Impact of Tumor Size on Probability of Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Symphony Trial (NBRST) study found that MammaPrint/BluePrint functional molecular subtype is superior to conventional immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization subtyping for predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The purpose of this substudy was to determine if the rate of pCR is affected by tumor size. METHODS: The NBRST study includes breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping classified patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), and Basal type. Probability of pCR (ypT0/isN0) as a function of tumor size and molecular subgroup was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients were evaluable with overall pCR rates of 28.5 %. Luminal A and B patients had significantly lower rates of pCR (6.1 and 8.7 %, respectively) than either basal (37.1 %) or HER2 (55.0 %) patients (p < 0.001). The probability of pCR significantly decreased with tumor size >5 cm [p = 0.022, odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.36, 0.93]. This relationship was statistically significant in the Basal (p = 0.026, OR 0.46, 95 % CI 0.23, 0.91) and HER2 (p = 0.039, OR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.14, 0.95) subgroups. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, the dichotomized tumor size variable was not significant in any of the molecular subgroups. DISCUSSION: Even though tumor size would intuitively be a clinical determinant of pCR, the current analysis showed that the adjusted OR for tumor size was not statistically significant in any of the molecular subgroups. Factors significantly associated with pCR were PR status, grade, lymph node status, and BluePrint molecular subtyping, which had the strongest correlation.

Comparative dosimetric findings using accelerated partial breast irradiation across five catheter subtypes.

PURPOSE: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with balloon and strut adjusted volume implants (SAVI) show promising results with excellent tumor control and minimal toxicity. Knowing the factors that contribute to a high skin dose, rib dose, and D95 coverage may reduce toxicity, improve tumor control, and help properly predict patient outcomes following APBI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective analysis of 594 patients treated with brachytherapy based APBI at a single institution from May 2008 to September 2014 was grouped by applicator subtype. Patients were treated to a total of 34 Gy (3.4 Gy x 10 fractions over 5 days delivered BID) targeting a planning target volume (PTV) 1.0 cm beyond the lumpectomy cavity using a high dose rate source. RESULTS: SAVI devices had the lowest statistically significant values of DmaxSkin (81.00 ± 29.83), highest values of D90 (101.50 ± 3.66), and D95 (96.09 ± 4.55). SAVI-mini devices had the lowest statistically significant values of DmaxRib (77.66 ± 32.92) and smallest V150 (18.01 ± 3.39). Multi-lumen balloons were able to obtain the smallest V200 (5.89 ± 2.21). Strut-based applicators were more likely to achieve a DmaxSkin and a DmaxRib less than or equal to 100 %. The effect of PTV on V150 showed a strong positive relationship (p < .001). PTV and DmaxSkin showed a weak negative relationship in multi-lumen applicators (p = .016) and SAVI-mini devices (p < .001). PTV and DmaxRib showed a weak negative relationship in multi-lumen applicators (p = .009), SAVI devices (p < .001), and SAVI-mini devices (p < .001). CONCLUSION: PTV volume is strongly correlated with V150 in all devices and V200 in strut based devices. Larger PTV volumes result in greater V150 and V200, which could help predict potential risks for hotspots and resulting toxicities in these devices. PTV volume is also weakly negatively correlated with max skin dose and max rib dose, meaning that as the PTV volumes increase one can expect slightly smaller max skin and rib doses. Strut based applicators are significantly more effective in keeping skin and rib dose constraints under 125 and 100 % when compared to any balloon based applicator.

The impact of use of an intraoperative margin assessment device on re-excision rates.

