Junko Ozao-Choy
Armando E. Giuliano
• Breast cancer accounts for one-third of cancers in women. The risk of breast cancer increases with a positive family history and the use of hormone therapy. Breast cancer may be either in situ(ductal carcinoma in situ or lobular carcinoma in situ) or invasive (infiltrating ductal carcinoma, infiltrating lobular carcinoma).
• The standard screening modalities for detection of breast cancer include yearly mammography and physical examination.
• Tissue diagnosis is achieved using fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) or core needle biopsy (CNB). Open biopsy is performed if FNAC or CNB results are equivocal or discordant with the clinical findings.
• The combination of segmental mastectomy (with negative surgical margins), axillary lymph node dissection, and postoperative radiation therapy has the same overall survival compared to modified radical mastectomy for the management of patients with stages I and II breast cancer.
• Axillary lymph node status and the number of involved nodes are the most important prognostic indicators in primary breast cancer.
• Sentinel lymph node dissection alone can replace axillary lymph node dissection if the sentinel lymph node is found to be negative on pathology.
• Adjuvant systemic therapy prolongs survival and is recommended for women with a greater than 10% chance of relapse within 10 years.
Breast cancer accounts for approximately one-third of all cancers in women and is second only to lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths among women. Breast cancer has the highest incidence rate of all cancers. According to statistics from the American Cancer Society (ACS), over 230,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women during 2011 in the United States as well as over 55,000 patients of in situ cancers, with almost 40,000 women succumbing to the disease during the same period (1). Over the past 50 years, the incidence of breast cancer in the United States increased significantly; one in every seven women will develop the disease during her lifetime. Fortunately, the mortality rate has declined since 1990.
Predisposing Factors
Less than 1% of breast cancers occur in women younger than 25 years of age. After age 30, there is a sharp increase in the incidence of breast cancer. Except for a short plateau between the ages of 45 and 50 years, the incidence increases steadily with age (2).
Family History
Of women who develop breast cancer, 20% to 30% have a family history of the disease. Although any family history of breast cancer increases the overall relative risk, this risk is not significantly increased if the disease was diagnosed postmenopausally in a first-degree or more distant relative (3). If a woman’s mother or sister had unilateral breast cancer premenopausally, her lifetime risk of developing the disease approaches 30%, whereas a woman whose mother or sister had bilateral breast cancers premenopausally has at least a 40% to 50% lifetime risk. The increased incidence in these women is probably the result of inherited oncogenes.
Approximately 5% to 10% of breast cancers have an inherited basis. All inherited genes are autosomal dominant but have variable penetrance. Men carry the gene 50% of the time. The most common mutations are the BRCA1(chromosome 17q21) and BRCA2 (chromosome 13q12-13) gene deletions. Carriers of these germline mutations have up to a 4% per year risk of developing breast cancer and a lifetime risk that ranges from 35% to 85%(4). These individuals have up to a 65% risk of developing a contralateral breast cancer. The BRCA1 mutation is associated with an increased risk of ovarian and prostate cancer, whereas BRCA2 carriers, although less common, demonstrate increased risks of male breast and prostate cancers. Both mutations are rare in the general public (0.1%) but are more commonly identified in Jews of Ashkenazi descent (1% to 2.3%) (5). Genetic testing is available and should be considered if there is a high likelihood that results will be positive and will be used to influence decisions regarding the clinical management of the care of the patient and her family. Patients with three of more relatives with breast or ovarian cancer with one of the relatives being diagnosed before the age of 50, two first- or second-degree relatives with breast or ovarian cancer, any relative with male breast cancer, patients whose cancer has been diagnosed before the age of 50, and any patients with both breast and ovarian cancer in their family should undergo genetic counseling for BRCA testing. Ashkenazi Jewish patients should undergo genetic counseling if any first-degree relative, or two second-degree relatives on the same side have breast or ovarian cancer (6). Genetic testing is increasingly important given the evidence that prophylactic surgery may prevent new cancers from occurring, as well as prolong survival, in some cases. A prospective multicenter cohort study of 2,482 women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations between 1974 and 2008 showed risk-reducing mastectomy was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with decreased risk of ovarian cancer, first diagnosis of breast cancer, all-cause mortality, breast cancer–specific mortality, and ovarian cancer–specific mortality (7).
Diet, Obesity, and Alcohol
There are marked geographic differences in the incidence of breast cancer that may be related to diet. A meta-analysis demonstrated an association between a healthy diet and lower risk of breast cancer (8). Although a definitive relationship between total alcohol consumption and increased risk of breast cancer has yet to be determined, high wine intake was associated with elevated risk (8,9).
Reproductive and Hormonal Factors
The risk of breast cancer increases with the length of a woman’s reproductive phase (10). Although early menarche was reported among breast cancer patients, early menopause appears to protect against the development of the disease, with artificial menopause from oophorectomy lowering the risk more than early natural menopause (11). There is no clear association between the risk of breast cancer and menstrual irregularity or the duration of menses. Although lactation does not affect the incidence of breast cancer, women who were never pregnant have a higher risk of breast cancer than those who are multiparous. Women who give birth to their first child later in life have a higher incidence of breast cancer than do younger primigravida women (12).
A historic well-controlled study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that oral contraceptive use does not increase the risk of breast cancer, regardless of duration of use, family history, or coexistence of benign breast disease (13). A pooled analysis from 54 epidemiologic studies showed current users of oral contraceptives had a small but significant increased risk when compared with nonusers. Ten years after discontinuation, the risk of past users declined to that of the normal population (14).
It was reported that short-term estrogen treatment for menopausal symptoms did not increase the risk of breast cancer, but this belief was refuted by the results of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized trial. This prospective trial, involving 16,000 postmenopausal women randomly assigned to receive estrogen plus progesterone or placebo, revealed an association between hormone therapy use and the development of breast cancer. When invasive breast cancer developed, it was diagnosed at a more advanced stage compared with tumors that developed among placebo users. Based on interim analysis, the trial was stopped early and the investigators concluded that even relatively short-term use of combined estrogen–progesterone therapy increases the development of invasive breast cancer (15). The risk demonstrated by this study must be considered when postmenopausal hormone therapy is used to treat conditions such as hot flashes and osteoporosis.
History of Cancer
Women with a history of breast cancer have a 50% risk of developing microscopic cancer and a 20% to 25% risk of developing clinically apparent cancer in the contralateral breast, which occurs at a rate of 1% to 2% per year (16). Lobular carcinoma has a higher incidence of bilaterality than does ductal carcinoma. A history of endometrial, ovarian, or colon cancer is associated with an increased risk of subsequent breast cancer, as is a history of radiation therapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma, even if the patient is BRCA1 and BRCA2 negative.
Diagnosis
Breast cancer commonly arises in the upper outer quadrant, where there is proportionally more breast tissue. Masses are often discovered by the patient and less frequently by the physician during routine breast examination. The increasing use of screening mammography has enhanced the ability to detect nonpalpable breast abnormalities. Metastatic breast cancer is found as an axillary mass without obvious malignancy in less the 1% of cases.
The standard screening modalities of mammography and physical examination are complementary. Approximately 10% to 50% of cancers detected mammographically are not palpable, whereas physical examination detects 10% to 20% of cancers not seen radiographically (17). The purpose of screening is to detect tumors when they are small (<1 cm) and have the highest potential for surgical cure. Most trials show a 20% to 30% reduction in breast cancer mortality for women age 50 and older who undergo annual screening mammography. Data on screening women younger than 40 years are more controversial. Results from the Gothenburg screening trial showed a 45% reduction in mortality for women screened between the ages of 40 and 49 (18). Because of these findings, it is recommended that all women undergo yearly screening mammography starting at age 40, along with clinical breast examination at least every 3 years (19). Monthly breast self-examination (BSE) is no longer recommended because there is little evidence to show that BSE is superior to heightened breast awareness such that any new symptoms related to the breast in daily activities would be reported promptly when noticed. BSE was not shown to improve survival. Women should be informed about the benefits and limitations of monthly BSE, mainly the risk of a false-positive result. Women who would still prefer to perform BSE should be instructed in the technique and occasionally have their technique reviewed. No other tests, including ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT) scans, sestamibi scans, positron emission tomography (PET) scans, or serum blood markers, have been shown to be effective screening modalities. Screening guidelines recommended by the American College of Radiology and the American Cancer Society are presented in Table 40.1. In 2010, the ACS recommended annual screening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) starting at age 30 for women with a known BRCA mutation and other high-risk genetic syndromes, women who are untested with a first-degree relative with the BRCA mutation and women with an approximately 20% to 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer, or women who have been treated with radiation for Hodgkin’s lymphoma (19). Although breast MRI may prove to be advantageous for other women with an elevated risk of breast cancer, there is currently insufficient evidence to make recommendations for women with lower than a 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer (19).
