RESUMEN
CONTEXT.: Apocrine differentiation and androgen receptor (AR) positivity represent a specific subset of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and are often considered potential prognostic or predictive factors. OBJECTIVE.: To evaluate the response of TNBC to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and to assess the impact of apocrine morphology, AR status, Ki-67 labeling index (Ki-67LI), and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). DESIGN.: A total of 232 TNBC patients who underwent NAC followed by surgical resection in a single institute were analyzed. The study evaluated apocrine morphology and AR and Ki-67LI expression via immunohistochemistry from pre-NAC biopsy samples. Additionally, pre-NAC intratumoral TILs and stromal TILs (sTILs) were quantified from biopsies using a deep learning model. The response to NAC after surgery was assessed based on residual cancer burden. RESULTS.: Both apocrine morphology and high AR expression correlated with lower Ki-67LI (P < .001 for both). Apocrine morphology was associated with lower postoperative pathologic complete response (pCR) rates after NAC (P = .02), but the difference in TILs between TNBC cases with and without apocrine morphology was not statistically significant (P = .09 for sTILs). In contrast, AR expression did not significantly affect pCR (P = .13). Pre-NAC TILs strongly correlated with postoperative pCR in TNBCs without apocrine morphology (P < .001 for sTILs), whereas TNBC with apocrine morphology demonstrated an indeterminate trend (P = .82 for sTILs). CONCLUSIONS.: Although TIL counts did not vary significantly based on apocrine morphology, apocrine morphology itself was a more reliable predictor of NAC response than AR expression. Consequently, although apocrine morphology is a rare subtype of TNBC, its identification is clinically important.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: A cancer pain clinic (CPC) service is a thorough, comprehensive consultation service for patients with uncontrolled cancer pain. The aim of this study was to determine the success of a new CPC service with enrollment via electronic health record-based automatic screening at 1 cancer center in Korea. STUDY DESIGN: A case-control study and a satisfaction survey. METHODS: The intervention group (n = 158) was enrolled in the CPC service, whereas the control group (n = 158), which was matched using propensity scores, did not participate in the service. The pain scores of participants were compared using an independent t test. Thirty-nine patients and 20 physicians completed a self-administered survey on instructions for pain-relief medications, effective usage of long-acting and short-acting opioids, perceptions of or barriers to CPC services, knowledge of opioid use, and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: Although the baseline pain score of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P = .013), the difference in the decrease of pain between the groups was significant at days 1 (P = .001) and 2 (P = .039). Although the difference in pain scores disappeared on day 3, total pain score was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (P = .012). When comparing pain relief events (<4 points on a 0-10 numeric rating scale that measured pain daily), the intervention group experienced more relief events than did controls (P = .017). Patients were satisfied with their physicians giving clear instructions and considering their opinions about pain-relief medications. The oncology residents expressed satisfaction with the management of patients with opioid-naïve or intractable pain. CONCLUSIONS: The new CPC service seems to provide effective pain relief and users seem to be highly satisfied with it. These results support the importance of an integrated and specialized approach to cancer-related pain management.