Impact of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on short-term mortality in patients with recurrent ovarian, fallopian or peritoneal carcinoma (the NOGGO-AGO QoL Prognosis-Score-Study): results of a meta-analysis in 2209 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Recurrent ovarian cancer is an incurable disease with variable but poor prognosis. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a patient-reported outcome measure generally applied to measure effects of therapies. Our aim was the development and validation of a risk score for the prediction of short-term mortality using the combination of sociodemographic and clinical factors and HRQoL. METHODS: For exploratory and validation analysis, the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO) and Working Group Gynecological Oncology (AGO) study databases were screened for trials. Only trials which obtained defined HRQoL measurements were included in the final analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors and their weighting for the risk score. Modulation with cubic regression analyses revealed median survival and short-term mortality defined as 1-year mortality for each value. RESULTS: For exploration, 974 patients from three clinical studies of the NOGGO and for validation, 1235 patients from several clinical studies of the AGO were eligible. The risk score included platinum-free interval, performance status, age, global QoL and nausea/vomiting. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed a good predictive value with an area under the curve of 0.81 for model 1 in the exploration and 0.74 in the validation. Short-term mortality in model 1 was 8.2%, 23.5% and 58.4% in the exploration sample, and 19.7%, 38.1% and 63.4% in the validation sample for patients under low, medium and high risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This risk score discriminates well between recurrent ovarian cancer patients under low, medium and high risk of short-term mortality. It may help to identify a risk group under high risk for short-term mortality that can be used for randomization in clinical trials and may support decision making for palliative chemotherapy.

Predictors of progression free survival, overall survival and early cessation of chemotherapy in women with potentially platinum sensitive (PPS) recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) starting third or subsequent line(≥3) chemotherapy - The GCIG symptom benefit study (SBS).

BACKGROUND: Potentially platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PPS ROC) is defined by a platinum-free interval of >6 months, and usually treated with platinum-based chemotherapy with variable response and benefit in women who have had 3 or more lines of chemotherapy(≥3). We identified baseline characteristics (health-related quality of life[HRQL] and clinicopathological factors), associated with PFS, OS and early progression (within 8 weeks). The goal is to improve patient selection for chemotherapy based on a nomogram predicting PFS. METHODS: HRQL was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30/QLQ-OV28. Associations with PFS and OS were assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Variables significant in univariable analysis were included in multivariable analyses using backward elimination to select those significant. Associations with stopping chemotherapy early were assessed with logistic regression. RESULTS: 378 women were enrolled, with median(m)OS and PFS of 16.6 months and 5.3 months, respectively. The majority had ECOGPS 0-1. Chemotherapy was stopped early in 45/378 participants (12%); with mOS 3.4 months (95% CI: 1.7-7.2). Physical function(PF), role function(RF), cognitive function(CF), social function(SF), Global Health Status(GHS) and abdominal/GI symptoms(AGIS) were significant univariable predictors of PFS(p < 0.030). SF remained significant after adjusting for clinicopathological factors; p = 0.03. PF, RF, CF, SF, GHS and AGIS were significant univariable predictors of OS (p < 0.007); PF, RF, SF and GHS remained significant predictors of OS in multivariable models; p < 0.007. Poor baseline PF and GHS were significant univariable predictors of stopping chemotherapy early (p < 0.007) but neither remained significant after adjusting for clinicopathological factors. CONCLUSION: Baseline HRQL is simple to measure, is predictive of PFS and OS and when used in conjunction with clinicopathological prognostic factors, can assist with clinical decision making and treatment recommendations for women with PPSROC≥3.

Quality of life in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) randomized to maintenance pazopanib or placebo after first-line chemotherapy in the AGO-OVAR 16 trial. Measuring what matters-patient-centered end points in trials of maintenance therapy.

