Stage I Breast Cancer in the Modern Era: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 328 Patients Diagnosed from 2002 to 2006 with a 14-Year Median Follow-Up.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of stage I breast cancer (BC) patients diagnosed during the current era of screening mammography, immunohistochemistry receptor testing, and systemic adjuvant therapy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 328 stage I BC patients treated consecutively in a single referral center with a follow-up period of at least 12 years. The primary endpoints were invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and overall survival (OS). The influence of tumor size, grade, and subtype on the outcomes was analyzed. RESULTS: Most patients were treated by lumpectomy, sentinel node biopsy, and adjuvant endocrine therapy, and most (82%) were of subtype luminal A. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 25.6% of our cohort. Only 24 patients underwent gene expression testing, which was introduced toward the end of the study period. Mean IDFS was 14.64 years, with a 15-year IDFS of 75.6%. Mean OS was 15.28 years with a 15-year OS of 74.9%. In a Cox multivariate analysis, no clinical or pathologic variable impacted on OS and only tumor size (<1 cm vs. 1-2 cm) impacted significantly on IDFS. During follow-up, 20.1% of the cohort developed second primary cancers, including BC. The median time to diagnosis of a second BC was 6.49 years. CONCLUSION: The study results emphasize the importance of long-term follow-up and screening for subsequent malignancies of patients with stage I BC and support the need for using prognostic and predictive indicators beyond the routine clinicopathological characteristics in luminal A patients.

Neoadjuvant therapy with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by weekly paclitaxel in early breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients treated in a single center with a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

PURPOSE: We analyzed outcomes of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer (BC), in an everyday practice with long-term follow-up of patients. METHODS: All patients (n = 200) who received the AC-paclitaxel combination as NAC for BC at the Soroka University Medical Center from 2003 to 2012 were included in this retrospective cohort study. AC was administered on an every 3-week schedule (standard dose) until May, 2007 (n = 99); and subsequently every 2-week dose dense (dd) (n = 101). Clinical pathologic features, treatment course, and outcome information were recorded. Complete pathologic response (pCR) was analyzed according to BC subtype, dose regimen, and stage. RESULTS: Median age was 49 years; 55.5% and 44.5% of patients were clinically stage 2 and 3, respectively. Standard dose patients had more T3 tumors. Subtypes were human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive 32.5% (of whom 82% received trastuzumab), hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative 53%, and triple negative 14.5%. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was performed in 48.5% of patients; only 9.5% were deemed suitable for BCS prior to NAC. Toxicity was acceptable. The overall pCR rate was 26.0% and was significantly higher in the dd group and HER2-positive patients. With a median follow-up of 9.51 years median event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) are 10.85 years and 12.61 years, respectively. Patients achieving pCR had significantly longer EFS and OS. CONCLUSION: NAC for BC with AC-paclitaxel can be safely administered in the "real-world' setting with high efficacy. Current efforts are aimed at increasing rates of pCR and identifying patients who may benefit from additional therapy or conversely, de-escalated treatment.

Cell-free DNA concentration in patients with clinical or mammographic suspicion of breast cancer.

Mammography has a crucial role in the detection of breast cancer (BC), yet it is not limitation-free. We hypothesized that the combination of mammography and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) levels may better discriminate patients with cancer. This prospective study included 259 participants suspected with BC before biopsy. Blood samples were taken before biopsy and from some patients during and at the end of treatment. cfDNA blood levels were measured using our simple fluorescent assay. The primary outcome was the pathologic diagnosis of BC, and the secondary aims were to correlate cfDNA to severity, response to treatments, and outcome. Median cfDNA blood levels were similar in patients with positive and negative biopsy: 577 vs. 564 ng/ml (p = 0.98). A significant decrease in cfDNA blood level was noted after the following treatments: surgery, surgery and radiation, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and surgery, and at the end of all treatments. To conclude, the cfDNA level could not be used in suspected patients to discriminate BC. Reduction of tumor burden by surgery and chemotherapy is associated with reduction of cfDNA levels. In a minority of patients, an increase in post-treatment cfDNA blood level may indicate the presence of a residual tumor and higher risk. Further outcome assessment for a longer period is suggested.