Ductal lavage for detection of cellular atypia in women at high risk for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer originates in breast epithelium and is associated with progressive molecular and morphologic changes. Women with atypical breast ductal epithelial cells have an increased relative risk of breast cancer. In this study, ductal lavage, a new procedure for collecting ductal cells with a microcatheter, was compared with nipple aspiration with regard to safety, tolerability, and the ability to detect abnormal breast epithelial cells. METHODS: Women at high risk for breast cancer who had nonsuspicious mammograms and clinical breast examinations underwent nipple aspiration followed by lavage of fluid-yielding ducts. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The 507 women enrolled included 291 (57%) with a history of breast cancer and 199 (39%) with a 5-year Gail risk for breast cancer of 1.7% or more. Nipple aspirate fluid (NAF) samples were evaluated cytologically for 417 women, and ductal lavage samples were evaluated for 383 women. Adequate samples for diagnosis were collected from 111 (27%) and 299 (78%) women, respectively. A median of 13,500 epithelial cells per duct (range, 43-492,000 cells) was collected by ductal lavage compared with a median of 120 epithelial cells per breast (range, 10-74,300) collected by nipple aspiration. For ductal lavage, 92 (24%) subjects had abnormal cells that were mildly (17%) or markedly (6%) atypical or malignant (<1%). For NAF, corresponding percentages were 6%, 3%, and fewer than 1%. Ductal lavage detected abnormal intraductal breast cells 3.2 times more often than nipple aspiration (79 versus 25 breasts; McNemar's test, P<.001). No serious procedure-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of ductal cells can be collected by ductal lavage to detect atypical cellular changes within the breast. Ductal lavage is a safe and well-tolerated procedure and is a more sensitive method of detecting cellular atypia than nipple aspiration.

Options in the local management of invasive breast cancer.

Newly diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer confronts the patient and her clinician with multiple treatment decisions. This review examines some of these local treatment options including the choice between breast-conserving treatment (BCT) and mastectomy, how best to treat the axilla, and the optimal sequencing of local and systemic therapy. Key elements in the selection of patients for BCT or mastectomy include preoperative mammography, careful pathological evaluation, and an assessment of patient desires in order to balance the risk of local recurrence against preservation of a cosmetically acceptable breast. Although some absolute contraindications to BCT exist, most patients are candidates for BCT. The role of axillary dissection is currently being redefined, and in the future, more limited procedures may be able to identify patients who can avoid axillary dissection. The relationship between timing of breast surgery with regard to the menstrual cycle and outcome is intriguing but not yet established. As well, the appropriate sequencing of chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) after conservative surgery (CS) is uncertain, although randomized trials are beginning to shed some light on this issue. Whether all patients treated with CS require treatment with RT is another question that is currently under investigation. This article addresses these issues, focusing on the specifics of treatment implementation.

Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction: oncologic risks and aesthetic results in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

Skin-sparing mastectomy has been advocated as an oncologically safe approach for the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer that minimizes deformity and improves cosmesis through preservation of the skin envelope of the breast. Because chest wall skin is the most frequent site of local failure after mastectomy, concerns have been raised that inadequate skin excision could result in an increased risk of local recurrence. Precise borders of the skin resection have not been well established, and long-term local recurrence rates after skin-sparing mastectomy are not known. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the oncologic safety and aesthetic results for skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap and saline breast prosthesis. Fifty-one patients with early-stage breast cancer (26 with ductal carcinoma in situ and 25 with invasive carcinoma) undergoing primary mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with a latissimus flap were studied from 1991 through 1994. For 32 consecutive patients, skin-sparing mastectomy was defined as a 5-mm margin of skin designed around the border of the nipple-areolar complex. After the mastectomy, biopsies were obtained from the remaining native skin flap edges. Patients were followed for 44.8 months. Histologic examination of 114 native skin flap biopsy specimens failed to demonstrate breast ducts in the dermis of any of the 32 consecutive patients studied. One of 26 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ had metastases to the skin of the lateral chest wall and back. Four other patients, one with stage I disease and three with stage II-B disease, had recurrent breast carcinoma. The stage I patient had a local recurrence in the subcutaneous tissues near the mastectomy specimen. Two patients suffered axillary relapse, and one had distant metastases to the spine. The findings of this study support the technique of skin-sparing mastectomy as an oncologically safe one, based on an absence of breast ductal epithelium at the margins of the native skin flaps and a local recurrence rate of 2 percent after 45 months of follow-up. Although these results need to be confirmed with greater numbers of patients and longer follow-up, skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction may be considered an excellent alternative treatment to breast conservation for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and early-stage invasive breast cancer.

