Citations

Abstract Background: The decision to use adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early stage breast cancer is based in part on the estimation of risk of tumor recurrence by physicians, which traditionally relies heavily on tumor size, nodal status and a set of biologic tumor characteristics such as hormone receptor and HER2 expression. The Oncotype DX® assay is a 21-gene expression profile aiming to improve risk stratification, recurrence prediction and optimize selection of patients for adjuvant chemotherapy.Methods: We selected 154 consecutive patients with early stage estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer and available Oncotype Dx® recurrence score (RS) for the study. Clinicopathologic data, including patient age, menopausal status, tumor size, histologic type, grade, mitotic activity, presence of lymphatic invasion (LVI), nodal status, hormone receptor and HER2 status on all patients were provided to four surgical oncologists, four medical oncologists and three pathologists, specializing in breast cancer diagnosis and management. Participants were asked to estimate the risk of recurrence of tumors based on available clinicopathologic data and to provide the three most important tumor features their risk estimates were based on. Risk estimates of participants were compared with RS results.Results: Based on the Oncotype Dx® results, 95 (61.7%), 45 (29.2%) and 14 (9.1%) tumors were of low (RS <18), intermediate (RS 18-30) and high (RS ≥31) risk, respectively. RS values showed a highly significant correlation with tumor grade, mitotic activity, LVI, hormone receptor and HER2 status, while no correlation with patient age, menopausal status, tumor size and histologic type was found. Participants' risk estimates agreed with those of the Oncotype Dx® assay in 54.2 ± 2.3 % (mean ± SEM, range 41.6 - 63.0%) of cases, while the risk of recurrence was over- and underestimated compared to RS results in 31.8 ± 3.1% (16.2 - 43.5%) and 14.1 ± 1.4% (7.1 - 22.7%), respectively. The rates of overestimation were significantly higher than those of underestimation (p = 0.0003). Although medical oncologists tended to overestimate the risk more frequently (38.1 ± 2.0%) compared to surgeons (28.7 ± 5.9%) and pathologists (27.5 ± 7.8%), the difference did not reach statistical significance. Estimation of the agreement of participants' risk assessment with RS results showed a mean kappa value of 0.2955 (range 0.1506 - 0.4123). No statistically significant difference in overall concurrence with RS results was found between surgeons, medical oncologists and pathologists. Participants ranked tumor stage/nodal status, hormone receptor status and tumor size to be the most important features when estimating recurrence risk.Conclusions: Based on traditional clinicopathologic features alone, surgeons, medical oncologists and pathologists tend to overestimate the risk of tumor recurrence as compared to Oncotype Dx® assay results. The RS may provide additional information regarding the intrinsic biological features of ER positive breast cancers and help tailoring treatment recommendations. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 4061.

Abstract Background: Current guidelines recommend administration of chemotherapy for patients with breast carcinomas >1 cm in size, with consideration for patient age, comorbidities and tumor grade. However, it is unknown which patients actually benefit from therapy and overtreatment of a significant proportion of patients is a major concern. We investigated the impact of the Oncotype Dx® Recurrence Score (RS) on chemotherapy recommendations in early stage estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer patients.Methods: We selected 154 patients with early stage ER positive breast cancer and available RS for the study. Clinicopathologic data, including age, menopausal status, tumor size, type, grade, mitotic activity, presence of lymphatic invasion, nodal status, hormone receptor and HER2 status on all patients were provided to four surgical oncologists, four medical oncologists and three pathologists, specializing in breast cancer diagnosis and management. Assuming that all patients were in good general health and would receive endocrine therapy, participants were asked whether they would also advovate adjuvant chemotherapy based on clinicopathologic data with and without knowledge of the RS, and to provide the three salient clinicopathologic features on which their recommendations were based. Changes in recommendations of participants following inclusion of RS data were compared.Results: Based on RS results, 95 (61.7%), 45 (29.2%) and 14 (9.1%) tumors were of low (RS <18), intermediate (RS 18-30) and high (RS ≥31) risk, respectively. The results are summarized in Table 1. Assuming that the hypothesis previously put forward that patients with low to intermediate risk RS are not likely to benefit from chemotherapy, 82.3 ± 1.3% (75.5 - 89.0%) and 69.0 ± 6.9% (5.9 - 85.7%) of patients for whom chemotherapy was recommended by the participants would be "overtreated" without and with the use of RS results (p = 0.0322). No statistically significant difference was found among surgeons, medical oncologists and pathologists. Participants ranked patient age/menopausal status, hormone receptor status and tumor stage/nodal status to be the most important features when recommending chemotherapy.Conclusions: Although current recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage ER positive breast cancer patients are largely in line with published guidelines, inclusion of RS alters recommendations in about 25% of cases. While medical oncologists recommended chemotherapy more frequently compared to surgeons and pathologists, they were more likely to change recommendations in light of RS results.Table 1. Summary of results SurgeonsMedical oncologistsPathologistsp* Mean ± SEMRangeMean ± SEMRangeMean ± SEMRange Chemo without RS (%)29.2 ± 1.824.0 - 31.859.0 ± 5.046.8 - 70.846.8 ± 3.741.6 - 53.90.0156Chemo with RS (%)27.0 ± 5.611.0 - 36.438.6 ± 9.517.5 - 63.644.4 ± 5.833.8 - 53.90.1794No change (%)75.3 ± 7.054.5 - 85.766.7 ± 6.851.3 - 83.885.9 ± 6.478.6 - 98.70.3682Add chemo (%)11.2 ± 4.13.2 - 22.76.5 ± 1.93.2 - 11.75.8 ± 3.20.6 - 11.70.6882Avoid chemo (%)13.5 ± 3.94.5 - 22.726.8 ± 7.94.5 - 41.68.2 ± 4.50.6 - 16.20.2186*Kruskal-Wallis test Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 4058.