Table 40.1 Screening Recommendations
|
Bilateral mammograms |
|
Beginning at age 40 yearly mammograms, which should continue as long as the patient is in good health. |
|
Self-examination |
|
Is an option for women starting in their 20s. Women should be counseled on the benefits and limitation of breast self-examination and should be told to report any changes in their breasts to their health professional right away. |
|
Clinical breast examination |
|
Age 20–40 examination by physician every 3 years, annually if positive history |
|
(May do annually if there is a positive family history) |
|
Age ≥ 40 examination by physician every year |
|
Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) |
|
High risk women (greater than 20% lifetime risk) should undergo MRI and mammography every year |
|
Medium risk women (15%–20% lifetime risk) should talk to their health care professional about the benefits and limitations of adding MRI to their yearly mammographic screening. |
|
Low risk women (less than 15% lifetime risk) are not recommended to undergo additional MRI screening. |
|
From American Cancer Society Screening Guidelines. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society Guidelines and Issues in Cancer Screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:99–119. |
Masses are easier to palpate in older women with fatty breasts than in younger women with dense, nodular breasts. An area of thickening amid normal nodularity may be the only clue to an underlying malignancy. Skin dimpling, nipple retraction, or skin erosion, while obvious, are later-stage disease signs. Algorithms for the evaluation of breast masses in premenopausal and postmenopausal women are presented in Chapter 21.
When a dominant breast mass is identified, the presence of a carcinoma must be considered, and biopsy should be performed to establish a tissue diagnosis. About 30% to 40% of lesions clinically believed to be malignant will be benign on histologic examination (20). Conversely, 25% of clinically benign-appearing lesions will be malignant when biopsied (21).
Biopsy Techniques
It is preferable for the patient to be involved in planning her therapy. In most instances, initial biopsy can be followed by definitive treatment at a later date. This approach allows the physician to discuss alternative forms of surgical therapy with the patient who has a malignancy. It gives the patient an opportunity to obtain a second opinion before undergoing definitive treatment.
Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology
Fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is usually performed on palpable lesions or under ultrasound guidance using a 20- or 22-gauge needle. The technique has a high level of diagnostic accuracy, with low false-negative rates and rare, but persistent, false-positive results (20,22). In most reported series, false-negative rates range from 10% to 15%, and false-positive rates are generally less than 1%, whereas insufficient specimens account for about 15% of samples (23). If a mass appears malignant on physical examination, mammography, or both, FNAC cytology results can be used for definitive diagnosis, although in these circumstances a core biopsy is usually the biopsy of choice. Negative FNAC results do not exclude malignancy and should be evaluated by either a core needle or traditional excisional biopsy for suspicious lesions. In younger women, it is prudent to monitor a benign-appearing mass for one or two menstrual cycles. Confirmation of a clinically apparent fibroadenoma with FNAC can serve as the basis for observational follow-up without excision. FNAC may be used in cystic lesions to aspirate fluid, especially in benign-appearing cystic lesions. For benign cysts, cytologic examination is not necessary if the fluid is nonbloody and the cyst resolves after aspiration.
Core Needle Biopsy
Core needle biopsy (CNB) can be performed on both palpable and nonpalpable breast masses. Performing a core biopsy instead of FNAC on a palpable lesion has the advantage of obtaining more tissue for diagnostic purposes, including tests for estrogen and progesterone receptors and Her-2/neu, and has generally replaced FNAC unless aspiration of a cystic mass is being performed. Core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions usually is performed using mammographic or ultrasonographic guidance. MRI-detected lesions that cannot be seen with mammography or ultrasonography may be biopsied under MRI guidance. Mammographic units with computerized stereotactic modifications can be used to localize abnormalities and perform CNB without surgery. Under imaging guidance, a biopsy needle is inserted into the lesion and a core of tissue is removed for histologic examination. Devices with suction assistance often are used to increase the volume of tissue removed for evaluation. A titanium clip often is used to mark the biopsy site and serve as a guide should further excision be required. Ultrasonography may be used to perform core biopsy on a nonpalpable lesion. Because it is less invasive and less expensive than open mammographic localization biopsy, CNB is preferred for accessible lesions. If a definitive diagnosis is not established, these procedures must be followed by open biopsy.
Open Biopsy
Open biopsy may be performed if the lesion cannot be successfully biopsied with a needle, or if FNAC or CNB has shown a lesion that may be associated with malignancy, such as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Excision must be performed if the results with needle biopsy are equivocal or discordant with the clinical findings. An unequivocal histologic diagnosis of cancer should be obtained before treatment of breast cancer is undertaken. Cytologic diagnosis may be relied on if the mass clinically or mammographically appears to be malignant.
Open biopsy can be performed in the outpatient setting with local anesthesia in the following manner (although this technique largely is replaced by core biopsy and usually is not necessary):
1. The patient is positioned and the location of the mass confirmed.
2. Local anesthesia is used to infiltrate the skin and subcutaneous tissue surrounding the palpable mass.
3. The skin in incised directly over the mass. Placement of this incision is critical. It should be situated in such a way that it can be excised with an ellipse of skin should the patient require a subsequent mastectomy, or placed cosmetically so that partial mastectomy can be performed successfully through it. Para-areolar incisions are appropriate only for lesions in proximity to the nipple–areolar complex.
4. The mass is gently grasped with Allis forceps or with a stay suture and moved into the operative field.
5. The mass should be excised completely whenever possible. Larger lesions that are difficult to totally excise can be incised for diagnostic purposes only. When an incisional biopsy is performed, a frozen section should be obtained to confirm that appropriate tissue for diagnosis is present. Such masses are preferably sampled with FNAC or CNB, with incisional biopsy rarely, if ever, indicated.
6. Once the mass is removed, hemostasis is achieved and the incision is closed. A cosmetically superior result will be achieved if the deep breast parenchyma is not reapproximated. The most superficial subcutaneous fat can be reapproximated with fine absorbable sutures, and the skin can be closed with a subcuticular suture and adhesive strips.
Image-Guided Localization Biopsy
Biopsy of nonpalpable lesions is a potentially difficult procedure that requires close cooperation between the surgeon and radiologist. Using ultrasonographic, mammographic, or MRI guidance, a needle or specialized wire is placed into the breast parenchyma at or near the site of the suspected abnormality. Some mammographers will inject a biologic dye into the breast parenchyma to assist localization. The surgeon reviews the films and localizes the abnormality with respect to the tip of the wire or needle. Alternatively, the surgeon will perform ultrasonography intraoperatively to directly localize the lesion. An incision is made directly over the abnormality, and a small portion of the breast tissue suspected of containing the abnormality is excised. For mammographically detected lesions, a specimen radiograph is obtained to ensure that the abnormality has been recovered. Often, the radiologist can place a needle in the specimen at the site of the abnormality to facilitate histologic evaluation and ensure that the pathologist examines the site of the abnormality. Image-guided biopsy should be performed only for lesions inaccessible to needle biopsy or those lesions that may be associated with malignancy such as ADH.
Pathology and Natural History
Breast cancer may arise in the intermediate-size ducts, terminal ducts, or lobules. In most cases, the diagnosis of lobular and intraductal carcinoma is based more on histologic appearance than site of origin. The cancer may be either in situ (ductal carcinoma in situ or lobular carcinoma in situ) or invasive (infiltrating ductal carcinoma, infiltrating lobular carcinoma). Morphologic subtypes of infiltrating ductal carcinoma include scirrhous, tubular, medullary, and mucinous carcinoma.
True invasive ductal carcinoma accounts for 80% of all invasive tumors, with the final 20% split evenly between lobular carcinoma and special variants of infiltrating ductal carcinoma (24). Mammographically, invasive ductal cancers are characterized by a stellate density or microcalcifications. Macroscopically, gritty, chalky streaks are present within the tumor that most likely represent a desmoplastic response. Invasion of the surrounding stroma and fat, with a fibrotic, desmoplastic reaction surrounding the invasive carcinoma, generally is present.
Special types of infiltrating ductal carcinoma are uncommon and typically account for nearly 10% of all invasive cancers. Medullary carcinoma, which accounts for 5% to 8% of breast carcinomas, arises from larger ducts within the breast and has a dense lymphocytic infiltrate. The tumor appears to be a slower growing and less-aggressive malignancy than other forms of carcinoma. Even when axillary disease is present, the prognosis with medullary carcinoma is better than that of other variants of invasive ductal carcinoma. Mucinous (colloid) carcinoma accounts for 5% of all breast cancers. Grossly, areas of the tumor may appear mucinous or gelatinous, whereas microscopically they are relatively acellular. Infiltrating comedo carcinoma accounts for less than 1% of all breast malignancies and is an invasive cancer characterized by foci of necrosis that exude a comedonecrosis-like substance when biopsied. Usually, comedocarcinomas are in situ malignancies. Papillary carcinoma is predominantly a noninvasive ductal carcinoma; when invasive components are present, it should be specified as invasive papillary carcinoma. Tubular carcinoma, a well-differentiated breast cancer that accounts for 1% to 2% of all malignant breast neoplasms, rarely metastasizes to axillary lymph nodes and tends to have a better prognosis than infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Adenoid cystic carcinomas are extremely rare breast tumors that histologically are similar to those seen in the salivary glands. They are well-differentiated cancers that are slow to metastasize.
