Treatment and survival of patients diagnosed with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Several factors may increase the risk of recurrence of patients diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC). We aim to determine the proportion of patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- BC within the total HR+/HER2- BC cohort and compare their systemic treatments and survival rates with those of patients with low- and intermediate-risk HR+/HER2- BC and triple-negative (TN) BC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women diagnosed with nonmetastatic invasive HR+/HER2- BC and TNBC in the Netherlands between 2011 and 2019 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with HR+/HER2- BC were categorised according to risk profile, defined by nodal status, tumour size, and histological grade. High-risk HR+/HER2- BC was defined by either four or more positive lymph nodes or one to three positive lymph nodes with a tumour size of ≥5 cm or a histological grade 3 tumour. Overall survival (OS) and relative survival (RS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier and Pohar-Perme method. RESULTS: In this study of 87 455 patients with HR+/HER2- BC, 44 078 (50%) patients were diagnosed with low risk, 28 452 (33%) with intermediate risk, and 11 285 (13%) with high-risk HR+/HER2- BC. In 3640 (4%) patients, the risk profile could not be defined. Endocrine therapy and chemotherapy were used in 38% and 7% of low-risk, 90% and 47% of intermediate-risk, and 94% and 73% of high-risk patients, respectively. The 10-year OS and RS rates were 84.1% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 83.5% to 84.7%] and 98.7% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.4%) in low-risk, 75.1% (95% CI 74.2% to 76.0%) and 91.7% (95% CI 89.7% to 93.3%) in intermediate-risk, and 63.4% (95% CI 62.0% to 64.7%) and 72.3% (70.1% to 74.3%) in high-risk patients. The 10-year OS and RS rates of 12 689 patients with TNBC were 69.7% (95% CI 68.6% to 70.8%) and 79.1% (95% CI 77.0% to 80.9%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The poor prognosis of patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- BC highlights the need for a better acknowledgement of this subgroup and supports ongoing clinical trials aimed at optimising systemic therapy.

The role of contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast.

AIM: To assess the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the preoperative staging of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was a multicentre, multivendor, multinational retrospective study of women with a histological diagnosis of ILC who had undergone CEM from December 2013 to December 2021. Index lesion size and multifocality were recorded for two-dimensional (2D) mammography, CEM, and when available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Comparison with histological data was undertaken for women treated by primary surgical excision. Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman's analysis of agreement were used to assess differences with a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen ILC lesions were included, 46 (40%) presented symptomatically and 69 were screening detected. CEM demonstrated superior sensitivity when compared to standard mammography. The correlation between the histological size measured on the surgical excision specimen size was greater than with standard mammography (r=0.626 and 0.295 respectively, p=0.001), with 19% of lobular carcinomas not visible without a contrast agent. The sensitivity of CEM for multifocal disease was greater than standard mammography (70% and 20% respectively, p<0.0001). CEM overestimated tumour size by an average of 1.5 times, with the size difference increasing for larger tumour. When MRI was performed (n=22), tumour size was also overestimated by an average of 1.3 times. The degree of size overestimation was similar for both techniques, with the tumour size on CEM being on average 0.5 cm larger than MRI. CONCLUSION: CEM is a useful tool for the local staging of lobular carcinomas and could be an alternative to breast MRI.

Contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Current status and future challenges.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced breast MRI and recently also contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are available for breast imaging. The aim of the current overview is to explore existing evidence and ongoing challenges of contrast-enhanced breast imaging. METHODS: This narrative provides an introduction to the contrast-enhanced breast imaging modalities breast MRI and CEM. Underlying principle, techniques and BI-RADS reporting of both techniques are described and compared, and the following indications and ongoing challenges are discussed: problem-solving, high-risk screening, supplemental screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue, breast implants, neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) response monitoring, MRI-guided and CEM- guided biopsy. RESULTS: Technique and reporting for breast MRI are standardised, for the newer CEM standardisation is in progress. Similarly, compared to other modalities, breast MRI is well established as superior for problem-solving, screening women at high risk, screening women with extremely dense breast tissue or with implants; and for monitoring response to NST. Furthermore, MRI-guided biopsy is a reliable technique with low long-term false negative rates. For CEM, data is as yet either absent or limited, but existing results in these settings are promising. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced breast imaging achieves highest diagnostic performance and should be considered essential. Of the two contrast-enhanced modalities, evidence of breast MRI superiority is ample, and preliminary results on CEM are promising, yet CEM warrants further study.