Abstract Abstract #3103 Introduction: Lymphedema is well-known in the arm but can also occur in the breast. Diagnosis is currently non-standardized and based on clinical impression. We sought to determine if skin thickness could serve as a useful measure in the diagnosis of breast lymphedema (BLE).
 Methods: Patients undergoing unilateral non-mastectomy procedures were enrolled on this prospective clinical study preoperatively and evaluated for signs and symptoms of lymphedema in the operated breast in the postoperative period. Patients with established BLE were also studied. BLE diagnosis was independent of ultrasound findings and was based on a graded physical exam targeting clinical signs of edema and erythema. Skin thickness was measured with ultrasound at the 6 o'clock position of both breasts. Differences in skin thickness were assessed by the ratio of skin thickness in the operated and contralateral breasts, with comparison of means by two-sample t-test. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to estimate the area under the curve (AUC) and to determine optimal cutpoints.
 Results: Ninety-seven women were studied; 85 were enrolled preoperatively and 12 postoperatively after a diagnosis of BLE. Median length of follow-up overall was 8 months. Of the 97 women, 46 had BLE at one or more follow-up visit with median time to first diagnosis of 3 months. Mean measured skin thickness was 2.3 ± 0.5mm in unaffected breasts and 3.2 ± 1.0 mm in operated breasts. Women with BLE had significantly greater skin thickness in the operated breast compared to the contralateral breast, with a mean skin thickness ratio of 1.83 ± 0.57 in patients with BLE compared to 1.18 ± 0.40 among those without BLE (p<0.0001). Skin thickness ratio provided excellent discrimination for BLE, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86. At a ratio of 1.32 or greater (32% greater skin thickness in operated versus contralateral breast), sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing BLE were 81% and 82% respectively. A single measure of skin thickness in the operated breast also correlated well with diagnosis of BLE, with skin thickness of 3.2 mm or greater demonstrating sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 82%, AUC 0.82.
 Conclusions: Breast lymphedema results in skin edema and increased skin thickness that can be quantified with ultrasound. Measuring breast skin thickness- either as a single reading or as a ratio to the unaffected breast- may be useful in the diagnosis of breast lymphedema. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 3103.