Growth Patterns
The growth potential of breast cancer and the patient’s resistance to malignancy vary widely with the individual and the stage of disease. The doubling time of breast cancer ranges from several weeks for rapidly growing tumors to months or years for slowly growing lesions. If the doubling time of a breast tumor were constant and a tumor originated from one cell, a doubling time of 100 days would result in a 1-cm tumor in about 8 years (Fig. 40.1) (25). During the preclinical phase, tumor cells may be circulating throughout the body. Because of the long preclinical tumor growth phase and the tendency of infiltrating lesions to metastasize early, many clinicians view breast cancer as a systemic disease at the time of diagnosis. Although cancer cells may be released from the tumor before diagnosis, variations in the tumor’s ability to grow in other organs and the host’s response to tumor cells may inhibit dissemination of the disease. Many women with breast cancer can be treated successfully with surgery alone, and some patients have been cured even in the presence of palpable axillary disease. A pessimistic attitude that breast cancer is systemic and incurable at diagnosis is unwarranted.
Figure 40.1 Growth rate of breast cancer indicating long preclinical phase. (From Gullino PM. Natural history of breast cancer: progression from hyperplasia to neoplasia as predicted by angiogenesis. Cancer 1977;39:2699.)
A more realistic approach may be to view breast cancer as a two-component disease involving the breast and the body as a whole. Although the primary breast tumor and issues of local control must be managed, the possibility of systemic metastases with their life-threatening consequences should not be overlooked.
Breast cancer can metastasize to any organ, and involvement of bone, lungs, or liver occurs in up to 85% of women who develop distant disease (26,27). In addition to these sites, invasive lobular carcinoma is known to disseminate to the abdominal viscera, uterus, ovaries, and peritoneal surfaces.
Staging
After the diagnosis of breast cancer is definitively established, the clinical stage of the disease should be determined. The Columbia Clinical Staging System was used historically but is replaced by the tumor-node-metastases (TNM) system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (28,29). The TNM system allows both preoperative clinical staging and postoperative pathologic staging to be determined (Tables 40.2 and 40.3).
Table 40.2 Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) System for Staging of Breast Cancer
|
Primary Tumor (T) |
|
|
TX |
Primary tumor cannot be assessed |
|
T0 |
No evidence of primary tumor |
|
Tis |
Carcinoma in situ |
|
Tis (DCIS) |
Ductal carcinoma in situ |
|
Tis (LCIS) |
Lobular carcinoma in situ |
|
Tis (Paget's) |
Paget’s disease of the nipple NOT associated with invasive carcinoma and/or carcinoma in situ (DCIS and/or LCIS) in the underlying breast parenchyma. Carcinomas in the breast parenchyma associated with Paget’s disease are categorized based on the size and characteristics of the parenchymal disease, although the presence of Paget’s disease should still be noted. |
|
T1 |
Tumor ≤20 mm in greatest dimension |
|
T1mi |
Tumor ≤1 mm in greatest dimension |
|
T1a |
Tumor >1 mm but ≤5 mm in greatest dimension |
|
T1b |
Tumor >5 mm but ≤10 mm in greatest dimension |
|
T1c |
Tumor >10 mm but ≤20 mm in greatest dimension |
|
T2 |
Tumor >20 mm but ≤50 mm in greatest dimension |
|
T3 |
Tumor >50 mm in greatest dimension |
|
T4 |
Tumor of any size with direct extension to chest wall and/or skin (ulceration or skin nodules) |
|
T4a |
Extension to chest wall, not including only pectoralis muscle adherence/invasion |
|
T4b |
Ulceration and/or ipsilateral satellite nodules and/or edema (including peau d'orange) of the skin which do not meet the criteria for inflammatory carcinoma |
|
T4c |
Both T4a and T4b |
|
T4d |
Inflammatory carcinoma |
|
Regional Lymph Nodes (N) |
|
|
Clinical |
|
|
N X |
Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed (e.g., previously removed) |
|
N0 |
No regional lymph node metastasis |
|
N1 |
Metastases to movable ipsilateral level I, II axillary lymph node(s) |
|
N2 |
Metastases in ipsilateral level I, II axillary lymph node(s) that are clinically fixed or matted, or in clinically detected ipsilateral internal mammary nodes in the absence of clinically evident axillary lymph node metastases |
|
N2a |
Metastases in ipsilateral level I, II axillary lymph nodes fixed to one another (matted) or to other structures |
|
N2b |
Metastases only in clinically detected ipsilateral internal mammary nodes and in the absence of clinically evident level I, II axillary lymph node metastases |
|
N3 |
Metastases in ipsilateral infraclavicular (level III axillary) lymph node(s) with or without level I, II axillary lymph node involvement; or in clinically detected ipsilateral internal mammary lymph nodes and with clinically evident level I, II axillary lymph node metastases; or metastases in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph node(s) with or without axillary or internal mammary lymph node involvement |
|
N3a |
Metastases in ipsilateral infraclavicular lymph node(s) |
|
N3b |
Metastases in ipsilateral internal mammary lymph node(s) and axillary lymph node(s) |
|
N3c |
Metastases in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph node(s) |
|
Pathologic classification (pN) |
|
|
pNX |
Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed (e.g., previously removed or not removed for pathologic study) |
|
pN0 |
No regional lymph node metastasis identified histologically |
|
pN0(i-) |
No regional lymph node metastases histologically, negative IHC |
|
pN0(i+) |
Malignant cells in regional lymph node(s) no greater than 0.2 mm (detected by H&E or IHC including ITC) |
|
pN0(mol-) |
No regional lymph node metastases histologically, negative molecular findings (RT-PCR) |
|
pN0(mol+) |
Positive molecular findings (RT-PCR), but no regional lymph node metastases detected by histology or IHC |
|
pN1 |
Micrometastases; or metastases in 1 to 3 axillary lymph nodes; and/or in internal mammary nodes with metastases detected by sentinel lymph node biopsy but not clinically detected |
|
pN1mi |
Micrometastasis (>0.2 mm and/or more than 200 cells, but none >2.0 mm) |
|
pN1a |
Metastases in 1 to 3 axillary lymph nodes, at least one metastasis >2.0 mm |
|
pN1b |
Metastases in internal mammary nodes with micrometastases or macrometastases detected by sentinel lymph node biopsy but not clinically apparent |
|
pN1c |
Metastases in 1 to 3 axillary lymph nodes, and in internal mammary lymph nodes with micrometastases or macrometastases detected by sentinel lymph node biopsy but not clinically detected |
|
pN2 |
Metastases in 4 to 9 axillary lymph nodes; or in clinically detected internal mammary lymph nodes in the absence of axillary lymph node metastases |
|
pN2a |
Metastases in 4 to 9 axillary lymph nodes (at least one tumor deposit >2.0 mm) |
|
pN2b |
Metastases in clinically detected internal mammary lymph nodes in the absence of axillary lymph node metastases |
|
pN3 |
Metastases in ten or more axillary lymph nodes; or in infraclavicular |
|
pN3a |
Metastases in ten or more axillary lymph nodes (at least one tumor deposit greater than 2.0 mm); or metastasis to the infraclavicular (level III axillary lymph) nodes |
|
pN3b |
Metastases in clinically detected ipsilateral internal mammary nodes in the presence of one or more positive axillary lymph nodes; or in more than three axillary lymph nodes and in internal mammary lymph nodes with micrometastases or macrometastases detected by sentinel lymph node biopsy but not clinically detected |
|
pN3c |
Metastases in ipsilateral supraclavicular node(s) |
|
Distant metastasis (M) |
|
|
M0 |
No clinical or radiologic evidence of distant metastasis |
|
cM0(i+) |
No clinical or radiographic evidence of distant metastases, but deposits of molecularly or microscopically detected tumor cells in circulating blood, bone marrow, or other nonregional nodal tissue that are no larger than 0.2 mm in a patient without symptoms or signs of metastases |
|
M1 |
Distant detectable metastases as determined by classic clinical and radiographic means and/or histologically proven larger than 0.2 mm |
|
From Edge SB, Byrd DB, Compton CC, et al., eds. Breast. In AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer, 2010:419–460, withpermission. |
|
Table 40.3 Staging of Breast Carcinoma Anatomic Stage/Prognostic Groups
Treatment
Preoperative Evaluation
The extent of the preoperative workup varies with the initial stage of the disease (30). For most patients with small tumors, clinically negative lymph nodes, and no evidence of metastasis (TNM stage I), the preoperative evaluation should consist of bilateral mammography, chest radiography, complete blood count, and screening blood chemistry tests. Bone, CT, and MRI scanning are unnecessary unless there are symptoms or abnormal blood chemistry levels to suggest the existence of bone or intra-abdominal involvement. For patients with clinical stage II, node-positive disease, a bone scan is recommended, but CT scan of the abdomen is not necessary unless symptoms or laboratory results suggest liver disease. Patients with clinical stage III or stage IV disease should undergo both bone and liver scanning. PET scanning is becoming a popular means of total body scanning for breast cancer, but there have been concerns that this modality may miss some bony metastasis. A study found that PET scan is highly concordant (81%) with bone scan in a study of 132 paired studies of breast cancer patients (31). Of 31 (19%) discordant pairs, 12 patients had pathology proven metastatic disease. Nine of these 12 patients had a positive PET scan but negative bone scan, supporting the use of PET scan in detecting osseous metastasis in breast cancer, although further studies are needed to ascertain whether this modality should supplant the use of bone scan in this setting.