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a secondary end point in AGO-OVAR 16, which randomized 940 patients with EOC after first-line chemotherapy to maintenance pazopanib (PZ) or placebo (P). Additional post hoc analyses were carried out to investigate additional patient-centered end points. Patients and methods: HRQoL was measured with EORTC-QLQ-C30, QLQ-OV28 and EQ-5D-3L. Pre-specified end points included mean differences in HRQoL between treatment arms. Exploratory analyses included quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QAPFS), impact of specific symptoms and progressive disease (PD) on HRQoL and time to second-line chemotherapy. The objective was to provide clinical perspective to the significant median PFS gain of 5.6 months with PZ. Results: There were statistically significant differences between PZ and P in QLQ-C30 global health status [5.5 points; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.7-10.4, P = 0.024] from baseline to 25 months, but not EQ-5D-3L (0.018 points; 95% CI - 0.033 to 0.069, P = 0.485). The impact of diarrhea was captured in QLQ-OV28 Abdominal/GI-Symptoms scale (8.1 points; 95% CI 3.6-12.5, P = 0.001). QAPFS was 386 days (95% CI 366-404 days) with PZ versus 359 days (95% CI 338-379 days) with placebo (P = 0.052). PD was associated with a decline in HRQoL (P < 0.0001). Median time to second-line chemotherapy was 19.7 months with PZ and 15.0 months with P [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.69-0.86, P = 0.0001]. Conclusions: There were small to no significant mean score differences in global HRQoL and EQ5D-3L between PZ and placebo, respectively, despite the increased toxicity of PZ. Exploratory end points including QAPFS, impact of specific symptoms on HRQoL during treatment and at PD help place the PFS gain with PZ in context and interpret the results. Additional patient-centered end points should be considered in trials of maintenance therapy in EOC beyond mean differences in HRQoL scores alone, to support the benefit to patients of prolongation of PFS. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT00866697.

Quality of life predicts overall survival in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: an AURELIA substudy.

BACKGROUND: Women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer are a heterogeneous group whose median overall survival is 12 months. We hypothesized that their quality of life (QoL) scores would be prognostic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from AURELIA (n = 326), a randomized trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, were used to identify baseline QoL domains [EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) QLQ-C30 and OV28] that were significantly associated with overall survival in multivariable Cox regression analyses. Patients were classified as having good, medium, or poor risk. Cutpoints were validated in an independent dataset, CARTAXHY (n = 136). Multivariable analyses of significant QoL domains on survival were adjusted for clinicopathological prognostic factors. The additional QoL information was assessed using C statistic. RESULTS: In AURELIA, all domains, except cognitive function, predicted overall survival in univariable analyses. Physical function (P < 0.001) and abdominal/gastrointestinal symptom (P < 0.001) scores remained significant in multivariable models. In high (score <67), medium (67-93), and low (>93) risk categories for physical function, median overall survival was 11.0, 14.7, and 19.3 months, respectively (P < 0.001). In CARTAXHY, median overall survival was 7.9, 16.2, and 23.9 months (P < 0.001), respectively. For high- (>44), medium- (13-44), and low- (<13) risk categories for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms, median overall survival was 11.9, 14.3, and 19.7 months in AURELIA (P < 0.001) and 10.5, 19.6, and 24.1 months in CARTAXHY (P = 0.02). Physical function (P = 0.02) and abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms (P = 0.03) remained independent prognostic factors after adjustment for clinicopathological factors. The C statistic of the full model was 0.71. For QoL factors alone, patient factors alone and disease factors alone, the C statistics were 0.61, 0.61, and 0.67 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Physical function and abdominal/gastrointestinal symptom scores improved predictions of overall survival over clinicopathological factors alone in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. This additional prognostic information could improve trial stratification, patient-doctor communication about prognosis, and clinical decision-making. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00976911.

Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference: individualized therapy and patient factors.

This manuscript reports the consensus statements regarding the design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), following deliberation at the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC), held in Tokyo in November 2015. Three important questions were identified for discussion prior to the meeting and achieved consensus during the meeting: (i) What are the most important factors to be evaluated prior to initial therapy? (ii) What are the most important factors to be evaluated specifically in recurrent disease? (iii) Are there specific considerations for special patient subpopulations? In addition, we report a list of important unmet needs compiled during the consensus process, which is intended to guide future research initiatives.

Topotecan plus carboplatin versus standard therapy with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) or gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus carboplatin (PLDC): a randomized phase III trial of the NOGGO-AGO-Study Group-AGO Austria and GEICO-ENGOT-GCIG intergroup study (HECTOR).

