT and the MARI procedure. In the algorithm, the number of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid axillary lymph nodes (1-3 versus 4 or more) before NST and the tumour status of the MARI node (positive versus negative) after NST were used to tailor axillary treatment. All patients in the cohort underwent ALND, allowing estimation of potential overtreatment and undertreatment. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were included in the study. Between one and three FDG-avid axillary lymph nodes were observed in 59 patients, and four or more in 34 patients. The MARI node was tumour-negative in 32 patients and showed residual disease in 61. Treatment according to the constructed algorithm would have resulted in 74 per cent of patients avoiding an ALND, with potential undertreatment in three patients (3 per cent) and overtreatment in 16 (17 per cent). CONCLUSION: Tailored axillary treatment after NST in node-positive patients, by combining PET-CT before NST and the MARI procedure after NST, has the potential for ALND to be avoided in 74 per cent of patients.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted in DCIS patients treated with breast conserving therapy.

Breast cancer guidelines advise sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy at high risk of invasive cancer or in case of mastectomy. This study investigates the incidence of SLNB and SLN metastases and the relevance of indications in guidelines and literature to perform SLNB in order to validate whether SLNB is justified in patients with DCIS on core biopsy in current era. Clinically node negative patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2013 with only DCIS on core needle biopsy were selected from a national database. Incidence of SLN biopsy and metastases was calculated. With Fisher exact tests correlation between SLNB indications and actual presence of SLN metastases was studied. Further, underestimation rate for invasive cancer and correlation with SLN metastases was analysed. 910 patients were included. SLNB was performed in 471 patients (51.8 %): 94.5 % had pN0, 3.0 % pN1mi and 2.5 % pN1. Patients undergoing mastectomy had 7 % SLN metastases versus 3.5 % for breast conserving surgery (BCS) (p = 0.107). The only factors correlating to SLN metastases were smaller core needle size (p = 0.01) and invasive cancer (p < 0.001). Invasive cancer was detected in 16.7 % by histopathology with 15.6 % SLN metastases versus only 2 % in pure DCIS. SLNB showed metastases in 5.5 % of patients; 3.5 % in case of BCS (any histopathology) and 2 % when pure DCIS was found at definitive histopathology (BCS and mastectomy). Consequently, SLNB should no longer be performed in patients diagnosed with DCIS on core biopsy undergoing BCS. If definitive histopathology shows invasive cancer, SLNB can still be considered after initial surgery.

Radioactive seed localization in breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening, improved imaging and neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) have led to increased numbers of non-palpable tumours suitable for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Accurate tumour localization is essential to achieve a complete resection in these patients. This study evaluated the role of radioactive seed localization (RSL) in improving breast- and axilla-conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer with or without NST. METHODS: Patients who underwent RSL between 2007 and 2014 were included. Learning curves were analysed by the rates of minimally involved (in situ/invasive tumour cells on a length of 0-4 mm on ink) and positive resection margins (over 4 mm on ink) after BCS, and the median resection volume over time. RESULTS: A total of 367 patients with in situ carcinomas and 199 with non-palpable invasive breast cancer underwent RSL before primary surgery. A further 697 patients had RSL before NST, of whom 206 also underwent RSL of a histologically verified axillary lymph node metastasis. BCS was performed in 93·2 and 87·9 per cent of patients undergoing primary surgery for in situ and invasive tumours respectively, and 57·5 per cent of those in the NST group. The rate of BCS with positive resection margins was low and stable over time in the three groups (9·1, 9·7 and 11·2 per cent respectively). The median resection volume decreased significantly with time in the invasive cancer and NST groups. CONCLUSION: In the present study of more than 1200 patients and 7 years of experience, RSL was shown to facilitate breast- and axilla-conserving surgery in a diverse patient population. There was a significant reduction in resection volume while maintaining low positive resection margin rates after BCS.