Figure 40.2 Appearance of breast after radical mastectomy (A) versus modified mastectomy (B). (From Kruper L, Giuliano AE. Breast disease. In: Berek JS, Hacker NF. Berek & Hacker’s Gynecologic Oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2010:636.)
Radical Mastectomy
Traditionally, the treatment of breast cancer has been surgical, but the type of procedure has remained a controversial and highly emotional issue. During the 19th century, surgical treatment of breast cancer was haphazard, varying from local excision alone to total mastectomy. The radical mastectomy was based on the principle that breast carcinoma was a locally infiltrative process that spread in a stepwise fashion from breast, to nodes, to distant sites (32). Thus, radical mastectomy removes the entire breast, the underlying pectoral muscles, and the contiguous axillary lymph nodes in continuity(33) (Fig. 40.2A). A report of 51 years of experience with radical mastectomy, which included 1,036 patients with a follow-up of 47 years, is unequaled in evaluating any single method of treating breast cancer (34).
During the 20th century, extensions and modifications of the radical mastectomy were devised that involved removal of more local and regional tissue. At one time, supraclavicular lymph node dissections were considered a routine component of surgical treatment (35). Supraclavicular, mediastinal, and internal mammary lymph node dissections were performed (36).
An en bloc internal mammary lymph node dissection was added to the standard radical mastectomy in the 1960s (37). This technique became popular and is the operation commonly referred to as the extended radical mastectomy.Extended radical mastectomy did not enhance overall survival rates, because only 3% to 5% of patients with negative axillary nodes will have involvement of internal mammary nodes (38). Locally destructive surgery is not justified, based on current understanding of the biologic behavior of breast cancer. Radical mastectomy is no longer an indicated procedure, except in the most unusual circumstances, with extensive pectoralis involvement by direct tumor extension.
Modified Radical Mastectomy
In contrast to radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy preserves the pectoralis major muscle (39,40) (Fig. 40.2B). The breast is removed in a manner similar to that of radical mastectomy, but neither the axillary lymph node dissection nor the skin excision is as extensive. Consequently, there is no need for skin grafting. There are no differences in survival rates between radical and modified radical mastectomy, but the latter procedure has a better functional outcome and a superior cosmetic result (41). Modified radical mastectomy has replaced radical mastectomy in the United States and is an alternative to breast conserving surgery and axillary dissection for some patients.
Total Mastectomy
Total mastectomy involves removal of the entire breast, nipple, and areolar complex without resection of the underlying muscles or intentional excision of axillary lymph nodes. Low-lying lymph nodes in the upper outer portion of the breast and low axilla often are excised. Total mastectomy has local control rates comparable with those of radical or modified radical mastectomy but has a higher risk of axillary recurrence. In the past, regional recurrence would occur in at least 15% to 20% of patients treated with total mastectomy alone. With the addition of sentinel lymph node biopsy, which selects patients who are lymph node negative, local recurrence rates should be lowered in patients with total mastectomy and node negative disease compared to those in the past with unknown axillary status.
Skin-Sparing and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy
More patients have early small cancers and others are undergoing prophylactic mastectomy for genetic mutations and for other high-risk lesions. Patients may elect to undergo a skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) with nipple–areolar complex (NAC) removal that leaves a skin envelope to accommodate the breast reconstruction, as well as providing a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with preservation of the NAC. Both of these procedures are being studied for their potential utility and safety in various clinical situations. Retrospective series show that performing NSM does not impact survival, although a prospective randomized trial has not been performed (42).
Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy
McWhirter developed the combination of total mastectomy followed by radiation (43). Many advocated adjuvant radiation therapy used in combination with various operative procedures. Studies claiming improvements in overall survival usually are flawed by the use of historical controls and inaccurate preoperative staging. Classic trials, both prospective randomized and historical control studies, showed that adjuvant radiation therapy improves local control but not overall survival rates (44–47). In a prospective randomized trial performed by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP), the roles of postoperative radiation therapy and axillary treatment were examined. Patients were randomly assigned to either total mastectomy, radical mastectomy, or total mastectomy with radiation therapy. This trial showed no difference in survival among the three treatment arms, whereas radiation therapy and axillary treatment improved local and regional control. Twenty-five-year follow-up data continue to support these conclusions (48).
Three randomized control studies from the 1990s showed that postmastectomy radiation therapy reduced the risk of local–regional failure by 20% and produced an absolute survival benefit of 10% at 10 years among women with stage II to III breast cancer, regardless of menopausal status (49–51). Additional trials challenged the need for postmastectomy radiation among women with only one to three involved axillary nodes and T1 or T2primary tumors. These studies showed adequate local–regional control rates with mastectomy and chemotherapy alone (52–54). In a large meta-analysis, an absolute risk reduction in local recurrence was found in women with radiation therapy after both breast conservation and mastectomy. One breast cancer death is avoided for every four local recurrences, reducing the 15-year mortality among patients with a greater than 10% risk of local recurrence (55). Guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend postmastectomy radiation therapy for women with T3 (>5 cm) primary tumors and four or more positive axillary lymph nodes (56).
Breast Conservation Therapy with or without Radiation Therapy
Radiation therapy alone, without excision of the tumor, is associated with a high local failure rate, as is local excision without radiation (57–60). Throughout the last quarter of the 20th century, a paradigm shift occurred in the surgical management of breast cancer. Data from the NSABP B-04 trial, for which 25-year follow-up exists, established the equivalency of radical versus total mastectomy with regard to overall survival. Shortly after initiation of the B-04 trial, a number of studies were designed to evaluate the efficacy of breast preservation among women with early-stage breast cancers. The Milan trial, a major prospective randomized trial that began accruing patients in 1973, compared treatment with either radical mastectomy or a combination of quadrantectomy, axillary lymph node dissection, and postoperative radiation therapy. In total, 701 clinically node-negative patients with noncentrally located, small tumors (<2 cm) (T1 N0 M0) were enrolled. After 25 years of follow-up, there continues to be no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either local control or overall survival rates (61).
Figure 40.3 Appearance of breast after lumpectomy, axillary dissection, and radiation therapy. (From Kruper L, Giuliano AE. Breast disease. In: Berek JS, Hacker NF. Berek & Hacker’s Gynecologic Oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Williams & Wilkins, 2010:638.)
At nearly the same time, in the NSABP B-06 trial, patients with early breast cancer (stage I or stage II, T1 or T2, and N0 or N1) were randomized to modified radical mastectomy, segmental mastectomy (lumpectomy) and axillary lymph node dissection, or segmental mastectomy, axillary lymph node dissection and postoperative radiation therapy. Unlike the quadrantectomy performed in the Milan study, segmental mastectomy consists of removing only the tumor and a small rim of normal surrounding tissue, yielding cosmetically superior results (Fig. 40.3). A total of 1,843 women were enrolled, with the lowest local recurrence rate seen among patients treated with segmental mastectomy and postoperative radiation therapy. The addition of radiation improved the local control rate, but no significant differences in overall survival or disease-free survival rates were detected among the three treatment arms; there was a trend, however, in favor of patients who had received radiation. This NSABP study established, now with 25-year follow-up, that the combination of segmental mastectomy (with negative surgical margins), axillary lymph node dissection, and postoperative radiation therapy is as effective as modified radical mastectomy for the management of patients with stages I and II breast cancer (62). A number of additional prospective randomized studies also demonstrated no decrease in overall survival among women being treated with breast preservation therapy (63–65).
Axillary lymph node status and the number of involved nodes are the most important prognostic indicators for patients with primary breast cancer (66). Axillary lymphadenectomy traditionally was used to detect and quantify the extent of nodal metastasis (67). Before the introduction of sentinel lymph node dissection in the 1990s, axillary lymph node dissection was performed routinely on all patients with early breast cancer. Although axillary dissection is associated with a very low risk of regional recurrence (1% to 3%), the rate of acute complications is as high as 30% (68). Similarly, the risk of chronic lymphedema ranges from 6% to as high 30% (69). Limiting the dissection to level I nodes or random sampling is associated with unacceptably high false-negative rates and should not be done (70). Only one-third of patients with a clinically negative axilla will have nodal metastasis after histopathologic examination of all harvested lymph nodes (71). This means that two-thirds of patients will be exposed to the morbidity of axillary lymph node dissection without proven benefit when performed routinely in the presence of invasive breast cancer.