The care of older women with early-stage breast cancer: what is the role of surgeon gender?

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade and a half, a substantial literature has documented age-dependent variations in breast cancer care. Accumulating evidence suggests that these variations impact the health outcomes of older women with breast cancer. Surgeon gender may be an important source of age-dependent variations in care. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between surgeon gender and primary tumor therapy and systemic adjuvant therapy among 303 older women with early-stage breast cancer cared for by 20 surgeons in Boston, Massachusetts. METHODS: The research design was a cross-sectional observational study. The subjects were women at least 55 years of age with newly diagnosed Stage I or II breast cancer. The main outcome measure was definitive primary tumor therapy and systemic adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: After adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, patients of female surgeons were more likely to receive definitive treatment, with the strongest effect being observed for the receipt of both definitive primary tumor therapy and systemic adjuvant therapy (odds ratio 4.5; 95% confidence interval 2.7, 7.7). CONCLUSIONS: Women with early-stage breast cancer cared for by female surgeons are more likely to receive standard therapies. Surgeons provide the initial care, both diagnostic and therapeutic, for all women with breast cancer. Their role in breast cancer care is pivotal and has a substantial impact on the nature of breast cancer care received.

The impact of age, marital status, and physician-patient interactions on the care of older women with breast carcinoma.

Understanding why older women with breast carcinoma do not receive definitive treatment is critical if disparities in mortality between younger and older women are to be reduced. With this in mind, the authors studied 302 women age > or =55 years with early stage breast carcinoma. Data were collected from surgical records and in telephone interviews with the women. The main outcome was receipt of definitive primary tumor therapy, defined either as modified radical mastectomy or as breast-conserving surgery with axillary dissection followed by radiation therapy. The majority (56%) of the women underwent breast-conserving surgery and axillary dissection followed by radiation therapy. After statistical control for four variables (comorbidity, physical function, tumor size, and lymph node status), patients' ages, marital status, and the number of times breast carcinoma specialists discussed treatment options were significantly associated with the receipt of definitive primary tumor therapy. The authors concluded that when older women have been newly diagnosed with breast carcinoma and there is clinical uncertainty as to the most appropriate therapies, patients may be better served if they are offered choices from among definitive therapies. In discussing therapies with them, physicians must be sensitive to their fears and concerns about the monetary costs and functional consequences of treatment in relation to the expected benefits.

Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between the microscopic margins of resection and ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) after breast-conserving therapy for carcinomas with or without an extensive intraductal component (EIC) has not been adequately defined. METHODS: Of 1,790 women with unilateral clinical Stage I or II breast carcinoma treated with radiation therapy as part of breast-conserving therapy, 343 had invasive ductal histology evaluable for an extensive intraductal component (EIC), had inked margins that were evaluable for an review of their pathology slides, and received > or = 60 Gray to the tumor bed; these 343 women constitute the study population. The median follow-up was 109 months. All available slides were reviewed by one of the study pathologists. Final inked margins of excision were classified as negative > 1 mm (no invasive or in situ ductal carcinoma within 1 mm of the inked margin); negative-1 mm, or close carcinoma < or = 1 mm from the inked margin but not at the margin); or positive (carcinoma at the inked margin). A focally positive margin was defined as invasive or in situ ductal carcinoma at the margin in three or fewer low-power fields. The first site of recurrent disease was classified as either ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) or distant metastasis/regional lymph node failure. RESULTS: Crude rates for the first site of recurrence were calculated first for all 340 patients evaluable at 5 years, then separately for the 272 patients with EIC-negative cancers and the 68 patients with EIC-positive cancers. The 5-year rate of IBR for all patients with negative margins was 2%; and for all patients with positive margins, the rate was 16%. Among patients with negative margins, the 5-year rate of IBR was 2% for all patients with close margins (negative < or = 1 mm) and 3% for those with negative > 1 mm margins. For patients with close margins, the rates were 2% and 0% for EIC-negative and EIC-positive tumors, respectively; the corresponding rates for patients with negative margins > 1 mm were 1% and 14%. The 5-year rate of IBR for patients with focally positive margins was 9% (9% for EIC-negative and 7% for EIC-positive patients). The 5-year crude rate of IBR for patients with greater than focally positive margins was 28% (19% for EIC-negative and 42% for EIC-positive patients). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with negative margins of excision have a low rate of recurrence in the treated breast, whether the margin is > 1 mm or < or = 1 mm and whether the carcinoma is EIC-negative or EIC-positive. Among patients with positive margins, those with focally positive margins have a considerably lower risk of local recurrence than those with more than focally positive margins, and could be considered for breast-conserving therapy.