Historically there has been a high rate of surgical interventions to obtain clear margins for breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving local therapy. An intraoperative margin assessment tool (MarginProbe) has been approved for use in the US since 2013. This study is the first compilation of data from routine use of the device, to assess the impact of device utilization on re-excision rates. We present a retrospective, observational, review from groups of consecutive patients, before and after the implementation of intraoperative use of the device during lumpectomy procedures. Lesions were localized by standard methods. The intraoperative margin assessment device was used on all circumferential margins of the main specimen, but not on any additional shavings. A positive reading by the device led to an additional shaving of the corresponding cavity location. Specimens were also, when feasible, imaged intra-operatively by X-ray, and additional shavings were taken if needed based on clinical assessment. For each surgeon, historical re-excision rates were established based on a consecutive set of patients from a time period proximal to initiation of use of the device. From March 2013 to April 2014 the device was routinely used by 4 surgeons in 3 centers. In total, 165 cases lumpectomy cases were performed. Positive margins resulted in additional re-excision procedures in 9.7% (16/165) of the cases. The corresponding historical set from 2012 and 2013 consisted of 186 Lumpectomy cases, in which additional re-excision procedures were performed in 25.8% (48/186) of the cases. The reduction in the rate of re-excision procedures was significant 62% (P < 0.0001). Use of an intraoperative margin assessment device contributes to achieving clear margins and reducing re-excision procedures. As in some cases positive margins were found on shavings, future studies of interest may include an analysis of the effect of using the device on the shavings intra-operatively.

Chemosensitivity predicted by BluePrint 80-gene functional subtype and MammaPrint in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST).

PURPOSE: The purpose of the NBRST study is to compare a multigene classifier to conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC)/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) subtyping to predict chemosensitivity as defined by pathological complete response (pCR) or endocrine sensitivity as defined by partial response. METHODS: The study includes women with histologically proven breast cancer, who will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. BluePrint in combination with MammaPrint classifies patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal. RESULTS: A total of 426 patients had definitive surgery. Thirty-seven of 211 (18 %) IHC/FISH hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- patients were reclassified by Blueprint as Basal (n = 35) or HER2 (n = 2). Fifty-three of 123 (43 %) IHC/FISH HER2+ patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 36) or Basal (n = 17). Four of 92 (4 %) IHC/FISH triple-negative (TN) patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 2) or HER2 (n = 2). NCT pCR rates were 2 % in Luminal A and 7 % Luminal B patients versus 10 % pCR in IHC/FISH HR+/HER2- patients. The NCT pCR rate was 53 % in BluePrint HER2 patients. This is significantly superior (p = 0.047) to the pCR rate in IHC/FISH HER2+ patients (38 %). The pCR rate of 36 of 75 IHC/FISH HER2+/HR+ patients reclassified as BPLuminal is 3 %. NCT pCR for BluePrint Basal patients was 49 of 140 (35 %), comparable to the 34 of 92 pCR rate (37 %) in IHC/FISH TN patients. CONCLUSIONS: BluePrint molecular subtyping reclassifies 22 % (94/426) of tumors, reassigning more responsive patients to the HER2 and Basal categories while reassigning less responsive patients to the Luminal category. These findings suggest that compared with IHC/FISH, BluePrint more accurately identifies patients likely to respond (or not respond) to NCT.

A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The presence of tumor cells at the margins of breast lumpectomy specimens is associated with an increased risk of ipsilateral tumor recurrence. Twenty to 30 % of patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery require second procedures to achieve negative margins. This study evaluated the adjunctive use of the MarginProbe device (Dune Medical Devices Ltd, Caesarea, Israel) in providing real-time intraoperative assessment of lumpectomy margins. METHODS: This multicenter randomized trial enrolled patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. The study evaluated MarginProbe use in addition to standard intraoperative methods for margin assessment. After specimen removal and inspection, patients were randomized to device or control arms. In the device arm, MarginProbe was used to examine the main lumpectomy specimens and direct additional excision of positive margins. Intraoperative imaging was used in both arms; no intraoperative pathology assessment was permitted. RESULTS: In total, 596 patients were enrolled. False-negative rates were 24.8 and 66.1 % and false-positive rates were 53.6 and 16.6 % in the device and control arms, respectively. All positive margins on positive main specimens were resected in 62 % (101 of 163) of cases in the device arm, versus 22 % (33 of 147) in the control arm (p < 0.001). A total of 19.8 % (59 of 298) of patients in the device arm underwent a reexcision procedure compared with 25.8 % (77 of 298) in the control arm (6 % absolute, 23 % relative reduction). The difference in tissue volume removed was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive use of the MarginProbe device during breast-conserving surgery improved surgeons' ability to identify and resect positive lumpectomy margins in the absence of intraoperative pathology assessment, reducing the number of patients requiring reexcision. MarginProbe may aid performance of breast-conserving surgery by reducing the burden of reexcision procedures for patients and the health care system.

