B2 Prognostic Score: External Validation of a Clinical Decision-making Tool for Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The B2 Prognostic Score (B2PS) is a clinical decision-making tool in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that provides risk classification based on routine parameters. This study validates the B2PS in an independent series of MBC for the whole study group and for each intrinsic subtype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 641 metastasized patients, treated in 17 German certified breast cancer centers between 2001 and 2009. They were classified into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups according to B2PS. Overall survival (OS) curves for the various B2PS groups were compared with Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: According to the B2PS formula, 42.3% of patients were classified as low risk, 25.4% as intermediate risk and 32.3% as high risk. Intermediate- and high-risk patients had a statistically significant decreased OS compared with B2PS low-risk patients: (intermediate-risk: hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.77; P = .023; high-risk: hazard ratio, 2.62; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-3.32; P < .001). The 5-year survival rates of low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients were 41.3%, 26.9%, and 10.2%, respectively. The distribution of B2PS risk groups varied significantly within the intrinsic subtypes. For each intrinsic subtype, B2PS gives an additional risk classification. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the reproducibility of the B2PS based on routinely assessable parameters and confirms its prognostic value in an independent entire cohort of MBC as well as in the separate intrinsic subtypes. It therefore can help in counseling and individualizing the therapeutic regimens of those patients.

Evaluation of sentinel lymph node biopsy prior to axillary lymph node dissection: the role of isolated tumor cells/micrometastases and multifocality/multicentricity-a retrospective study of 1214 breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone has thus become an accepted surgical approach for patients with limited axillary metastatic disease. We investigated to what extent isolated tumor cells (ITC) or micrometastasis in SLNBs is associated with proven tumor cells or metastasis in non-sentinel lymph nodes. Furthermore, we investigated the feasibility of SLNB in multifocal and multicentric tumors as both entities have been considered a contraindication for this technique. METHODS: 1214 women suffering from T1 and T2 invasive breast cancer, with clinically and sonographically insuspect axillary status and undergoing primary breast cancer surgery including SLNB and axillary staging in case of SLN (sentinel lymph node) metastases, were recruited into this multicentered study. RESULTS: ITC and micrometastases were found in 2.01 and 21.4% of patients with SLN metastases (n = 299). Among patients with sentinel micrometastases, 4.7% showed further axillary micrometastases, while only two patients (3.1%) had two axillary macrometastases. Multifocal and multicentric tumors were diagnosed in 9.3 and 2.6% of our patients who at least had one SLN resected, respectively. Detection rates of SLNs did not differ between the cohorts suffering from unicentric and multifocal or multicentric disease. Moreover, the portion of tumor-free SLNs, the number of SLNs with metastasis as well as the mean number of resected SLNs did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: No patient with sentinel node micrometastases showed more than two axillary macrometastases. Multifocal and multicentric disease is no contraindication for SLNB.

The impact of breast cancer biological subtyping on tumor size assessment by ultrasound and mammography - a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 6543 primary breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Mammography and ultrasound are the gold standard imaging techniques for preoperative assessment and for monitoring the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Maximum accuracy in predicting pathological tumor size non-invasively is critical for individualized therapy and surgical planning. We therefore aimed to assess the accuracy of tumor size measurement by ultrasound and mammography in a multicentered health services research study. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 6543 patients with unifocal, unilateral primary breast cancer. The maximum tumor diameter was measured by ultrasound and/or mammographic imaging. All measurements were compared to final tumor diameter determined by postoperative histopathological examination. We compared the precision of each imaging method across different patient subgroups as well as the method-specific accuracy in each patient subgroup. RESULTS: Overall, the correlation with histology was 0.61 for mammography and 0.60 for ultrasound. Both correlations were higher in pT2 cancers than in pT1 and pT3. Ultrasound as well as mammography revealed a significantly higher correlation with histology in invasive ductal compared to lobular cancers (p < 0.01). For invasive lobular cancers, the mammography showed better correlation with histology than ultrasound (p = 0.01), whereas there was no such advantage for invasive ductal cancers. Ultrasound was significantly superior for HR negative cancers (p < 0.001). HER2/neu positive cancers were also more precisely assessed by ultrasound (p < 0.001). The size of HER2/neu negative cancers could be more accurately predicted by mammography (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This multicentered health services research approach demonstrates that predicting tumor size by mammography and ultrasound provides accurate results. Biological tumor features do, however, affect the diagnostic precision.

Amniotic fluid insulin and C-peptide as predictive markers for fetal macrosomia, birth injuries, and delivery complications?

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) occurs in 3-5% of all pregnancies. GDM increases both maternal and fetal risks, causes fetal macrosomia, and hence increases the rates of caesarean sections and delivery complications such as shoulder dystocia. An early predictive marker and consequent early treatment could be beneficial, so amniotic fluid insulin and C-peptide have been examined in several studies. Increased amniotic fluid insulin in early amniocentesis between the 14th and 20th gestational week predicted a later GDM. A potential direct association with fetal macrosomia remains to be determined. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study investigated amniotic fluid insulin/C-peptide from amniocenteses between 14 and 20 weeks of gestation in correlation with fetal birth weight, type of delivery, and complications. To focus on effects of fetal hyperinsulinism apart from therapeutic confounders, we included patients who did not participate in GDM screening. Insulin and C-peptide were measured in 144 samples of frozen amniotic fluid. Birth weight, type of delivery, complications, and birth injuries were noted. RESULTS: Birth weights ranged from 760 g to 4410 g with a mean weight of 3424 g at an average of 40 weeks gestation. The mean amniotic fluid insulin was 4.36 U/ml and the mean C-peptide concentration was 0.076 ng/ml. There was no correlation between amniotic fluid insulin or C peptide and birth weight, type of delivery, complications, and birth injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Amniotic fluid insulin and C-peptide are unsuitable as predictive marker for fetal macrosomia, type of delivery, complications, or birth injuries.