A phase-III prevention trial of low-dose tamoxifen in postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy users: the HOT study.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) relieves menopausal symptoms and may decrease mortality in recently postmenopausal women, but increases breast cancer risk. Low-dose tamoxifen has shown retained activity in phase-II studies. METHODS: We conducted a phase-III trial in 1884 recently postmenopausal women on HRT who were randomly assigned to either tamoxifen, 5 mg/day, or placebo for 5 years. The primary end point was breast cancer incidence. RESULTS: After 6.2 ± 1.9 years mean follow-up, there were 24 breast cancers on placebo and 19 on tamoxifen (risk ratio, RR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.44-1.46). Tamoxifen showed favorable trends in luminal-A tumors (RR, 0.32; 95% CI 0.12-0.86), in HRT users <5 years (RR, 0.35; 95% CI 0.15-0.82) and in women completing at least 12 months of treatment (RR, 0.49; 95% CI 0.23-1.02). Serious adverse events did not differ between placebo and tamoxifen, including, respectively, coronary heart syndrome (6 versus 4), cerebrovascular events (2 versus 5), VTE (2 versus 5) and uterine cancers (3 versus 1). Vasomotor symptoms were 50% more frequent on tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of low-dose tamoxifen to HRT did not significantly reduce breast cancer risk and increased climacteric symptoms in recently postmenopausal women. However, we noted beneficial trends in some subgroups which may deserve a larger study.

Locoregional recurrence risk after lipofilling in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lipofilling has been indicated for postmastectomy and postlumpectomy breast reconstruction. The clinical literatures underline its technical efficacy but experimental studies raise important questions about the potential detrimental effect of adipocytes on the stimulation of cancer growth and reappearance. DESIGN: We collected 321 consecutive patients operated for a primary breast cancer between 1997 and 2008 who subsequently underwent lipofilling for reconstructive purpose. For each patient, we selected two matched patients with similar characteristics who did not undergo a lipofilling. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent of the tumors were invasive. Median follow-up was 56 months from the primary surgery and 26 months from the lipofilling. Eight and 19 patients had a local event in the lipofilling and control group, respectively, leading to comparable cumulative incidence curves [P = 0.792; Hazard Ratio(Lipo vs No lipo) = 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.47-2.64)]. These results were confirmed when patients undergoing quadrantectomy and mastectomy were analyzed separately and when the analysis was limited to invasive tumors. Based on 37 cases, the lipofilling group resulted at higher risk of local events when the analysis was limited to intraepithelial neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Lipofilling seems to be a safe procedure in breast cancer patients. Longer follow-up and further experiences from oncological series are urgently required to confirm these findings.

Why do women accept to undergo a nipple sparing mastectomy or to reconstruct the nipple areola complex when nipple sparing mastectomy is not possible?

In a retrospective study, we investigated the reasons why women accepted to undergo a nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) and why women who could not keep their nipple areola complex (NAC) decided to reconstruct it. We intended to investigate whether keeping the NAC plays a psychological role, to state possible advantages of NSM. Between 2004 and 2006, 310 women with NAC sparing and 143 patients with successive NAC reconstruction were mailed a single open-ended question at follow-up 12 months after final breast reconstruction surgery or final NAC reconstruction with tattoo. The purpose was to explore personal motivations that drove women to accept NSM or to perform a NAC tattoo reconstruction. Responses were classified into 11 categories by five reviewers. We performed an analysis of the relative frequency of emerging issues. Socio-demographic and clinical data were collected. Among the patients who responded to the open-ended question, 190 patients preserved their NAC, and 100 patients received postponed NAC reconstruction. Women in the NSM group were significantly younger (P = 0.02), more highly educated (P < 0.0001), and more frequently lived in Northern Italy (P = 0.03). The reasons for accepting NSM were more frequently related to body image satisfaction and integrity of the body (P = 0.002), reduction of psychological distress (P = 0.003), and surgeon's influence (P < 0.0001). Esthetic reasons were highly associated to the control group. These results help us to better understand the psychological impact of NAC sparing versus NAC reconstruction. NSM was accepted because it was perceived as a technique that preserved the integrity of the body, reduced the feeling of mutilation, improved the breast cosmetic results, and reduced psychological distress regarding the loss of the breast.

