Imaging tests in staging and surveillance of non-metastatic breast cancer: changes in routine clinical practice and cost implications.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines do not recommend computerised tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the staging or follow-up of asymptomatic patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, they are often requested in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to determine the staging and follow-up patterns, and relative costs in a large population of breast cancer patients living and treated in a Southern Italian region. METHODS: We analysed the clinical computerised information recorded by 567 primary-care physicians assisting about 650 000 inhabitants in the Campania region. Patients with non-metastatic breast cancer were identified and divided into calendar years from 2001 to 2010. The number of diagnostic tests prescribed per 100 patients (N/Pts) and the mean cost per patient was determined 3 months before diagnosis and up to 1 year after diagnosis. Costs are expressed in constant 2011 euros. RESULTS: We identified 4680 newly diagnosed cases of asymptomatic non-metastatic breast cancer. N/Pts increased significantly (P<0.0001) from 2001 to 2010. The mean number of prescribed mammograms, bone scans, abdominal ultrasound and chest X-rays ('routine tests'), and costs was unchanged. However, the number of CT, PET scans and MRI ('new tests')prescriptions almost quadrupled and the mean cost per patient related to these procedures significantly increased from [euro ]357 in 2001 to [euro ]830 in 2010 (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: New test prescriptions and relative costs significantly and steadily increased throughout the study period. At present there is no evidence that the delivery of new tests to asymptomatic patients improves breast cancer outcome. Well-designed clinical trials are urgently needed to shed light on the impact of these tests on clinical outcome and overall survival.

Tumor characteristics and prognosis in familial breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5-10% of breast cancers are hereditary and their biology and prognosis appear to differ from those of sporadic breast cancers. In this study we compared the biological features and clinical characteristics of non metastatic breast cancer in patients with BRCA mutations versus patients with a family history suggesting hereditary breast cancer but without BRCA mutations (BRCA wild type) versus patients with sporadic disease, and correlated these findings with clinical outcome. METHODS: We retrieved the clinical and biological data of 33 BRCA-positive, 66 BRCA-wild type and 1826 sporadic breast cancer patients contained in a single institution clinical database between 1980 and 2012. Specifically, we recorded age, tumor size, nodal status, treatment type, pattern of relapse, second primary incidence, outcome (disease-free survival and overall survival), and biological features (estrogen receptor [ER], progesterone receptor [PgR], tumor grade, proliferation and c-erbB2 status). Median follow-up was 70 months. RESULTS: BRCA-positive patients were significantly younger than sporadic breast cancer patients, and less likely to be ER-, PgR- or c-erbB2-positive than women with BRCA-wild type or sporadic breast cancer. Tumor size and grade, nodal status and proliferation did not differ among the three groups. Rates of radical mastectomy were 58, 42 and 37%, and those of conservative surgery were 42, 58 and 63% in women with BRCA-positive, BRCA-wild type and sporadic breast cancer (p = 0.03), respectively. The incidence of contralateral breast cancer was 12, 14 and 0% (p <0.0001) and the incidence of second primary tumors (non breast) was 9, 1 and 2% (p <0.0001) in BRCA-positive, BRCA-wild type and sporadic breast cancer, respectively. Median disease-free survival in years was 29 in BRCA-wild type, 19 in BRCA-positive and 14 in sporadic breast cancer patients (log-rank = 0.007). Median overall survival in years was not reached for BRCA-wild type, 19 for BRCA-positive and 13 for sporadic breast cancer patients (log-rank <0.0001). At multivariate analyses only BRCA-wild type status was related to a significant improvement in overall survival versus the sporadic breast cancer group (HR = 0,51; 95% CI (0,28-0,93) p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The biology and outcome of breast cancer differ between patients with BRCA mutations, patients with a family history but no BRCA mutations and patients with sporadic breast cancer.

New hypothesis on pathogenesis of ovarian cancer lead to future tailored approaches.

In the last decades, management of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has been based on the staging system of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), and different classifications have been proposed for EOC that take account of grade of differentiation, histological subtype, and clinical features. However, despite taxonomic efforts, EOC appears to be not a unique disease; its subtypes differ for epidemiological and genetic risk factors, precursor lesions, patterns of spread, response to chemotherapy, and prognosis. Nevertheless, carboplatin plus paclitaxel combination represents the only standard treatment in adjuvant and advanced settings. This paper summarizes theories about the classification and origin of EOC and classical and new prognostic factors. It presents data about standard treatment and novel agents. We speculate about the possibility to create tailored therapy based on specific mutations in ovarian cancer and to personalize prevention.