BACKGROUND: Randomized, phase III trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of topotecan and carboplatin (TC) compared with standard platinum-based combinations in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the experimental TC arm (topotecan 0.75 mg/m2/ days 1-3 and carboplatin AUC 5 on day 3 every 3 weeks) or to one of the standard regimes [(PC) paclitaxel plus carboplatin; (GC) gemcitabine plus carboplatin; (PLDC) pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and carboplatin] which could be chosen by individual preference but before randomization. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) after 12 months. Overall survival (OS), response rate, toxicity, quality of life and treatment preference regarding standard treatment were defined as secondary end points. RESULTS: A total of 550 patients were recruited. The PFS rate after 12 months was 37.0% for TC compared with 40.2% in the standard combinations (P = 0.470). The overall response rate was 73.1% for TC versus 75.1% for standard combinations (P = 0.149). After a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS was 10 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.4-10.6] and did not differ between both arms (P = 0.414). The median OS was 25 months in the TC arm versus 31 months in the standard arm (95% CI: 22.4-27.6 resp. 26.0-36.0; P = 0.163). Severe hematologic toxicities (grade 3/4) were rare in the experimental arm (P < 0.001), with 17.4% leucopenia, 27.8% neutropenia and 15.9% thrombopenia. CONCLUSION: The combination of carboplatin and topotecan was well tolerated with significant lower rates of severe hematological toxicities but did not improve PFS or OS in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer compared with established standard regimens.

Prognostic factors in young ovarian cancer patients: An analysis of four prospective phase III intergroup trials of the AGO Study Group, GINECO and NSGO.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated in a large study meta-database of prospectively randomised phase III trials the prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients < and >40 years of age with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A total of 5055 patients of the AGO, GINECO, NSGO intergroup studies AGO-OVAR 3, 5, 7 and 9 were merged to identify 294 patients <40 years and 4761 patients ≥40 years. We conducted survival analyses and Cox proportional hazard regression models and additionally analysed a very homogeneous subcohort of 405 patients with serous epithelial ovarian cancer, excellent performance status, who had received complete macroscopic upfront cytoreduction and ≥5 chemotherapy cycles. RESULTS: For patients <40 years, the median PFS was 28.9 months and the median OS was 75.3 months, while the median PFS for patients ≥40 years was 18.1 months and the median OS was 45.7 months. Independent prognostic factors were similar in both age groups. In a multivariate analysis including prognostic factors potentially leading to confounding, young age appeared to improve PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-1.03) and OS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.91). The observed effect was even stronger in the subcohort of optimally treated patients with SEOC: PFS (HR, 0.34; 95% CI: 0.19-0.59) and OS (HR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.09-0.56). DISCUSSION: Prognostic factors were similar in both age groups. Young age appeared a strong independent protective prognostic factor for PFS and OS in the subcohort.

Poor concordance between CA-125 and RECIST at the time of disease progression in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: analysis of the AURELIA trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on CA-125 as a predictor of disease progression (PD) in ovarian cancer come predominantly from patients with platinum-sensitive disease receiving chemotherapy alone. We assessed concordance between CA-125-defined and RECIST-defined PD using data from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) randomized phase III AURELIA trial in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with PROC were randomized to receive single-agent chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. PD by CA-125 was defined according to GCIG criteria (except that confirmatory CA-125 measurement was not required). This exploratory analysis included patients with RECIST PD and a CA-125 reading ≤28 days before and ≤21 days after RECIST-defined PD. RESULTS: Of 218 eligible patients, only 94 (43%, 95% confidence interval 36% to 50%) had concordant RECIST and CA-125 PD status (42% in the chemotherapy-alone arm; 45% in the bevacizumab combination arm, P = 0.6). There was no evidence of CA-125-defined PD in the remaining 124 patients despite PD according to imaging. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients with PD defined by both RECIST and CA-125 and those with RECIST-only PD. CA-125 was even less sensitive in detecting PD in patients with early (<8 weeks after randomization) compared with later RECIST-defined PD (69% versus 53%, respectively, not meeting CA-125 criteria; P = 0.053). There was no significant difference in survival after PD in patients with concordant PD by RECIST and CA-125 versus those with PD only by RECIST. We validated our findings in an independent study population of PROC. CONCLUSIONS: In this platinum-resistant population, PD was typically detected earlier by imaging than by CA-125, irrespective of bevacizumab treatment. Disease status by CA-125 at the time of PD was not prognostic for overall survival. Regular radiologic assessment as well as symptom benefit assessment should be considered during PROC follow-up.