In 1991 intraoperative lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node dissection were introduced to address these problems (72). The concept behind sentinel lymph node dissection is best described by the definition of a sentinel node. The sentinel node is the lymph node that has the greatest potential to harbor metastasis if axillary disease is present. Examination of the sentinel lymph node dissection can accurately predict the status of the entire nodal basin. Removing only one or two lymph nodes can accurately stage the axilla with minimal morbidity. Numerous investigators have demonstrated that, with proper training, sentinel lymph node dissection identification rates range from 90% to 99%, with false-negative rates of less than 5% found in most large studies (73). In one study of 107 patients with T1and T2 breast cancer who underwent sentinel lymph node dissection followed by axillary lymph node dissection, the sentinel node was successfully identified in 100 patients (93.5%) (73). There were no false-negative results, and the sentinel node accurately predicted axillary status in all 100 patients.
The technique of sentinel lymph node dissection is validated by a number of authors using a variety of techniques (74,75). The information obtained from sentinel lymph node dissection appears to be equivalent to that of axillary lymph node dissection. One prospective study demonstrated that in node-negative patients undergoing only sentinel lymph node dissection, the recurrence rate in the axilla was zero at a median follow-up of 39 months (76). Overall survival for patients who undergo sentinel lymph node dissection without axillary dissection appears to be excellent. In a randomized controlled trial, Veronesi et al. showed that the long-term breast cancer–related event-free survival among patients in the sentinel node biopsy arm (89.9%) was similar to that in the axillary lymph node dissection arm (88.8%), affirming not only that sentinel lymph node biopsy is as good as complete axillary dissection at staging the axilla, but that it is as safe as the once standard method of complete axillary dissection (77). Sentinel node biopsy alone without complete axillary lymph node dissection may have value in patients with micrometastatic and macrometastatic disease given low recurrence rates after sentinel lymph node biopsy. In a randomized controlled trial, in patients with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) positive sentinel lymph nodes, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients randomized to complete axillary lymph node dissection and sentinel lymph node biopsy alone (78). The degree of accuracy in predicting axillary metastasis, combined with its very low morbidity rate, makes sentinel lymph node dissection the preferred procedure for staging the axilla in breast cancer.
Adjuvant Systemic Therapy
For many patients, local and regional control of breast cancer is achieved with a combination of surgery and radiation therapy. About 90% of patients will never experience an in-breast recurrence; these patients may develop metastatic disease. The goal of adjuvant systemic therapy is to eliminate occult metastases during the early postoperative period and thus reduce the risk of local and distant recurrence (79).
Adjuvant systemic therapy will prolong survival in selected breast cancer patients. In patients with favorable tumors and a low risk of recurrence and subsequent death, such as those with node-negative cancers smaller than 1 cm and favorable biology, this benefit is small and may not justify the risks of systemic therapy. Adjuvant systemic therapy reduces the odds of death by 25% per year in both node-negative and node-positive patients (80). Because this risk reduction is relatively constant, patients with favorable, node-negative disease have a much smaller absolute benefit compared with patients who have higher-risk, node-positive disease and/or patients with unfavorable biologic markers such as patients with triple negative disease or Her-2/neu positive disease. For patients with node-negative disease, the absolute benefit may be minimal versus 10% to 20% for those with nodal involvement.
Cytotoxic chemotherapy and hormonal therapy have inherent risks that must be considered when treatment decisions are made. There are many known acute side effects with standard regimens, and there is growing evidence that patients who undergo chemotherapy report more frequent chronic neurocognitive deficits than do untreated controls (81). The impact of these deficits remains undefined. Systemic therapy with tamoxifen is associated with an increased incidence of uterine cancer, vaginal dryness, and hot flashes, whereas aromatase inhibitors are linked to osteoporosis and musculoskeletal symptoms. Choosing those patients who should receive adjuvant therapy can be a difficult decision that often entails analyzing a variety of prognostic and predictive factors, identifying patients at risk for recurrence, and quantifying that risk. Based on available data, adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for women with greater than a 10% chance of relapse within 10 years. The choice of therapy depends on an evaluation of specific risk factors. Two multigene assays such as the Oncotype DX and the Mammaprint have been introduced to help identify those estrogen receptor–positive, lymph node–negative patients who will benefit most from systemic chemotherapy. These tests, which calculate a recurrence risk score for each individual based on a 21-gene assay and 70-gene signature, respectively, allow the treating physician to determine the average rate of distant disease at 10 years and make treatment recommendations based on this risk (82).
Prognostic Indicators
Factors that determine each patient’s risk of recurrence include nodal involvement, tumor size, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, nuclear grade, histologic type, proliferative rate, and biologic markers such as Her-2/neu status. These prognostic factors and their effects on recurrence are summarized in Table 40.4. Patients with high-risk prognostic factors are more likely to benefit from adjuvant cytotoxic or hormonal therapy and usually are offered such treatment.
Table 40.4 Prognostic Factors in Node-Negative Breast Carcinoma
|
Increased Risk |
Decreased Risk |
|
|
Factor |
of Recurrence |
of Recurrence |
|
Size |
T3, T2 |
T1, T0 |
|
Hormone receptors |
Negative |
Positive |
|
DNA flow cytometry |
Aneuploid tumors |
Diploid |
|
Histologic grade |
High |
Low |
|
Tumor labeling index |
<3% |
>3% |
|
S phase fraction |
>5% |
<5% |
|
Lymphatic or vascular invasion |
Present |
Absent |
|
Cathepsin D |
High |
Low |
|
HER-2/neu oncogene |
High |
Low |
|
Epidermal growth factor receptor |
High |
Low |
|
From Giuliano AE, Hurvitz SA. Breast Disorders. In: McPhee SJ, Papadakis MA, eds. 2011 current medical diagnosis and treatment. New York: McGraw Hill, 2011;710, with permission. |
||
Patients with lymph node metastasis have a higher risk of recurrence than patients with node-negative disease. The 10-year survival rate for women with palpable metastatic axillary lymph nodes who fail to receive systemic therapy is about 50% to 60%. The number of lymph nodes involved and the presence of extracapsular invasion are important indicators of poor prognosis.
Another prognostic indicator of relapse is primary tumor size. In an evaluation of 767 patients with node-negative disease who underwent radical or modified radical mastectomy without adjuvant chemotherapy, the relapse rate in patients with tumors larger than 1 cm or special tumor types larger than 3 cm (tubular, mucinous, or papillary) was 27% at 10 years, compared with 9% for tumors smaller than 1 cm (83).
Hormone receptor status is an important predictor not only of long-term prognosis but also of response to endocrine therapy. Several studies demonstrated that patients with positive estrogen and progesterone receptor status have improved overall survival (84,85). Receptor status should be known when determining the need for and choice of adjuvant therapy. Histologic grade appears to predict overall survival. Patients with well-differentiated tumors tend to have more favorable outcomes than those with poorly differentiated ones (Table 40.5). In a British study of 1,168 women, histologic grade, along with tumor size and lymph node status, was an independent predictor of overall survival at 10 years (86).
Table 40.5 Year Survival According to Stage of Breast Cancer
|
AJCC Stage |
5-Year Survival (%) |
10-Year Survival (%) |
|
Stage 0 |
95 |
90 |
|
Stage I |
85 |
70 |
|
Stage IIA |
70 |
50 |
|
IIB |
60 |
40 |
|
Stage IIIA |
55 |
30 |
|
IIIB |
30 |
20 |
|
Stage IV |
5—10 |
2 |
|
All |
65 |
30 |
|
AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer. From Giuliano AE, Hurvitz SA. Breast disorders. In: McPhee SJ, Papadakis MA, eds. 2011 current medical diagnosis and treatment. New York: McGraw Hill, 2011;716, with permission. |
||
Two multigene assays were rapidly developed and are commercially available including the 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX) and the 70-gene signature (Mammaprint). Oncotype DX was developed for identifying patients who have a high risk of recurrence distantly and for patients with node negative ER+ breast cancer. Large-scale phase III trials are under way in the United States and in Europe to test the clinical utility of these multigene assays, which will assist in determining the use of adjuvant systemic therapy.
The possible roles of specific tumor markers in predicting which patients will respond to chemotherapy regimens were investigated. The most thoroughly researched of these markers is HER-2/neu. In an NSABP study, patients with HER-2/neu overexpression who were not treated with anthracycline-based regimens fared worse (87). Another study showed that the addition of trastuzumab (Herceptin), an antibody directed against the HER-2/neu receptor, significantly increased the response rate to therapy over standard chemotherapy alone in the presence of metastatic disease (88). Reports from trials investigating the adjuvant use of trastuzumab for women with early-stage Her-2/neu breast cancers show significant improvements in disease-free survival for women receiving trastuzumab;trastuzumab is used as systemic adjuvant therapy for patients with Her-2/neu positive breast cancer, and the standard length of treatment is one full year (89–91).