The Value of Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence as a Quality Indicator: Hospital Variation in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: All Dutch hospitals are obliged to report their 5-year ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rate after breast cancer surgery. Experts decided that these rates should not exceed 5 %. This study determined the value of IBTR as an indicator to compare quality of care between hospitals. METHODS: All patients with breast cancer (pT1-3, any N, M0) who underwent surgery in 1 of 92 Dutch hospitals from 2003 to 2006 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data of recurrence was retrieved from hospital records. Five-year IBTR rates for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hospital variation was presented in funnel plots. Multivariate analysis was used to assess hospital characteristics associated with IBTR rates. RESULTS: A total of 40,892 breast cancer patients were included. The overall 5-year IBTR rate was 2.85 % (95 % confidence interval 2.68-3.03) and was significantly lower for BCS than for mastectomy (2.38 vs. 3.45 %, p < 0.001). IBTR rates decreased over time in both groups. Rates varied between 0.77 and 5.70 % between hospitals. When random variation is taken into account, only extremely high IBTR rates can be detected as deviant from the target value of 5 %. Adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, analyses showed that a higher volume of mastectomies is associated with lower IBTR rates. CONCLUSIONS: Our population-based findings show that IBTR rates in the Netherlands are low and have improved over time. The 5-year IBTR rate as an indicator for quality of care of individual hospitals is of limited value.

Impact of rapid genetic counselling and testing on the decision to undergo immediate or delayed prophylactic mastectomy in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: findings from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Female breast cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation have an increased risk of contralateral breast cancer. We investigated the effect of rapid genetic counselling and testing (RGCT) on choice of surgery. METHODS: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with at least a 10% risk of a BRCA1/2 mutation were randomised to an intervention group (offer of RGCT) or a control group (usual care; ratio 2 : 1). Primary study outcomes were uptake of direct bilateral mastectomy (BLM) and delayed contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2010, we recruited 265 women. On the basis of intention-to-treat analyses, no significant group differences were observed in percentage of patients opting for a direct BLM (14.6% for the RGCT group vs 9.2% for the control group; odds ratio (OR) 2.31; confidence interval (CI) 0.92-5.81; P=0.08) or for a delayed CPM (4.5% for the RGCT group vs 5.7% for the control group; OR 0.89; CI 0.27-2.90; P=0.84). Per-protocol analysis indicated that patients who received DNA test results before surgery (59 out of 178 women in the RGCT group) opted for direct BLM significantly more often than patients who received usual care (22% vs 9.2%; OR 3.09, CI 1.15-8.31, P=0.03). INTERPRETATION: Although the large majority of patients in the intervention group underwent rapid genetic counselling, only a minority received DNA test results before surgery. This may explain why offering RGCT yielded only marginally significant differences in uptake of BLM. As patients who received DNA test results before surgery were more likely to undergo BLM, we hypothesise that when DNA test results are made routinely available pre-surgery, they will have a more significant role in surgical treatment decisions.

Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers.

Overdiagnosis of breast cancer, i.e. the detection of slow-growing tumors that would never have caused symptoms or death, became more prevalent with the implementation of population-based screening. Only rough estimates have been made of the proportion of patients that are overdiagnosed and identification of those patients is difficult. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate whether tumor biology can help identify patients with screen-detected tumors at such a low risk of recurrence that they are likely to be overdiagnosed. Furthermore, we wish to evaluate the impact of the transition from film-screen mammography (FSM) to the more sensitive full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on the biology of the tumors detected by each screening-modality. All Dutch breast cancer patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial (EORTC-10041) accrued 2007-2011, who participated in the national screening program (biennial screening ages 50-75) were included (n = 1,165). We calculated the proportions of high-, low- and among those the ultralow-risk tumors according to the 70-gene signature for patients with screen-detected (n = 775) and interval (n = 390) cancers for FSM and FFDM. Screen-detected cancers had significantly more often a low-risk tumor biology (68 %) of which 54 % even an ultralow-risk compared to interval cancers (53 % low-, of which 45 % ultralow-risk (p = 0.001) with an OR of 2.33 (p < 0.0001; 95 % CI 1.73-3.15). FFDM detected significantly more high-risk tumors (35 %) compared to FSM (27 %) (p = 0.011). Aside from favorable clinico-pathological factors, screen-detected cancers were also more likely to have a biologically low-risk or even ultralow-risk tumor. Especially for patients with screen-detected cancers the use of tools, such as the 70-gene signature, to differentiate breast cancers by risk of recurrence may minimize overtreatment. The recent transition in screening-modalities led to an increase in the detection of biologically high-risk cancers using FFDM.

Optimized outcome prediction in breast cancer by combining the 70-gene signature with clinical risk prediction algorithms.

Clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment differ in their selection of patients at a high risk of recurrence who are eligible to receive adjuvant systemic treatment (AST). The 70-gene signature is a molecular tool to better guide AST decisions. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether adding the 70-gene signature to clinical risk prediction algorithms can optimize outcome prediction and consequently treatment decisions in early stage, node-negative breast cancer patients. A 70-gene signature was available for 427 patients participating in the RASTER study (cT1-3N0M0). Median follow-up was 61.6 months. Based on 5-year distant-recurrence free interval (DRFI) probabilities survival areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated and compared for risk estimations based on the six clinical risk prediction algorithms: Adjuvant! Online (AOL), Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), St. Gallen (2003), the Dutch National guidelines (CBO 2004 and NABON 2012), and PREDICT plus. Also, survival AUC were calculated after adding the 70-gene signature to these clinical risk estimations. Systemically untreated patients with a high clinical risk estimation but a low risk 70-gene signature had an excellent 5-year DRFI varying between 97.1 and 100 %, depending on the clinical risk prediction algorithms used in the comparison. The best risk estimation was obtained in this cohort by adding the 70-gene signature to CBO 2012 (AUC: 0.644) and PREDICT (AUC: 0.662). Clinical risk estimations by all clinical algorithms improved by adding the 70-gene signature. Patients with a low risk 70-gene signature have an excellent survival, independent of their clinical risk estimation. Adding the 70-gene signature to clinical risk prediction algorithms improves risk estimations and therefore might improve the identification of early stage node-negative breast cancer patients for whom AST has limited value. In this cohort, the PREDICT plus tool in combination with the 70-gene signature provided the best risk prediction.

A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study.

The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint™) has been developed on retrospective series of breast cancer patients to predict the risk of breast cancer distant metastases. The microarRAy-prognoSTics-in-breast-cancER (RASTER) study was the first study designed to prospectively evaluate the performance of the 70-gene signature, which result was available for 427 patients (cT1-3N0M0). Adjuvant systemic treatment decisions were based on the Dutch CBO 2004 guidelines, the 70-gene signature and doctors' and patients' preferences. Five-year distant-recurrence-free-interval (DRFI) probabilities were compared between subgroups based on the 70-gene signature and Adjuvant! Online (AOL) (10-year survival probability <90% was defined as high-risk). Median follow-up was 61.6 months. Fifteen percent (33/219) of the 70-gene signature low-risk patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) versus 81% (169/208) of the 70-gene signature high-risk patients. The 5-year DRFI probabilities for 70-gene signature low-risk (n = 219) and high-risk (n = 208) patients were 97.0% and 91.7%. The 5-year DRFI probabilities for AOL low-risk (n = 132) and high-risk (n = 295) patients were 96.7% and 93.4%. For 70-gene signature low-risk-AOL high-risk patients (n = 124), of whom 76% (n = 94) had not received ACT, 5-year DRFI was 98.4%. In the AOL high-risk group, 32% (94/295) less patients would be eligible to receive ACT if the 70-gene signature was used. In this prospective community-based observational study, the 5-year DRFI probabilities confirmed the additional prognostic value of the 70-gene signature to clinicopathological risk estimations such as AOL. Omission of adjuvant chemotherapy as judged appropriate by doctors and patients and instigated by a low-risk 70-gene signature result, appeared not to compromise outcome.

Outcomes of a population-based series of early breast cancer patients with micrometastases and isolated tumour cells in axillary lymph nodes.

BACKGROUND: Axillary lymph node staging is traditionally important to provide prognostic information to guide further treatment. However, the relevance of isolated tumour cells (ITC) or micrometastases in axillary nodes and the need for adjuvant treatment remain uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 18 370 patients with pT1-2 breast cancer with pN0, pN0i+ or pN1mi were analysed. The primary end point was 5-year disease-free survival (locoregional recurrence, distant metastases or contralateral breast cancer). RESULTS: Five-year disease-free survival was 89.9% [95% confidence interval 89.5% to 90.4%]; and did not differ significantly between groups. After adjusting for prognostic factors (including treatment), patients with ITC had a comparable risk (hazard ratio = 1.12) as patients with node-negative disease, while patients with micrometastases had a 38% higher risk of recurrence. CONCLUSION(S): Patients with ITC and node-negative breast cancer appear to have similar prognosis, and those with micrometastases have a 38% higher risk of tumour recurrence. However, considering that disease-free survival is already high, we are reluctant to advise chemotherapy in all patients with ITC or micrometastases. In future, genomic tumour characteristics might predict the propensity of dissemination from the primary cancer better than the status of the axillary lymph nodes.