Does nipple preservation in mastectomy improve satisfaction with cosmetic results, psychological adjustment, body image and sexuality?

We investigated the influence of nipple areolar complex (NAC) sparing in mastectomy, on patient satisfaction with cosmetic results, body-image, sexuality and psychological well-being. We developed a specific questionnaire and compared two groups of women who underwent radical mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Between 2004 and 2006, 310 women with NAC preservation and 143 patients with successive NAC reconstruction were mailed the questionnaire at follow-up 1 year after definitive complete breast reconstruction surgery. 256 questionnaires was available. Our results showed significant differences in favour of the NAC sparing group regarding body image (difficulty in looking at themselves naked and being seen naked by their partners after surgery, P = 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively); regarding satisfaction with the appearance of the nipple (P < .0001) and with the sensitivity of the nipple (P = 0.001); regarding the feeling of mutilation (P = 0.003). NAC sparing in mastectomy has a positive impact on patient satisfaction, body image and psychological adjustment.

Breast cancer subtype approximations and loco-regional recurrence after immediate breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: A small but significant proportion of patients with breast cancer (BC) will develop loco-regional recurrence (LRR) after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The LRR also varies according to breast cancer subtypes and clinicopathological features. METHODS: We studied 1742 consecutive BC patients with IBR between 1997 and 2006. According to St Gallen conference consensus 2011, its BC approximations were applied to classify BC into five subtypes: estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive, HER2 negative, and low Ki67 (<14%) [luminal A]; ER and/or PgR positive, HER2 negative and high Ki67(≥ 14%) [luminal B/HER2 negative]; ER and/or PgR positive, any Ki67 and HER2 positive [luminal B/HER2 positive]; ER negative, PgR negative and HER2 positive [HER2 positive/nonluminal]; and ER negative, PgR negative and HER2 negative [triple negative]. Cumulative incidences of LRR were compared across different subgroups by means of the Gray test. Multivariable Cox regression models were applied. RESULTS: Median follow up time was 74 months (range 3-165). The cumulative incidence of LRR was 5.5% (121 events). The 5-year cumulative incidence of LRR was 2.5% for luminal A; 5.0% for luminal B/HER2 negative; 9.8% for luminal B/HER2 positive; 3.8% for HER2 non luminal; and 10.9% for triple negative. On multivariable analysis, tumor size (pT) >2 cm, body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25, triple negative and luminal B/HER2 positive subtypes were associated with increased risk of LRR. CONCLUSION: Luminal B/HER2 positive, triple negative subtypes and BMI ≥ 25 are independent prognostic factors for risk of LRR after IBR.

When can a second conservative approach be considered for ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence?

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy is considered the treatment of choice in patients with ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty-one patients with invasive IBTR who underwent a second conservative approach were retrospectively evaluated in order to describe prognosis, determine predictive factors of outcome and select the subset of patients with the best local control. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (35.4%) relapsed after IBTR. Thirty-four patients (21.1%) had further in-breast recurrences and four patients (2.5%) had skin relapses. Five years cumulative incidence of local relapse was 31.4%. Twenty-four patients (17.8%, 5 years cumulative incidence) died during the follow-up. At the multivariate analysis, recurrent tumour size >2 cm was found to affect local-disease-free survival [hazard ratio (HR): 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-6.2], whereas Ki-67 >or=20% and time to relapse 48 months, eight (12.8%, 5 years cumulative incidence) had further local relapses. CONCLUSIONS: Some patients with IBTR might receive a second BCS, especially when a good local control can be estimated (small recurrent tumour, late relapse), also taking into account patients' preference.