Tailoring the optimal duration of the extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal duration of the extended adjuvant endocrine treatment (ET) in patients with early-stage breast-cancer (eBC). We performed a systematic review and trial-level meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing a "limited-extended" adjuvant ET (defined as more than 5 but less than 7.5 years of treatment overall) versus a "full-extended" adjuvant ET (defined as more than 7.5 years of treatment overall) in eBC. METHODS: To be eligible, RCTs had to i) compare a "limited-extended" adjuvant ET versus a "full-extended" adjuvant ET in patients with eBC; and ii) report disease-free survival (DFS) hazard ratio (HR) according to the disease nodal-status [i.e., nodal-negative (N-ve) versus nodal-positive (N + ve)]. The primary endpoint was to assess the difference in efficacy of full-versus limited-extended ET, measured in terms of the difference in DFS log-HR, according to the disease nodal-status. Secondary endpoint was the difference in efficacy of full-versus limited-extended ET according to tumor size (i.e., pT1 vs pT2/3/4), histological grade (i.e., G1/G2 vs G3), patients' age (i.e., ≤60 vs > 60 years) and previous type of ET (i.e., aromatase inhibitors vs tamoxifen vs switch strategy). RESULTS: Three phase III RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 6689 patients were included in the analysis, of which 3506 (53%) had N + ve disease. The full-extended ET provided no DFS-benefit as compared with the limited-extended ET in patients with N-ve disease (pooled DFS-HR = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.89 to 1.22; I2 = 18%). Conversely, in patients with N + ve disease the full-extended ET significantly improved DFS, with a pooled DFS-HR of 0.85 (95%CI: 0.74 to 0.97; I2 = 0%). There was a significant interaction between the disease nodal-status and the efficacy of the full-versus limited-extended ET (p-heterogeneity = 0.048). The full-extended ET provided no significant DFS-benefit as compared with the limited-extended ET in all the other subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with eBC and N + ve disease can obtain a significant DFS-benefit from the full-extended as compared with the limited-extended adjuvant ET.

Elaboration of a nomogram to predict nonsentinel node status in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel node, intraoperatively assessed with one step nucleic amplification: Retrospective and validation phase.

BACKGROUND: Tumor-positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy results in a risk of non sentinel node metastases in micro- and macro-metastases ranging from 20 to 50%, respectively. Therefore, most patients underwent unnecessary axillary lymph node dissections. We have previously developed a mathematical model for predicting patient-specific risk of non sentinel node (NSN) metastases based on 2460 patients. The study reports the results of the validation phase where a total of 1945 patients were enrolled, aimed at identifying a tool that gives the possibility to the surgeon to choose intraoperatively whether to perform or not axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). METHODS: The following parameters were recorded: Clinical: hospital, age, medical record number; Bio pathological: Tumor (T) size stratified in quartiles, grading (G), histologic type, lymphatic/vascular invasion (LVI), ER-PR status, Ki 67, molecular classification (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER-2 Like, Triple negative); Sentinel and non-sentinel node related: Number of NSNs removed, number of positive NSNs, cytokeratin 19 (CK19) mRNA copy number of positive sentinel nodes stratified in quartiles. A total of 1945 patients were included in the database. All patient data were provided by the authors of this paper. RESULTS: The discrimination of the model quantified with the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC), was 0.65 and 0.71 in the validation and retrospective phase, respectively. The calibration determines the distance between predicted outcome and actual outcome. The mean difference between predicted/observed was 2.3 and 6.3% in the retrospective and in the validation phase, respectively. The two values are quite similar and as a result we can conclude that the nomogram effectiveness was validated. Moreover, the ROC curve identified in the risk category of 31% of positive NSNs, the best compromise between false negative and positive rates i.e. when ALND is unnecessary (<31%) or recommended (>31%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study confirm that OSNA nomogram may help surgeons make an intraoperative decision on whether to perform ALND or not in case of positive sentinel nodes, and the patient to accept this decision based on a reliable estimation on the true percentage of NSN involvement. The use of this nomogram achieves two main gools: 1) the choice of the right treatment during the operation, 2) to avoid for the patient a second surgery procedure.