Estrogen receptor splice variants as a potential source of false-positive estrogen receptor status in breast cancer diagnostics.

It is well established that only estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors benefit from hormonal therapies. We hypothesized that a subgroup of breast cancer patients expresses estrogen receptor α (ERα), but fails to respond to hormonal therapy due to the expression of a non-functional receptor. We analyzed a series of 2,658 ERα-positive HER2-negative breast tumors for ERα and progesterone receptor (PR) status as determined by mRNA expression and for their molecular subtypes (Luminal type vs Basal type, assessed by BluePrint™ molecular subtyping assay). In addition, we assessed the recurrence risk (low vs high) using the 70-gene MammaPrint™ signature. We found that 55 out of 2,658 (2.1 %) tumors that are ERα positive by mRNA analysis also demonstrate a Basal molecular subtype, indicating that they lack expression of estrogen-responsive genes. These ERα-positive Basal-type tumors express significantly lower levels of both ERα and PR mRNA as compared to Luminal-type tumors (P < 0.0001) and almost invariably (94.5 %) have a high-risk MammaPrint™ profile. Twelve of the MammaPrint™ genes are directly ERα responsive, indicating that MammaPrint™ assesses ERα function in breast cancer without considering ERα mRNA levels. We find a relatively high expression of the dominant negative ERα splice variant ERΔ7 in ERα-positive Basal-type tumors as compared to ERα-positive Luminal-type tumors (P < 0.0001). Expression of the dominant negative ERα variant ERΔ7 provides a rationale as to why tumors are of the Basal molecular subtype while staining ERα positive by immunohistochemistry. These tumors may lack a functional response to estrogen and consequently may not respond to hormonal therapy. Our data indicate that such patients are of MammaPrint™ high recurrence risk and might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Prospective randomized study comparing cryo-assisted and needle-wire localization of ultrasound-visible breast tumors.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the surgical results of 2 localization methods-cryo-assisted localization (CAL) and needle-wire localization (NWL)-in patients undergoing breast lumpectomy for breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 310 patients were treated in an institutional review board-approved study with 18 surgeons at 17 sites. Patients were randomized 2:1 to undergo either intraoperative CAL or NWL. A cryoprobe was inserted under ultrasound guidance in the operating room and an ice ball created an 8- to 10-mm margin around the lesion. The palpable ice ball then was dissected. NWL was placed according to institutional practice and resection was performed in a standard fashion. Surgical margins, complications, re-excisions, tissue volume, procedure times, ease of localization, specimen quality, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Positive margins were defined as any type of disease present 1 mm or less from any specimen edge. RESULTS: Positive margin status did not differ between the 2 groups (28% vs. 31%). The volume of tissue removed was significantly less in the CAL group (49 vs. 66 mL, P = .002). Re-excisions were similar in both groups. CAL was superior in ease of lumpectomy, quality of specimen, acute surgical cosmesis, short-term cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and overall procedure time for the patient. CAL had a lower invasive positive margin rate (11% vs. 20%, P = .039) but a higher observed ductal carcinoma in situ-positive margin rate (30% vs. 18%, approaching statistical significance, P = .052). CONCLUSIONS: CAL is a preferred alternative to standard wire localization because it provides a palpable template, removes less tissue and improves cosmesis, decreases overall procedure time, and is more convenient for the patient and surgeon.