Comparing breast cancer imaging characteristics of CHEK2 with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer gene (BRCA) 1 and 2 mutations are frequently studied gene mutations (GM); the incidence of checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2) is increasing. We describe the imaging features of breast cancer (BC) in CHEK2 mutations, compared to BRCA 1 and 2 using mammography, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHOD: Inclusion criteria were primary BC in GM carriers, treated in the same hospital. Age at diagnosis, histology, hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status were retrieved. Mammography descriptors were mass, asymmetry and suspicious microcalcifications. The enhancement pattern (MRI), shape and border, architectural distortion, the presence of a hyperechoic rim and cystic complex structure (US) were documented. Analyses were performed using SAS software (version 9.4). Fishers' exact test was used to test associations between two categorical variables. RESULTS: In 191 women, 233 malignant lesions were diagnosed (78 in BRCA1, 109 in BRCA2, 46 in CHEK2). In CHEK2 carriers, mammographically, suspicious microcalcifications (54%) were more prevalent (BRCA2 (48%) and BRCA1 carriers (33%)) (p-value = 0.057) compared to mass lesions (35%). On US, lesions were most frequently ill-defined (86%) (p = 0.579) and irregular (94.5%) (p = 0.098) compared to BRCA2 (77% and 80% resp.) and BRCA1 carriers (71% and 72% resp.). On MRI, mass lesions showed a type 3 curve in CHEK2 (67%) compared to BRCA1 (36%) and BRCA2 (50%) (p = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: Malignant radiological characteristics of breast cancer, more specifically suspicious microcalcifications, were more frequently seen in CHEK2 and BRCA2 compared to BRCA1 mutation carriers (without a significant difference) indicating the importance of mammography in follow-up of CHEK2 carriers.

Breast imaging surveillance after curative treatment for primary non-metastasised breast cancer in non-high-risk women: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The article summarises the available guidelines on breast imaging surveillance after curative treatment for locoregional breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of practice guidelines published from 1 January 2007 to 1 January 2017 was performed according to PRISMA methodology. The search was conducted for the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. On 8 July 2018, all included guidelines were updated to the most recent version. RESULTS: Twenty-one guidelines originating from 18 publishing bodies matched criteria. Publishing bodies consisted of seven governmental institutions, nine medical societies and two mixed collaborations. Publishing boards consisted of six radiological, four oncological, and 11 multidisciplinary teams. Annual bilateral mammography surveillance after breast-conserving therapy was recommended by 17/18 (94.4%) publishing bodies. Annual contralateral mammography surveillance after mastectomy was recommended by 13/18 (72.2%) publishing bodies. Routine use of digital breast tomosynthesis was recommended by 1/18 (5.6%) publishing bodies. Routine breast ultrasound surveillance was recommended by 2/18 (11.1%), deemed optional by 4/18 (22.2%) and not supported by 8/18 (44.4%) publishing bodies. Routine breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance was not recommended by 16/18 (88.9%) publishing bodies, although 6/18 (33.3%) specified subgroups for systematic MRI surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Annual mammography is currently the 'gold standard' for breast imaging surveillance. The role of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) remains to be further investigated. Most guidelines do not recommend routine breast ultrasound or MRI surveillance, unless indicated by additional risk factors.

International Day of Radiology: Breast Imaging.

November 8, 2016, is the International Day of Radiology (IDoR), which is dedicated to breast imaging and the essential role that radiology plays in the detection, diagnosis, and management of diseases of the breast (http://www.internationaldayofradiology.com). On the website, you can find the book to honour the International Day of Radiology, Screening & Beyond, which provides an amazing overview of breast imaging, with contributions from many of the world's top breast radiologists.

Prediction of non-sentinel lymph node involvement in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node.

Completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) is the golden standard if breast cancer involves the sentinel lymph node (SLN). However, most non-sentinel lymph nodes (NSLN) are not involved, cALND has a considerable complication rate and does not improve outcome. We here present and validate our predictive model for positive NSLNs in the cALND if the SLN is positive. Consecutive early breast cancer patients from one center undergoing cALND for a positive SLN were included. We assessed demographic and clinicopathological variables for NSLN involvement. Uni- and multivariate analysis was performed. A predictive model was built and validated in two external centers. 21.9% of 470 patients had at least one involved NSLN. In univariate analysis, seven variables were significantly correlated with NSLN involvement: tumor size, grade, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), number of positive and negative SLNs, size of SLN metastasis and intraoperative positive SLN. In multivariate analysis, LVI, number of negative SLNs, size of SLN metastasis and intraoperative positive pathological evaluation were independent predictors for NSLN involvement. The calculated risk resulted in an AUC of 0.76. Applied to the external data, the model was accurate and discriminating for one (AUC = 0.75) and less for the other center (AUC = 0.58). A discriminative predictive model was constructed to calculate the risk of NSLN involvement in case of a positive SLN. External validation of our model reveals differences in performance when applied to data from other institutions concluding that such a predictive model requires validation prior to use.

Is the sentinel lymph node biopsy more sensitive for the identification of positive lymph nodes in breast cancer than the axillary lymph node dissection?

Since the routine clinical use of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedure, questions have been raised concerning an increase in the overall percentage of node-positive patients. The goal of our study was to compare the sensitivity of the SLN procedure and the axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for the identification of positive lymph nodes in breast cancer. The incidence of axillary node metastasis in SLNB and ALND specimens from patients undergoing operative treatment of a primary breast carcinoma was compared retrospectively. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the effect of various predictors on the presence of positive lymph nodes. We constructed a multivariate model including the procedure and these predictors that have shown to be related to lymph node involvement in univariate analysis. The probability of finding positive lymph nodes was thus calculated in both groups correcting for relevant predictors of lymph node involvement. The SLNB group included 830 patients, the ALND group 320. In a multivariate analysis, adjusting for the number of foci, tumor location in the breast, tumor size, LVI, ER, PR, tumor grade and histological subtype, the probability of finding positive lymph nodes was higher with SLNB procedure than with an ALND. However, this difference was not statistically significant (OR 0.7635; CI 0.5334-1.0930, p 0.1404). For comparable tumors, SLNB procedure is at least as sensitive as ALND for detecting positive lymph nodes.

Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in early breast cancer and their applicability in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Lymph node involvement is the most important prognostic factor in breast cancer. It is a multifactorial event determined by patient and tumour characteristics. The purpose of this study was to determine clinical and pathological factors predictive for axillary lymph node metastasis (ALNM) in patients with early breast cancer and to build a model to portend lymph node involvement. METHODS: We evaluated 1300 consecutive patients surgically treated in our institution (2007-2009) for cT1-T2 invasive breast cancer. The patient and tumour characteristics evaluated included: age at diagnosis, number of foci, histologic grade, location, tumour size, histologic subtype, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), estrogen-receptor (ER), progesterone-receptor (PR) and Her-2 status. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Factors significantly associated with ALNM by univariate analysis plus histologic subtype were included in the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: By univariate analysis, the incidence of ALNM was significantly associated with the presence of LVI (P < 0.0001), larger tumour size (P < 0.0001), higher histologic grade (P < 0.0001), retroareolar or lateral location in the breast (P < 0.0001), multiple foci (P = 0.0002) and in patients who underwent an axillary lymph node dissection. We found no effect of age, ER/PR nor HER-2 status. By multivariate analysis, ALNM was significantly associated with the presence of LVI (P < 0.0001), larger tumour size (P < 0.0001), axillary lymph node dissection (P = 0.0003), retroareolar and lateral tumour location in the breast (P = 0.0019) and the presence of multiple foci (P = 0.0155). CONCLUSIONS: LVI and tumour size emerged as the most powerful independent predictors of ALNM, followed by the location of the tumour in the breast and the presence of multiple foci.