Identification of a low-risk subgroup of HER-2-positive breast cancer by the 70-gene prognosis signature.

BACKGROUND: overexpression of HER-2 is observed in 15-25% of breast cancers, and is associated with increased risk of recurrence. Current guidelines recommend trastuzumab and chemotherapy for most HER-2-positive patients. However, the majority of patients does not recur and might thus be overtreated with adjuvant systemic therapy. We investigated whether the 70-gene MammaPrint signature identifies HER-2-positive patients with favourable outcome. METHODS: in all, 168 T1-3, N0-1, HER-2-positive patients were identified from a pooled database, classified by the 70-gene signature as good or poor prognosis, and correlated with long-term outcome. A total of 89 of these patients did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: in the group of 89 chemotherapy-naive patients, after a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 35 (39%) distant recurrences and 29 (33%) breast cancer-specific deaths occurred. The 70-gene signature classified 20 (22%) patients as good prognosis, with 10-year distant disease-free survival (DDFS) of 84%, compared with 69 (78%) poor prognosis patients with 10-year DDFS of 55%. The estimated hazard ratios (HRs) were 4.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-18.7, P=0.04) and 3.8 (95% CI 0.9-15.8, P=0.07) for DDFS and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), respectively. In multivariate analysis adjusted for known prognostic factors and hormonal therapy, HRs were 5.8 (95% CI 1.3-26.7, P=0.03) and 4.7 (95% CI 1.0-21.7, P=0.05) for DDFS and BCSS, respectively. INTERPRETATION: the 70-gene prognosis signature is an independent prognostic indicator that identifies a subgroup of HER-2-positive early breast cancer with a favourable long-term outcome.

The 70-gene prognosis signature predicts early metastasis in breast cancer patients between 55 and 70 years of age.

BACKGROUND: The majority of breast cancer patients are postmenopausal women who are increasingly being offered adjuvant chemotherapy. Since the beneficial effect of chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients predominantly occurs in the first 5 years after diagnosis, a prognostic marker for early events can be of use for adjuvant treatment decision making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the 70-gene prognosis signature for early events in postmenopausal patients. METHODS: Frozen tumor samples from 148 patients aged 55-70 years were selected (T1-2, N0) and classified by the 70-gene prognosis signature (MammaPrint) into good or poor prognosis. Eighteen percent received hormonal therapy. RESULTS: Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) at 5 years was 99% for the good-prognosis signature versus 80% for the poor-prognosis signature group (P = 0.036). The 70-gene prognosis signature was a significant and independent predictor of BCCS during the first 5 years of follow-up with an adjusted hazard ratio of 14.4 (95% confidence interval 1.7-122.2; P = 0.01) at 5 years. CONCLUSION: The 70-gene prognosis signature can accurately select postmenopausal patients at low risk of breast cancer-related death within 5 years of diagnosis and can be of clinical use in selecting postmenopausal women for adjuvant chemotherapy.

Marking the axilla with radioactive iodine seeds (MARI procedure) may reduce the need for axillary dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: An important benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the increased potential for breast-conserving surgery. At present the response of axillary lymph node metastases to chemotherapy is not easily assessed, rendering axilla-conserving treatment difficult. The aim was to assess a new surgical method for evaluating the axillary response to chemotherapy. METHODS: Before neoadjuvant chemotherapy, proven tumour-positive axillary lymph nodes were localized using ultrasound-guided insertion of iodine-125-labelled (I-125) seeds. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the marked lymph nodes were removed selectively with the use of a gamma probe. A complete axillary lymph node clearance was carried out to determine whether the pathological response in the marked node was indicative of that in the other lymph nodes. RESULTS: Tumour-positive axillary lymph nodes were localized successfully with I-125 seeds in 15 patients. The marked lymph node was detected and removed selectively after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in all patients. The pathological response to chemotherapy in the marked lymph node was indicative of the overall response in other removed lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: This study showed that marking and selectively removing metastatic lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was feasible. The tumour response in the marked lymph node may be used to tailor further axillary treatment, making axilla-conserving surgery a possibility.

BRCA testing of breast cancer patients: medical specialists' referral patterns, knowledge and attitudes to genetic testing.

