Prognosis of local invasive relapses after carcinoma in situ of the breast: a retrospective study from a population-based registry.

PURPOSE: The prognosis of local invasive recurrence (LIR) after prior carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the breast has not been widely studied and existing data are conflicting, especially considering the specific prognosis of this entity, compared to de novo invasive breast cancer (de novo IBC) and with LIR after primary IBC. METHODS: We designed a retrospective study using data from the specialized Côte d'Or Breast and Gynecological cancer registry, between 1998 and 2015, to compare outcomes between 3 matched groups of patients with localized IBC: patients with LIR following CIS (CIS-LIR), patients with de novo IBC (de novo IBC), and patients with LIR following a first IBC (IBC-LIR). Distant relapse-free (D-RFS), overall survival (OS), clinical, and treatment features between the 3 groups were studied. RESULTS: Among 8186 women initially diagnosed with IBC during our study period, we retrieved and matched 49 CIS-LIR to 49 IBC, and 46 IBC-LIR patients. At diagnosis, IBC/LIR in the 3 groups were mainly stage I, grade II, estrogen receptor-positive, and HER2 negative. Metastatic diseases at diagnosis were higher in CIS-LIR group. A majority of patients received adjuvant systemic treatment, with no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of OS or D-RFS. CONCLUSION: LIR after CIS does not appear to impact per se on survival of IBC.

Estimating the benefits of therapy for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2019.

BACKGROUND: The 16th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2019 in Vienna, Austria reviewed substantial new evidence on loco-regional and systemic therapies for early breast cancer. DESIGN: Treatments were assessed in light of their intensity, duration and side-effects, estimating the magnitude of clinical benefit according to stage and biology of the disease. The Panel acknowledged that for many patients, the impact of adjuvant therapy or the adherence to specific guidelines may have modest impact on the risk of breast cancer recurrence or overall survival. For that reason, the Panel explicitly encouraged clinicians and patients to routinely discuss the magnitude of benefit for interventions as part of the development of the treatment plan. RESULTS: The guidelines focus on common ductal and lobular breast cancer histologies arising in generally healthy women. Special breast cancer histologies may need different considerations, as do individual patients with other substantial health considerations. The panelists' opinions reflect different interpretation of available data and expert opinion where is lack of evidence and sociocultural factors in their environment such as availability of and access to medical service, economic resources and reimbursement issues. Panelists encourage patient participation in well-designed clinical studies whenever available. CONCLUSIONS: With these caveats in mind, the St. Gallen Consensus Conference seeks to provide guidance to clinicians on appropriate treatments for early-stage breast cancer and guidance for weighing the realistic tradeoffs between treatment and toxicity so that patients and clinical teams can make well-informed decisions on the basis of an honest reckoning of the magnitude of clinical benefit.

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.

Tailoring therapies--improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015.

The 14th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference (2015) reviewed substantial new evidence on locoregional and systemic therapies for early breast cancer. Further experience has supported the adequacy of tumor margins defined as 'no ink on invasive tumor or DCIS' and the safety of omitting axillary dissection in specific cohorts. Radiotherapy trials support irradiation of regional nodes in node-positive disease. Considering subdivisions within luminal disease, the Panel was more concerned with indications for the use of specific therapies, rather than surrogate identification of intrinsic subtypes as measured by multiparameter molecular tests. For the treatment of HER2-positive disease in patients with node-negative cancers up to 1 cm, the Panel endorsed a simplified regimen comprising paclitaxel and trastuzumab without anthracycline as adjuvant therapy. For premenopausal patients with endocrine responsive disease, the Panel endorsed the role of ovarian function suppression with either tamoxifen or exemestane for patients at higher risk. The Panel noted the value of an LHRH agonist given during chemotherapy for premenopausal women with ER-negative disease in protecting against premature ovarian failure and preserving fertility. The Panel noted increasing evidence for the prognostic value of commonly used multiparameter molecular markers, some of which also carried prognostic information for late relapse. The Panel noted that the results of such tests, where available, were frequently used to assist decisions about the inclusion of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with luminal disease, but noted that threshold values had not been established for this purpose for any of these tests. Multiparameter molecular assays are expensive and therefore unavailable in much of the world. The majority of new breast cancer cases and breast cancer deaths now occur in less developed regions of the world. In these areas, less expensive pathology tests may provide valuable information. The Panel recommendations on treatment are not intended to apply to all patients, but rather to establish norms appropriate for the majority. Again, economic considerations may require that less expensive and only marginally less effective therapies may be necessary in less resourced areas. Panel recommendations do not imply unanimous agreement among Panel members. Indeed, very few of the 200 questions received 100% agreement from the Panel. In the text below, wording is intended to convey the strength of Panel support for each recommendation, while details of Panel voting on each question are available in supplementary Appendix S2, available at Annals of Oncology online.

Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013.

The 13th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference (2013) Expert Panel reviewed and endorsed substantial new evidence on aspects of the local and regional therapies for early breast cancer, supporting less extensive surgery to the axilla and shorter durations of radiation therapy. It refined its earlier approach to the classification and management of luminal disease in the absence of amplification or overexpression of the Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2 (HER2) oncogene, while retaining essentially unchanged recommendations for the systemic adjuvant therapy of HER2-positive and 'triple-negative' disease. The Panel again accepted that conventional clinico-pathological factors provided a surrogate subtype classification, while noting that in those areas of the world where multi-gene molecular assays are readily available many clinicians prefer to base chemotherapy decisions for patients with luminal disease on these genomic results rather than the surrogate subtype definitions. Several multi-gene molecular assays were recognized as providing accurate and reproducible prognostic information, and in some cases prediction of response to chemotherapy. Cost and availability preclude their application in many environments at the present time. Broad treatment recommendations are presented. Such recommendations do not imply that each Panel member agrees: indeed, among more than 100 questions, only one (trastuzumab duration) commanded 100% agreement. The various recommendations in fact carried differing degrees of support, as reflected in the nuanced wording of the text below and in the votes recorded in supplementary Appendix S1, available at Annals of Oncology online. Detailed decisions on treatment will as always involve clinical consideration of disease extent, host factors, patient preferences and social and economic constraints.

Evaluation of non-genomic, clinical risk and survival results in endocrine-sensitive, HER-2 negative, lymph node negative breast cancer. / Evaluación del riesgo clínico, no genómico y resultados de supervivencia en el carcinoma de mama hormonosensible, HER-2 negativo, con ganglios negativos.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In endocrine-sensitive, HER-2 negative, node negative breast cancer, the presence of a low genomic risk allows treatment with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, obtaining excellent survival rates. The justification for this study is to show that excellent survival rates are also obtained by treating with adjuvant hormone therapy alone, based on clinical risk assessment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A descriptive, observational and retrospective study was performed between 2006 and 2016 with endocrine-sensitive, HER-2 negative, node negative breast cancer, greater than 1cm or between 0.6 and 1cm with unfavourable features. Retrospective review of health records. Mortality data of the National Registry of Deaths. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients were evaluable for survival. One hundred and twenty-three (60.50%) were treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, 77 (37.90%) with chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, one (0.50%) with chemotherapy alone and 2 (1%) were not treated. The overall survival rate at 5 years was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-100). Distant recurrence-free interval was 94% (95% CI 90-98). In the subgroup of patients treated with endocrine therapy alone, overall survival and distant recurrence-free interval rates at 5 years were 98% (95% CI 95-100) and 97% (95% CI 93-100), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with endocrine-sensitive, HER-2-negative, node negative breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy alone according to their clinical risk have similar survival outcomes as those treated with endocrine therapy according to their genomic risk.