Prognostic and predictive effects of primary versus secondary platinum resistance for bevacizumab treatment for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in the AURELIA trial.

BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were significantly improved by adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) in the phase III AURELIA trial. We explored treatment outcomes according to primary platinum resistance (PPR) versus secondary platinum resistance (SPR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were categorized as PPR (disease progression <6 months after completing first-line platinum therapy) or SPR (progression ≥6 months after first platinum but <6 months after second). The exploratory Cox and logistic regression analyses correlated PFS, ORR, overall survival (OS), and PROs with the time to development of platinum resistance. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients with PPR (n = 262; 73%) and SPR (n = 99; 27%), although ascites were more common in the PPR subgroup. In bevacizumab-treated patients (n = 179), SPR was associated with improved PFS (median 10.2 versus 5.6 months in PPR patients; P < 0.001) and OS (median 22.2 versus 13.7 months, respectively; P < 0.001) but not PROs (22% versus 22% with improved abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms at week 8/9). In multivariate analyses, SPR remained an independent prognostic factor for better PFS [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.67; P < 0.001] and OS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.80; P = 0.005) in bevacizumab-treated patients, but was not statistically significant for either end point in the chemotherapy-alone subgroup. The magnitude of PFS benefit from bevacizumab appeared greater in SPR than PPR patients (HR 0.30 versus 0.55, respectively; interaction P = 0.07) with a similar direction of effect for OS (interaction P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In bevacizumab-treated patients, PFS and OS were more favorable in SPR than PPR patients with equally improved PROs. The PFS and OS benefit from combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy was more pronounced in SPR than PPR PROC. PPR versus SPR should be a stratification factor in future trials evaluating anti-angiogenic therapy for PROC.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer revisited.

Despite the recent publication of two randomized controlled phase III trials addressing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer, the optimal timing of multimodal management in primary therapy is still under debate. As both studies met their primary end point by demonstrating non-inferiority, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery has been proposed to be an alternative standard for primary ovarian cancer treatment. Nevertheless, significant questions remain unanswered in both trials. Especially, the radicality of surgical therapy was below expectation with the median operating times of <3 h and complete gross resection in <20% of the patients. Consecutively, survival rates of patients undergoing primary debulking surgery were low. Since the primarily surgical question of 'primary versus interval-surgery' can only be answered if the key criteria 'complete gross resection' are present in a considerable percentage of patients, additional studies are needed and neoadjuvant chemotherapy should not be used to reduce surgical radicality for ovarian cancer treatment.

Statement of the AGO Kommission Ovar, AGO Study Group, NOGGO, AGO Austria and AGO Switzerland Regarding the Use of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Ovarian Cancer.

The AGO Kommission Ovar already published a statement in 2013, warning about the uncritical use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) outside controlled studies. This statement has now been updated after the most recent literature was reviewed by AGO Kommission Ovar, the AGO Study Group, NOGGO, AGO Austria and AGO Switzerland. The authors conclude that HIPEC remains experimental. Its use is not recommended and should be rejected outside of prospective controlled trials.

Surgical staging and prognosis in serous borderline ovarian tumours (BOT): a subanalysis of the AGO ROBOT study.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete surgical staging is a negative prognostic factor for patients with borderline ovarian tumours (BOT). However, little is known about the prognostic impact of each individual staging procedure. METHODS: Clinical parameters of 950 patients with BOT (confirmed by central reference pathology) treated between 1998 and 2008 at 24 German AGO centres were analysed. In 559 patients with serous BOT and adequate ovarian surgery, further recommended staging procedures (omentectomy, peritoneal biopsies, cytology) were evaluated applying Cox regression models with respect to progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: For patients with one missing staging procedure, the hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence was 1.25 (95%-CI 0.66-2.39; P=0.497). This risk increased with each additional procedure skipped reaching statistical significance in case of two (HR 1.95; 95%-CI 1.06-3.58; P=0.031) and three missing steps (HR 2.37; 95%-CI 1.22-4.64; P=0.011). The most crucial procedure was omentectomy which retained a statistically significant impact on PFS in multiple analysis (HR 1.91; 95%-CI 1.15-3.19; P=0.013) adjusting for previously established prognostic factors as FIGO stage, tumour residuals, and fertility preservation. CONCLUSION: Individual surgical staging procedures contribute to the prognosis for patients with serous BOT. In this analysis, recurrence risk increased with each skipped surgical step. This should be considered when re-staging procedures following incomplete primary surgery are discussed.