This study explores knowledge about hereditary breast cancer, attitudes about BRCA testing and referral pattern to a family cancer clinic among medical specialists. A total of 92 questionnaires were completed by surgeons (38), medical oncologists (29), radiation oncologists (13) and radiologists (12). The response rate was 51%. A substantial (11-56%) proportion of medical specialists do not refer patients who meet current criteria for BRCA testing. Although questions on inheritance were less well answered, overall knowledge was good. They had a positive attitude, but were concerned about the distress DNA testing might cause to family members. The majority (75%) stated that the best time for referral is after adjuvant therapy or during follow-up, but another important determinant was the patient's wish or need (12%). Further studies are needed to gain insight into the actual referral process, while ongoing training of medical specialists about genetic aspects of breast cancer is also necessary.

Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The 70-gene prognosis signature (van't Veer et al., Nature 415(6871):530-536, 2002) may improve the selection of lymph node-negative breast cancer patients for adjuvant systemic therapy. Optimal validation of prognostic classifiers is of great importance and we therefore wished to evaluate the prognostic value of the 70-gene prognosis signature in a series of relatively recently diagnosed lymph node negative breast cancer patients. METHODS: We evaluated the 70-gene prognosis signature in an independent representative series of patients with invasive breast cancer (N = 123; <55 years; pT1-2N0; diagnosed between 1996 and 1999; median follow-up 5.8 years) by classifying these patients as having a good or poor prognosis signature. In addition, we updated the follow-up of the node-negative patients of the previously published validation-series (Van de Vijver et al., N Engl J Med 347(25):1999-2009, 2002; N = 151; median follow-up 10.2 years). The prognostic value of the 70-gene prognosis signature was compared with that of four commonly used clinicopathological risk indexes. The endpoints were distant metastasis (as first event) free percentage (DMFP) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The 5-year OS was 82 +/- 5% in poor (48%) and 97 +/- 2% in good prognosis signature (52%) patients (HR 3.4; 95% CI 1.2-9.6; P = 0.021). The 5-years DMFP was 78 +/- 6% in poor and 98 +/- 2% in good prognosis signature patients (HR 5.7; 95% CI 1.6-20; P = 0.007). In the updated series (N = 151; 60% poor vs. 40% good), the 10-year OS was 51 +/- 5% and 94 +/- 3% (HR 10.7; 95% CI 3.9-30; P < 0.01), respectively. The DMFP was 50 +/- 6% in poor and 86 +/- 5% in good prognosis signature patients (HR 5.5; 95% CI 2.5-12; P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, the prognosis signature was a strong independent prognostic factor in both series, outperforming the clinicopathological risk indexes. CONCLUSION: The 70-gene prognosis signature is also an independent prognostic factor in node-negative breast cancer patients for women diagnosed in recent years.

The intraoperative assessment of sentinel nodes - Standards and controversies.

Intraoperative assessment of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) has the advantage of allowing breast cancer patients with tumor-positive SLNs to avoid a second surgery by immediately proceeding to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). However, there are several reasons why the use of intraoperative assessment should be questioned. Whereas ALND was traditionally advised for all breast cancer patients with tumor-positive lymph nodes for axillary staging and locoregional control, more recent studies have demonstrated safety of omitting ALND in a substantial number of patients. In addition, there are concerns about the accuracy of intraoperative assessment methods including frozen section analysis, touch preparation cytology and one-step nucleic acid amplification. Moreover, intraoperative assessment of SLNs denies patients the opportunity to contribute to their treatment planning. In our opinion, intraoperative assessment of axillary lymph nodes should be reserved for patients who still have a strict indication for ALND. Patients with clinical node negative disease (cN0) and one or two positive SLNs can be safely treated with breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy. There has been more controversy for cN0 patients who are treated with mastectomy since radiotherapy is not routinely administered in these patients. However, there is increasing evidence that ALND may be omitted in patients undergoing mastectomy who have a low tumor-burden in their SLNs. Therefore, we defend the position that in cN0 patients undergoing mastectomy, SLNB should be performed and full pathologic evaluation of the SLN should be awaited. In cN0 patients undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) intraoperative assessment of SLNs can be omitted since ALND will not provide therapeutic benefit. It is being hypothesized that patients with limited axillary disease prior to NST who remain node-positive after NST could be treated safely with axillary radiotherapy instead of ALND. In these patients, omitting intraoperative assessment might be a reasonable option. In patients with extensive nodal disease prior to NST intraoperative assessment of axillary lymph nodes should be performed.