Impact of breast surgical procedure on survival in BRCA mutated patients with invasive breast cancer: Mastectomy versus conservative treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations have a higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to the wild-type population. For patients with a BRCA mutation, there are no specific recommendations for surgical management. The aim of this study was therefore to retrospectively investigate overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of BRCA mutated patients with localized invasive breast cancer, by comparing conservative surgery versus mastectomy. METHODS: This study was based on data from the Côte d'Or breast and gynecological cancer registry. Data from patients with a constitutional BRCA1/2 mutation who presented with invasive breast cancer were collected retrospectively from 1998 to 2018. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to describe RFS and OS. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 69 had conservative surgery and 35 underwent mastectomy. Regarding survival, there was no significant difference in OS (HR =1.49; 95 % confidence interval (CI) [0.76-2.93], p = 0.25). Similarly, there was no significant difference in RFS (HR =1.40; 95 % CI [0.81-2.40], p = 0.22), survival without homolateral recurrence (HR =0.88; 95 % CI [0.30-2.61], p = 0.89), without contralateral recurrence (HR =1.50; 95 % CI [0.55-4.09], p = 0.42), or without distant metastatic recurrence (HR =1.42, 95 % CI [0.69-2.90], p = 0.33). CONCLUSION: In invasive breast cancer in a patient with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, conservative surgery, when possible, appears to be a feasible option over total mastectomy, with no difference in overall survival. However, the patient should be informed of the aggressive nature of recurrence in this population requiring chemotherapy in most cases.

Tertiary prevention strategies for micrometastatic lymph node cervical cancer: A systematic review and a prototype of an adapted model of care.

PURPOSE: We found a need for balancing the application of clinical guidelines and tailored approaches to follow-up of cervical cancer (CC) patients in the lymph node micrometastatic (MICs) setting. This review aimed to determine the current knowledge of management of MIC-positive CC cases. METHODOLOGY: We addressed prognostic and risk of recurrence monitoring impacts associated with MIC+ cases. The electronic databases for literature and relevant articles were analysed. RESULTS: Fifteen studies, (4882 patients), were included in our systematic review. While the results show that MICs significantly worsen prognosis in early CC. A tertiary prevention algorithm for low volume lymph node disease may stratify follow-up according to the burden of nodal disease and provide data that helps improve follow-up performance. CONCLUSION: MICs worsen prognosis and should be managed as suggested by the algorithm. However, this algorithm must be externally validated. The clinical impact of isolated tumor cells (ITC) remains unclear.

Impact of therapeutic strategy on disease-free and overall survival of early-stage cervical cancer: Surgery alone versus preoperative radiation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is no international consensus for management of early-stage cervical cancer (ESCC). This study aimed to retrospectively investigate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with ESCC according to the therapeutic strategy used, surgery alone versus preoperative radiation following by surgery. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from 1998 to 2015 using the Gynecological Cancer Registry of the Côte d'Or. The inclusion criteria were FIGO 2018 ≤ IB2; squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous type. Survival curves were compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six patients were included. Median survival was 90 months. There was no significant difference in DFS (HR = 0.91, 95%CI [0.32-2.53], p = 0.858) or in OS between surgery alone versus preoperative radiation following by surgery (HR = 0.97, 95%CI [0.31-2.99], p = 0.961). In the subgroup of patients with stage ≥IB1, there was no significant difference in DFS (HR = 3.26, p = 0.2) or in OS (HR = 3.87, p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Our study did not identify any difference in survival according to the treatment strategy. Preoperative radiation following by surgery can be an alternative to surgery alone for ESCC.

Clinical impact of low-volume lymph node metastases in early-stage cervical cancer: A comprehensive meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In order to define the clinical significance of low-volume metastasis, a comprehensive meta-analysis of published data and individual data obtained from articles mentioning micrometastases (MIC) and isolated tumor cells (ITC) in cervical cancer was performed, with a follow up of at least 3 years. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, following Cochrane's review methods guide and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary outcome was the disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary outcome was the overall survival (OS). The hazard ratio (HR) was taken as the measure of the association between the low-volume metastases (MIC+ITC and MIC alone) and DFS or OS; it quantified the hazard of an event in the MIC (+/- ITC) group compared to the hazard in node-negative (N0) patients. A random-effect meta-analysis model using the inverse variance method was selected for pooling. Forest plots were used to display the HRs and risk differences within individual trials and overall. RESULTS: Eleven articles were finally retained for the meta-analysis. In the analysis of DFS in patients with low-volume metastasis (MIC + ITC), the HR was increased to 2.60 (1.55-4.34) in the case of low-volume metastasis vs. N0. The presence of MICs had a negative prognostic impact, with an HR of 4.10 (2.71-6.20) compared to N0. Moreover, this impact was worse than that of MIC pooled with ITCs. Concerning OS, the meta-analysis shows an HR of 5.65 (2.81-11.39) in the case of low-volume metastases vs. N0. The presence of MICs alone had a negative effect, with an HR of 6.94 (2.56-18.81). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the presence of MIC seems to be associated with a negative impact on both the DFS and OS and should be treated as MAC.