Age-dependent differences in borderline ovarian tumours (BOT) regarding clinical characteristics and outcome: results from a sub-analysis of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO) ROBOT study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of all borderline ovarian tumours (BOT) are diagnosed in patients with child-bearing potential. Detailed information regarding their specific characteristics and prognostic factors is limited. METHODS: Clinical parameters of BOT patients treated between 1998 and 2008 in 24 German centres were retrospectively investigated. Central pathology review and prospective follow-up were carried out. Patients <40 versus ≥40 years were analysed separately and then compared regarding clinico-pathological variables and prognosis. RESULTS: A total of 950 BOT patients with a median age of 49.1 (14.1-91.5) years were analysed [280 patients <40 years (29.5%), 670 patients ≥40 years (70.5%)]. Fertility-preserving surgery was carried out in 53.2% (149 of 280) of patients <40 years with preservation of the primarily affected ovary in 32 of these 149 cases (21.5%). Recurrence was significantly more frequent in patients <40 years (19.0% versus 10.1% 5-year recurrence rate, P < 0.001), usually in ovarian tissue, whereas disease-specific overall survival did not differ between the subgroups. In case of recurrent disease, malignant transformation was less frequent in younger than in older patients (12.0% versus 66.7%, P < 0.001), mostly presenting as invasive peritoneal carcinomatosis. Multivariate analysis for patients <40 years identified advanced International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and fertility-sparing approach as independent prognostic factors negatively affecting progression-free survival (PFS) while, for patients ≥40 years, higher FIGO stage and incomplete staging was associated with impaired PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite favourable survival, young BOT patients with child-bearing potential are at higher risk for disease recurrence. However, relapses usually remain BOT in the preserved ovaries as opposed to older patients being at higher risk for malignant transformation in peritoneal or distant localisation. Therefore, fertility-sparing approach can be justified for younger patients after thorough consultation.

Surgical intervention in relapsed ovarian cancer is beneficial: pro.

Several reports have suggested that secondary cytoreductive surgery in relapsed ovarian cancer is beneficial. This review is summarizing the positive aspects of this approach, which have led to this suggestion.

Statement by the Kommission OVAR of the AGO Study Group on the Use of HIPEC (Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy) to Treat Primary and Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

HIPEC is offered to patients with ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer at some hospitals. Altogether, there is still no evidence that HIPEC leads to an improvement of prognosis in any gynecologic tumor, neither in primary therapy nor in treatment of relapse. The available data indicate an increased complication rate which might negatively impact the benefit-risk balance of this procedure. In addition, standard treatment with proven efficacy might be withheld due to application of unproven methods. The use of HIPEC outside of well designed, prospective and controlled clinical trials is therefore disregarded.