Systemic Regimens
Based on the results of more than 100 prospective, randomized trials examining the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer, a variety of systemic regimens emerged. Systemic therapy includes cytotoxic agents and hormonal agents, used alone or in combination. Following is a brief description of the more commonly used regimens. Initially, trials involved a single perioperative course of chemotherapy aimed at eradicating circulating tumor cells. The Nissen-Meyer study from Norway showed that a single course of cyclophosphamide improved overall survival rates (92). Numerous trials demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for certain subgroups of patients (93). In the initial NSABP adjuvant trial, a 2-year course of melphalan was superior to no treatment, and further trials demonstrated enhanced beneficial effect with the use of multiple drugs as well as with the combination of hormonal manipulation with chemotherapy (94,95).
Historically, the most frequently used adjuvant combination chemotherapy was CMF: cyclophosphamide (C), methotrexate (M), and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). In the original study by Bonadonna et al., patients with positive axillary lymph nodes were randomized to receive either 12 monthly cycles of CMF or no therapy after radical mastectomy (96). A statistically significant benefit was found with CMF treatment for premenopausal patients, especially those with one to three positive nodes. A subsequent study showed six cycles of CMF to be as effective as 12 cycles (97). No significant effect was seen for postmenopausal women, which may result from the fact that these women were less likely to tolerate the full course of therapy (98). After 20 years of follow-up, this trial demonstrated a persistent survival advantage for premenopausal women receiving CMF adjuvant therapy (99). In a later study involving node-negative, estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer patients, after 12 years of follow-up, 71% of patients treated with adjuvant CMF remained disease free compared with 48% in the control group, regardless of menopausal status (100).
Anthracylines (A) were more commonly used in the adjuvant and metastatic treatment of breast cancer than any other agents. A large randomized NSABP study compared CMF with AC regimens in node-positive patients and found similar treatment outcomes among both groups. The AC regimen was preferred because of its shorter duration (four cycles for 3 months vs. six cycles for 6 months) and better tolerance (101).
Several landmark trials showed that taxanes such as paclitaxel and docetaxel in combination with anthracyclines have significant efficacy and are the new standard adjuvant therapy for node-positive breast cancer. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B was the first to show a 17% improvement in the rate of recurrence and 18% reduction in the rate of death with the addition of paclitaxel to cyclophosphamide (102). Given concerns over the cardiotoxicity of anthracyclines as well as the 0.21% risk of leukemia after the AC regimen at 5 years, a US oncology trial randomized stage I, II, and III patients to AC or docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and found that after 7 years' follow-up disease-free survival and overall survival statistically favored the TC group (103). This was the first trial to compare a taxane-based regimen to an anthracycline-based regimen. Concerns remain because multiple trials demonstrate that the duration of therapy is significant and the TCregimen used was a short-duration treatment of four cycles (104). Until results of an ongoing US oncology trial designed to assess whether an incremental benefit exists for adding an anthracycline to TC-based therapy for six cycles on a 3-week dosing schedule for Her-2/neu negative patients, oncologists will need to decide whether to add anthracycline to taxane-based chemotherapy guided by their clinical judgment.
Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy
The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy traditionally was limited to those individuals with either inoperable locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancers. The goal of preoperative systemic therapy was to convert inoperable patients into resectable candidates on the basis of pathologic and clinical responses (105). Indications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were broadened to include individuals presenting with large operable tumors and wanting to undergo breast preservation instead of mastectomy. Reports indicate that breast conservation therapy is possible and that low rates of in-breast or local–regional recurrences occur when neoadjuvant chemotherapy results in clinical and pathological tumor downstaging (106). In addition to large, operable tumors, neoadjuvant therapy continues to have a role in the treatment of inflammatory breast cancers and those presenting in a locally advanced state.
Hormonal Therapy
Hormonal manipulation with tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, used alone or in combination with a cytotoxic regimen, is beneficial in select groups of women. Tamoxifen, an estrogen analogue, offers substantial benefits in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Taken at a dose of 20 mg per day for 5 years, tamoxifen reduces the annual risk of recurrence by about 50% and the annual risk of death by about 25%. These benefits occur in women with estrogen receptor–positive disease regardless of chemotherapy treatment (107).
Tamoxifen, when used in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy, improves survival in women with positive axillary lymph nodes and tumor estrogen receptor expression (108). In patients with node-negative, estrogen receptor–positive disease, the addition of tamoxifen to chemotherapy improved disease-free survival rates after 5 years of follow-up (109). In NSABP study B-14, 2,644 patients with estrogen receptor–positive tumors and no axillary metastases were randomized to either tamoxifen (10 mg orally twice daily for 5 years) or a placebo control. After a 4-year median follow-up, the disease-free survival rate for the 1,318 patients treated with tamoxifen was 82% compared with 77% for the 1,326 patients treated with placebo (p = .00001), again regardless of menopausal status.
The Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) performed a meta-analysis of adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer. They analyzed randomized trials involving adjuvant systemic hormonal, cytotoxic, or immune therapy administered to more than 75,000 women with stage I or II carcinoma. The investigators concluded that for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, tamoxifen daily for at least 2 years had a significant beneficial effect on disease-free survival rates, with these effects lasting up to 10 years. The incidence of both carcinoma in the contralateral breast and death rate from heart disease decreased.
In addition to tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors have been approved for use in the adjuvant treatment of patients with estrogen receptor–positive cancers. Aromatase inhibitors act by inhibiting the aromatase enzyme, thus blocking the conversion of androgens into estrogens. These drugs should be used only in postmenopausal patients or premenopausal women who have undergone chemical ovarian suppression or oophorectomy. Although aromatase inhibitors cause fewer episodes of thrombotic events, hot flashes, and endometrial cancers, musculoskeletal symptoms and osteoporosis are more commonly encountered among aromatase inhibitor users than those taking tamoxifen.Results from the anastrozole (Arimidex), tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial showed overall lower recurrence rates, as well as fewer contralateral tumors, among women treated with anastrozole alone after 68 months of follow-up (110). A meta-analysis confirmed that aromatase inhibitor therapy alone conferred a 2.9% absolute decrease in recurrence; aromatase inhibitor therapy after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen conferred a 3.1% reduction in recurrence, as well as a 0.7% decrease in mortality at 5-year follow-up, although additional long-term follow-up is needed (111). Based on these results, aromatase inhibitors are now often offered as a first-line treatment option for adjuvant therapy. Research suggests that conversion of patients from tamoxifen to an aromatase inhibitor, such as letrozole (Femara), after 2.5 or 5 years may improve survival, although concurrent use of the two agents offers no benefit(110,112).
General Recommendations
Adjuvant systemic therapy lowers the incidence of recurrence by 25% to 30%. It is important to understand that the proportional reduction in risk of relapse is relatively constant regardless of absolute risk (113). The EBCTCG meta-analysis showed that the risk reduction of recurrence and breast cancer–specific mortality from polychemotherapy occurs in all women, but the most benefit occurs in women under the age of 50 (Table 40.6). A meta-analysis from the EBCTCG assessing the effect of polychemotherapy and tamoxifen on estrogen receptor–poor breast cancer found that women under the age of 50 or between the ages of 50 and 69 had statistically significant decreases in 10-year risks of recurrence and mortality, with more benefit in women under the age of 50, confirming the results of the earlier study in patients with estrogen receptor–poor breast cancer (114). Tamoxifen did not add any benefit in patients with estrogen receptor–poor tumors. Adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy appears to affect the natural history of patients with either axillary node–negative or node–positive breast cancer. All high-risk patients with node-negative disease are considered candidates for adjuvant cytotoxic therapy.
Table 40.6 Effect of Systemic Therapy on Recurrence and Survival from Breast Cancer
In postmenopausal, estrogen receptor–positive women, chemotherapy is about one-half as effective as tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting (115). For most postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive disease (estrogen- and progesterone-responsive positivity), including node-positive patients, hormonal therapy alone may be adequate treatment. High-risk patients with hormone-resistant disease benefit from cytotoxic systemic therapy. Caution should be exercised when using chemotherapeutic agents. Patients in whom the risk of recurrence is low are likely to derive little overall benefit from the use of adjuvant systemic therapy, whereas those with a high risk of recurrence are likely to receive the greatest benefit. Comorbidities must always be considered on an individual basis.
The current recommendations for adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer are summarized as follows:
1. Premenopausal women with lymph node involvement should be treated with adjuvant combination chemotherapy. Tamoxifen should be added for patients with estrogen receptor–positive tumors following cytotoxic therapy.
2. Premenopausal women without evidence of lymph node involvement but with large (>1 cm) size, aneuploid, or estrogen receptor–negative tumors should be treated with combination chemotherapy. Tamoxifen should be given to patients with estrogen receptor–positive tumors.
3. Postmenopausal patients with negative lymph nodes who are hormone receptor–positive should receive adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy as primary therapy. Those with positive lymph nodes should receive multidrug cytotoxic therapy, or a combination thereof if there are no medical contraindications.
4. Postmenopausal women with lymph node metastases who are hormone receptor–negative may be treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.
5. Adjuvant systemic therapy is not recommended for patients with favorable tumors smaller than 1 cm. Hormonal therapy may be considered if the patient’s tumor is estrogen receptor–positive.