Abstract Abstract #1005 Background: Several models for the prediction of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis (+NSLN) in sentinel lymph node positive (+SLN) breast cancer patients have been published. Multiple variables have been shown to be important in prediction of +NSLN. To this date, models that utilize 7-8 variables have been significantly more discriminatory than models using only 2-3 variables. In this study, we evaluate the performance of the newly created Stanford online calculator (SOC) to predict the likelihood of +NSLN. The SOC uses 3 variables: primary tumor size, sentinel lymph node metastasis size, and presence/absence of lymphovascular invasion.
 Methods: From 1997-2004, 465 breast cancer patients with clinically negative axillae were found to have a +SLN and underwent completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) at the Mayo Clinic. Using the SOC the probability of having +NSLN was determined for each patient. Complete variable data was available for 464 patients which make up the cohort reported here. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was created and the area-under-the-curve (AUC) was calculated. Mean probabilities of patients with and without +NSLN were compared. Additionally, patients with a low Stanford probability were examined to determine the model's accuracy in discriminating patients who could potentially be spared ALND. These results were compared to the results of the Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomograms which have been previously applied to this same cohort of patients.
 Results: The AUC of the Stanford model was 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.77). The mean Stanford probabilities for patients with and without NSLN disease were 0.75 (range 0.06 to 1.0) and 0.50 (range 0.05 to 1.0), respectively (p < 0.0001). Examining patients with a Stanford probability <= 10%, we found that 47 patients met this criterion; 6 had +NSLN and 41 did not, for a false negative (FN) prediction rate of 13%. There was only 1 patient with Stanford probability <= 5%, and this patient did not have +NSLN. The AUC of the MSKCC and Mayo nomograms in this same patient population was 0.74 and 0.77, respectively. The AUCs did not differ significantly (p = 0.13) among the 3 models.
 
 Conclusion: Despite using only three variables, the Stanford nomogram appears to perform as well as, but not better than the MSKCC and Mayo nomograms in our patient cohort. Further validation in other patient populations is needed prior to widespread utilization of this nomogram. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 1005.

Abstract Long-term outcomes and hence the role of adjuvant therapy in patients with small (≤1 cm), node-negative breast cancer remain unclear. This study's objective was to evaluate whether human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2 status is an independent, poor prognostic marker in patients with these tumors and to identify a subgroup of patients with these small tumors who might benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy. All patients with a diagnosis of a node-negative breast tumor measuring ≤1 cm and available HER-2 test results between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005, at the three Mayo Clinic sites were identified. Clinicopathologic data were compared in three groups: HER-2−, HER-2+, and triple-negative (TN) tumors. Of the 421 tumors identified, 364 (86.5%) were HER-2−, 28 (6.7%) were HER-2+, and 29 (6.9%) were TN. The median follow-up time was 1,015 days (range, 1–2,549 days). Groups were balanced in terms of patient age and tumor histology. Eleven patients with HER-2− tumors (3.0%), seven with HER-2+ tumors (25.0%), and eight with TN tumors (27.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Follow-up data were available for 357, 28, and 28 patients in the three groups, respectively. Death rates in the three groups were 6.4% (23 of 357) (one recurrence-related death), 0% (0 of 28), and 7.1% (2 of 28) (one recurrence-related death), respectively. During follow-up, the tumor recurred in nine patients: four were HER-2− tumors (1.1%), two were HER-2+ tumors (7.1%), and three were TN tumors (10.7%). Patients with small, node-negative breast tumors have an excellent prognosis, but HER-2+ and TN tumors appear to have a higher recurrence rate, warranting consideration for broad use and optimization of systemic adjuvant treatments.

Purpose Accurate breast cancer risk assessment is vital to personalize screening and risk reduction strategies. Women with atypical hyperplasia have a four-fold higher risk of breast cancer. We evaluated the performance of the Tyrer-Cuzick model, which was designed to predict 10-year risk of breast cancer development, in a well-defined cohort of women with atypia. Patients and Methods The Mayo Benign Breast Disease cohort includes 9,376 women who had a benign breast biopsy between 1967 and 1991. Among those, 331 women with atypia were identified by our study pathologists. Risk factor data for the Tyrer-Cuzick model were collated for each woman and used to predict individual risk of developing invasive breast cancer within 10 years. Results Over a median follow-up of 14.6 years, 64 (19%) of the 331 women developed invasive breast cancer. In the first 10 years after biopsy, 31 women developed invasive breast cancer whereas the Tyrer-Cuzick model predicted 58.9. The observed-to-predicted ratio was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.75). The concordance statistic was 0.540, revealing that the Tyrer-Cuzick model did not accurately distinguish, on an individual level, between women who developed invasive breast cancer and those who did not. Conclusion The Tyrer-Cuzick model significantly overestimated risk of breast cancer for women with atypia, and individual risk estimates showed poor concordance between predicted risk and invasive breast cancer development. Thus, we cannot recommend the use of the Tyrer-Cuzick model to predict 10-year breast cancer risk in women with atypical hyperplasia.