A phase II trial (AGO 2.11) in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a randomized multicenter trial with sunitinib (SU11248) to evaluate dosage, schedule, tolerability, toxicity and effectiveness of a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer usually has a poor outcome with conventional chemotherapeutic therapy and new treatment modalities are warranted. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate sunitinib, an oral antiangiogenic multitargeted tyrosin kinase inhibitor, in this setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The primary end point of this randomized phase II trial was the objective response rate according to RECIST criteria and/or Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup CA125 response criteria to sunitinib in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who were pretreated with up to three chemotherapies. A selection design was employed to compare two schedules of sunitinib (arm 1: 50 mg sunitinib daily orally for 28 days followed by 14 days off drug; and arm 2: 37.5 mg sunitinib administered daily continuously). RESULTS: Of 73 patients enrolled, 36 patients were randomly allocated to the noncontinuous treatment arm (arm 1) and 37 patients were randomly allocated to the continuous treatment arm (arm 2). The mean age was 58.8 and 58.5 years, respectively. We observed six responders (complete response + partial response) in arm 1 (16.7%) and 2 responders in arm 2 (5.4%). The median progression-free survival (arm 1: 4.8 [2.9-8.1] months; arm 2: 2.9 [2.9-5.1] months) and the median overall survival (arm 1: 13.6 [7.0-23.2] months; arm 2: 13.7 [8.4-25.6] months) revealed no significant difference. Adverse events included fatigue as well as cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and abdominal symptoms, hematologic and hepatic laboratory abnormalities. Pattern and frequency of adverse events revealed no substantial differences between both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib treatment is feasible and moderately active in relapsed platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The noncontinuous treatment schedule should be chosen for further studies in ovarian cancer.

Interventional bleeding, hematoma and scar-formation after vacuum-biopsy under stereotactic guidance: Mammotome(®)-system 11 g/8 g vs. ATEC(®)-system 12 g/9 g.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prospectively the correlation of scar-formations after vacuum-assisted biopsy with different systems and needle-sizes and interventional bleeding/post-interventional hematoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 01/2008 and 12/2009, 479 patients underwent vacuum-assisted biopsy under stereotactic-guidance, using the Mammotome(®)-system with 11/8-gauge and ATEC(®)-system with 12/9-gauge, whereas in 178 cases with representative benign histology no surgical-biopsy after vacuum-assisted biopsy was performed and at least a 2-plane-follow-up-mammogram after 6 month post-vacuum-assisted biopsy was available. Bleeding during intervention, hematoma post-intervention and scar-tissue was scored as minimal and moderate/severe. Statistical analysis included Chi-Square-trend-test, p-value <0.05 was considered to be significant. RESULTS: Significantly more bleedings and post-interventional hematomas for 8-gauge-Mammotome(®)-system vs. 11-gauge-Mammotome(®)-system (41.9% vs. 8.4%, p<0.001/35.5% vs. 16.7%, p=0.029), no significant-differences for the ATEC(®)-systems 9-gauge vs. 12-gauge (26.9% vs. 29.7%, p=0.799/42.3% vs. 43.2%, p=0.596). 11-gauge-Mammotome(®)-system vs. ATEC(®)-12-gauge-system revealed significantly less bleedings/hematomas (8.4% vs. 29.7%, p=0.015/16.7% vs. 43.2%, p=0.001), no significant differences for the large-systems (p=0.135/p=0.352). Follow-up of Mammotome(®)-11/8-gauge-system system has shown 13.1/16.1% minimal scar-formation and 1.2/3.2% moderate/severe scars, whereas ATEC(®)-12/9-gauge-system has shown 10.8/3.8% minimal scar-formation and 0/11.5% moderate/severe scars, no significant differences. No significant difference was found when comparing Mammotome(®)-11/8-g-systems vs. ATEC(®)-12/9-g-systems (p=0.609/p=0.823). There was also no correlation between risk of scar-formation after occurrence of bleeding or hematoma with any examined VAB-system or any needle size in this study (p=0.800). CONCLUSION: Using larger needle-sizes significantly (Mammotome(®))/not significant for ATEC(®)) more interventional bleedings and post-interventional hematomas were detected, only a tendency concerning scar-formation.

Rare Benign Entities of the Breast - Myoid Hamartoma and Capillary Hemangioma.

Hamartomas can occur in different areas of the breast, but they are rarely found in the breast. Myoid hamartomas with smooth muscle cells of the type described here are particularly unusual. The pathogenesis of this benign entity with its tendency to growth and recurrence is not clear. Excision is the therapy of choice. Capillary hemangiomas are rare vascular malformations of the breast which, in contrast to cavernous hemangiomas, usually remain clinically occult. It is important to differentiate these benign findings from malignant angiosarcoma. The possible heterogeneities between myoid hamartoma and capillary hemangioma using current breast imaging methods for the differential diagnosis (high-resolution ultrasound, duplex sonography, shear wave elastography, digital mammography, minimally invasive intervention) are discussed together with an overview of the literature.