6. Trastuzumab is recommended as adjuvant treatment in addition to chemotherapy for patients with Her-2/neu positive breast cancer, especially those with positive nodes, young women, and women with large tumors.
Prognosis
The treatment of advanced, metastatic breast cancer is largely palliative. For most physicians, quality-of-life issues are paramount when choosing which type of therapy is offered. In patients with locally advanced disease in conjunction with distant metastasis, palliative radiotherapy may be advised to control pain or avoid pathologic fractures. This approach is best exemplified in the treatment of isolated bone metastases, chest wall recurrences, brain metastases, and spinal cord compression.
Systemic disease may be controlled by hormonal or cytotoxic therapy. Because the quality of life during an endocrine-induced remission is usually superior to one following cytotoxic chemotherapy, it is preferable to try endocrine manipulation first. As many as one-third of patients with disseminated disease respond favorably to either functional end-organ ablation (ovary, pituitary, adrenal glands) or administration of drugs that block hormonal function. For patients with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, this response rate may be as high as 60%. Because only 5% to 10% of women with estrogen receptor–negative cancers respond to endocrine treatment, they should not routinely receive hormonal therapy except in unusual cases, such as elderly women who are intolerant of cytotoxic therapy (116).
Cytotoxic chemotherapy should be considered for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer if organ involvement is potentially life-threatening (brain, lung, or liver), if hormonal treatment is unsuccessful, if the disease has progressed after an initial response to endocrine manipulation, or if the tumor is estrogen receptor–negative. The most useful single chemotherapeutic agent is an anthracycline such as doxorubicin, which has an estimated response rate of 40% to 50%. Combination therapy using multiple agents has response rates as high as 60% to 80% (117). Clinical trials, including those investigating the use of trastuzumab for Her-2/neu-positive women with metastases, are underway to examine a variety of combinations for stage IV disease. In Her-2/neu-positive women, the trastuzumab and vinorelbine or taxane (TRAVIOTA) study showed that both regimens were active as first-line treatments for metastatic breast cancer (118). The historically prominent side effects of debilitating nausea and vomiting are well controlled with central-acting antiemetics. The importance of controlling these potentially devastating symptoms cannot be overemphasized.
Bisphosphonates have played an increasing role in the treatment of breast cancer that has metastasized to bone. Zoledronic acid (Zometa) was found to be superior to pamidronate (Aredia) in patients with breast cancer, with a relative risk reduction of skeletal-related events, defined as pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation therapy, or surgery to bone, by an additional 16% (119). A review that compared all oral and intravenous bisphosphonates that were approved for breast cancer treatment in 2005 demonstrated a 41% risk reduction in skeletal related events with zoledronic acid versus placebo, compared with a 14% to 23% risk reduction for ibandronate(Boniva), clodronate, and pamidronate (120). Bisphosphonates may be important in preventing bone loss during hormone-based therapies for breast cancer. Bisphosphonates garnered interest as a possible adjuvant treatment for breast cancer, with early trials showing a decrease in breast cancer recurrence. Further investigations in randomized, controlled trials, including a trial by the Southwest Oncology Group, are comparing stages I through III breast cancer patients randomized to three different bisphosphonates prescribed after adjuvant systemic antitumor treatment.
Special Breast Cancers
Paget’s Disease
In the 1870s, Sir James Paget described a nipple lesion similar to eczema and recognized that this nipple change was associated with an underlying breast malignancy (121). The erosion results from invasion of the nipple and surrounding areola by characteristic large cells with irregular nuclei, now called Paget cells. Although the origin of these cells is much debated by pathologists, they are probably extensions of an underlying carcinoma into the major ducts of the nipple–areolar complex. There may be no visible changes associated with the initial invasion of the nipple. Often, the patient’s presenting symptom will be nipple discharge, which is actually a combination of serum and blood from the involved ducts. The patient may have a delay in the diagnosis because the presenting symptoms are overlooked. The diagnosis is established by incisional or punch biopsy of the area of the skin changes.
The overall prognosis for patients with this rare form of breast cancer depends on the stage of the underlying malignancy. When an intraductal carcinoma alone is identified, the prognosis remains favorable, whereas patients with infiltrating ductal carcinoma metastatic to the regional lymph nodes have worse outcomes. Traditional treatment was total mastectomy and lymph node dissection, although breast conservation therapy with resection of the tumor and nipple–areolar complex, followed by whole breast radiation, is being performed in appropriately identified patients (122).
Inflammatory Carcinoma
Patients presenting with inflammatory carcinoma initially appear to have acute inflammation of the breast with corresponding redness and edema. Additional clinical findings are variable and range from complete absence of a dominant mass to the presence of either satellite skin nodules or a large palpable abnormality.
Inflammatory cancer, rather than infiltrating ductal carcinoma, should be diagnosed when more than one-third of the breast is involved with erythema and edema and when biopsy of the involved area, including the skin, demonstrates metastatic cancer in the subdermal lymphatics. Most of these tumors are poorly differentiated. Mammographically, the breast shows skin thickening with an infiltrative process and may or may not show a mass or calcifications.
Except for biopsy of the lesion to establish the diagnosis, surgery is not part of the initial management of inflammatory carcinoma. Mastectomy usually fails locally within 2 years of the initial diagnosis and does not improve overall or disease-free survival rates. Better results are achieved with a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Mastectomy may be indicated for patients who remain free of distant metastatic disease after initial chemotherapy and radiation (123).
In Situ Carcinomas
Both lobular and ductal carcinoma may be confined by the basement membrane of the ducts. These carcinomas do not invade the surrounding tissue and, theoretically, lack the ability to spread.
Lobular Carcinoma In Situ
Lobular carcinoma in situ should not be considered a true malignancy but rather a risk factor for the subsequent development of invasive ductal or lobular carcinoma in either breast (124). A more appropriate nomenclature for lobular carcinoma in situ may be lobular neoplasia. Most women with lobular carcinoma in situ are premenopausal and have neither clinical nor mammographic signs of an abnormality. The lesion typically is not a discrete mass, but rather a multifocal entity within one or both breasts incidentally discovered by the pathologist during the evaluation of a completely unrelated issue. Lobular carcinoma in situ usually is managed with an excisional biopsy followed by careful surveillance with clinical breast examinations and mammography. Occasionally, a patient may request either bilateral prophylactic mastectomy or tamoxifen for chemoprevention. Women with lobular carcinoma in situ have a 1% per year and up to a 30% lifetime risk of developing an invasive cancer.
An increasingly diagnosed subtype of LCIS that has more of a pleomorphic and florid appearance appears to act in a more aggressive manner similar to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). In this instance, the lesions should be managed as DCIS with wide segmental mastectomy and radiation treatment (125).
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
DCIS is more common in postmenopausal women. It may manifest as a palpable mass but usually is detected mammographically as a cluster of branched or Y-shaped pleomorphic microcalcifications. By definition, intraductal disease does not invade beyond the basement membrane. Unlike patients with LCIS, 30% to 50% of patients with DCIS will develop an invasive ductal cancer within the same breast if treated by excisional biopsy alone(126).
Although modified radical mastectomy was previously the standard treatment for intraductal carcinoma, more conservative surgery, with or without radiation therapy, yielded good results. In NSABP trial B17, 818 patients were randomly assigned to excision alone or excision followed by radiation therapy. The mean extent of DCIS lesions was 13 mm, and 88% were larger than 20 mm. All lesions were completely resected with negative margins. After a median follow-up of 43 months, the actuarial 5-year local recurrence rate was 10.4% without radiation versus 7.5% with radiation (p = .055) for noninvasive cancers, and 10.5% without radiation versus 2.9% with radiation (p > .001) for invasive cancers. Of 83 recurrences, only 9 (11%) were not in the index quadrant. A reanalysis with a mean follow-up of 90 months confirmed these results (127). These data suggest that segmental mastectomy offers excellent local control.
Axillary metastases occur in fewer than 5% of patients diagnosed with DCIS, making routine axillary dissection unnecessary. When axillary disease is identified, further evaluation of the breast or surgical specimen or both is warranted because nodal metastases indicate that an invasive ductal component was missed. Sentinel node biopsy may be offered to certain individuals with DCIS, especially if the lesion is high grade, contains comedonecrosis, or was diagnosed on core biopsy and has clinical or radiographic features suggesting invasive disease. About 5% of patients whose initial biopsy results show intraductal carcinoma will have infiltrating ductal carcinoma when treated with mastectomy, whereas core biopsy may underestimate the invasiveness of the disease in up to 20% of patients. The incidence of contralateral breast cancer in women with intraductal carcinoma is the same as in those with invasive ductal carcinoma (5% to 8%) (128).
Breast Cancer in Pregnancy
Breast cancer complicates 1 in 3,000 pregnancies (129,130). It is the second most common malignancy seen in association with pregnancy, surpassed only by cervical cancer. Initial studies suggested a significantly worse prognosis for patients first diagnosed during pregnancy, but data indicate that the hormonal changes associated with pregnancy seem to have little, if any, influence on prognosis. When pregnant patients are matched stage for stage with nonpregnant patients, survival rates seem equivalent (131). Patients typically present with a painless mass. Up to 60% will have concurrent lymph node involvement. The evaluation includes imaging with ultrasonography and mammography, which, although controversial, expose the fetus to less than 0.02 cGy of radiation when used with proper abdominal shielding (132). If biopsy is warranted, the procedure can be performed safely and should not be delayed until after delivery. Needle biopsy is safe and easily accomplished in the office setting.
The treatment of breast cancer in pregnant women must be highly individualized. Considerations include the patient’s age and desire to continue the pregnancy. The overall prognosis should be considered, especially when axillary lymph nodes are involved, because adjuvant chemotherapy can be teratogenic or lethal to the fetus during the first trimester, but may be given later in the pregnancy. It is believed that interruption of pregnancy does not alter the prognosis for patients with potentially curable breast cancer.
Following are generalized recommendations for treatment of pregnant women with breast cancer:
1. Traditionally, cancers diagnosed during the first or second trimester of pregnancy were treated with modified radical mastectomy. Sentinel node biopsy remains a controversial procedure in pregnancy; the use of blue dye is contraindicated as it is classified as a pregnancy category C drug, and there are serious concerns about the risk of fetal irradiation with the use of radiocolloid despite some literature supporting its safety (133). Most centers do not offer breast conservation therapy based on the theory that radiation therapy should not be given to the gravid patient. In a patient diagnosed before the third trimester, waiting until after delivery may result in an unacceptable delay in the initiation of therapy and should not be encouraged. Adjuvant chemotherapy can be given after the first trimester, although many oncologists prefer not to give it to pregnant women outside of clinical trials. A classic study reported the risk of fetal malformations to be 20% during the first trimester, a rate that dropped to 1.5% during the second and third trimesters (134). Tamoxifen, however, is a class D drug and should not be given to pregnant or lactating patients with breast cancer.
2. Localized tumors found during the third trimester of pregnancy can be managed with breast conservation therapy, with radiation delayed until after delivery, or with modified radical mastectomy. Tumors should be excised early in the third trimester using local anesthesia. If delivery is imminent, standard therapy can be performed immediately postpartum. In the patient with a viable fetus, it may be preferable to induce early labor to avoid delaying definitive cancer therapy.
3. If the breast cancer is diagnosed during lactation, lactation should be suppressed and the cancer should be treated definitively.
4. Advanced, incurable cancer should be treated with palliative therapy. Decisions regarding continuation of the pregnancy should be based on the therapy necessary and the desires of the mother.
Counseling regarding future childbearing is important for women who have had carcinoma of the breast. It was assumed that subsequent pregnancies would be detrimental because of the high levels of circulating estrogens, but there is no clear difference in survival for women who become pregnant after the diagnosis of breast cancer. One study evaluated the effect of subsequent pregnancy on overall survival after the diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer. Approximately 40% of the women in the study had node-positive disease. The 5- and 10-year survival rates were better in women who became pregnant than in matched pair controls who did not. This study suggests that subsequent pregnancy does not adversely affect the prognosis of early-stage breast cancer (135). A subsequent investigation demonstrated no increase in the relative risk of death for patients who gave birth more than 10 months after their initial diagnosis of cancer (136). Theoretically, it may be that only women with estrogen receptor–positive or progesterone-positive tumors would be affected deleteriously by subsequent pregnancy, but this possibility has not been studied. Because recurrences are most frequent within the first 2 to 3 years after diagnosis, patients with receptor-positive tumors and advanced-stage disease probably should wait until after that time before becoming pregnant again.
References
1. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, et al. Cancer statistics, 2011. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:212--236. http://cacancerjournal.org
2. Anderson WF, Chu KC, Devesa SS. Distinct incidence patterns among in situ and invasive breast carcinomas, with possible etiologic implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004;88:149–159.
3. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures 2010. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.
4. Greene MH. Genetics of breast cancer. Mayo Clin Proc 1997;72:54–65.
5. FitzGerald MG, MacDonald DJ, Krainer M, et al. Germ-line BRCA1 mutations in Jewish and non-Jewish women with early-onset breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1996;334:143–149.
6. US Preventative Services Task Force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Int Med 2005;143:355–361.
7. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, et al. Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA 2010;304:967–975.
8. Brennan SF, Cantwell MM, Cardwell CR, et al. Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;91:1294–1302.
9. Mattisson I, Wirfalt E, Wallstrom, et al. High fat and alcohol intakes are risk factors of postmenopausal breast cancer: a prospective study from the Malmo diet and cancer cohort. Int J Cancer 2004;110:589–597.
10. Chavez-MacGregor M, Elias SG, Onland-Moret NC, et al. Postmenopausal breast cancer risk and cumulative number of menstrual cycles. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:799–804.
11. Eisen A, Rebbeck TR, Wood WC, et al. Prophylactic surgery in women with a hereditary predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1980–1995.
12. Russo J, Moral R, Balogh GA. The protective role of pregnancy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:131–142.
13. The Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Oral-contraceptive use and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1986;315:405–411.
14. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Lancet1996;347:1713–1727.
15. Chlebowski RT, Hendrix SL, Langer RD, et al. Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA 2003;289:3243–3253.
16. Gao X, Fisher SG, Enami B. Risk of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:1038–1045.
17. Majid AS, de Paredes ES, Doherty RD, et al. Missed breast carcinoma: pitfalls and pearls. Radiographics 2003;23:881–895.
18. Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, et al. The Gothenburg Breast Cancer Screening Trial: preliminary results on breast cancer mortality for women aged 39–49. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;22:53–55.
19. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society Guidelines and Issues in Cancer Screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:99–119.
20. Bassett LW, Liu TH, Giuliano AE, et al. The prevalence of carcinoma in palpable vs nonpalpable mammographically detected lesions. Am J Roentgenol 1991;157:21–24.
21. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, et al. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 2005;293:1245–1256.
22. Collaco LM, de Lima RS, Werner B, et al. Value of fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Acta Cytol 1999;43:587–592.
23. Morrow M. Breast. In: Greenfield LJ, Mulholland MW, Oldham KT, et al., eds. Surgery: scientific principles and practice. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001:1334–1372.
24. Arpino G, Bardou VJ, Clark GM, et al. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res 2004;6:R149–R156.
25. Tubiana M, Pejovic JM, Renaud A, et al. Kinetic parameters and the course of the disease in breast cancer. Cancer 1981;47:937–943.
26. Perrone MA, Musolino A, Michiara M, et al. Early detection of recurrences in the follow-up of primary breast cancer in an asymptomatic or symptomatic phase. Tumori 2004;90:276–279.
27. Giuliano A. The pattern of recurrence of early stage breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 1989;31:152–158.
28. Haagensen CD. Diseases of the breast. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1986.
29. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Breast. In: Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al., eds. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer, 2010:419–460.
30. Barry MC, Thornton F, Murphy M, et al. The value of metastatic screening in early primary breast cancer. Ir J Med Sci 1999;168:248–250.
31. Morris PG, Lynch C, Feeney JN, et al. Integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography may render bone scintigraphy unnecessary to investigate suspected metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3154–3159.
32. Halsted WS. The results of radical operation for cure of carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg 1907;46:1–19.
33. Meyer W. Carcinoma of the breast; ten years experience with my method of radical operation. JAMA 1905;45:297–313.
34. Haagensen CD, Bodian C. A personal experience with Halsted’s radical mastectomy. Ann Surg 1984;199:143–150.
35. Dahl-Iversen E, Tobiassen T. Radical mastectomy with parasternal and supraclavicular dissection for mammary carcinoma. Ann Surg 1963;157:170–173.
36. Lewis FJ. Extended or super radical mastectomy for cancer of the breast. Minn Med 1953;36:763–766.
37. Urban JA. Extended radical mastectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 1963;106:399–404.
38. Veronesi U, Valagussa P. Inefficacy of internal mammary node dissection in breast cancer surgery. Cancer 1981;47:170–173.
39. Handley RS. The conservative radical mastectomy of Patey: 10-year results in 425 patients. Breast 1976;2:16–19.
40. Maier WP, Leber D, Rosemond GP, et al. The technique of modified radical mastectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1977;145:68–74.
41. Cody HS III, Laughlin EH, Trillo C, et al. Have changing treatment patterns affected outcome of operable breast cancer? Ten year follow-up in 1288 patients, 1965 to 1978. Ann Surg 1991;213:297–307.
42. Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg 2006;203:704–714.
43. McWhirter R. Should more radical treatment be attempted in breast cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1964;92:3–13.
44. Montague ED. Radiation therapy and breast cancer: past, present and future. Am J Clin Oncol 1985;8:455–462.
45. Montague ED, Fletcher GH. The curative value of irradiation in the treatment of nondisseminated breast cancer. Cancer 1980;46:995–998.
46. Wallgren A, Arner O, Bergstrom J, et al. The value of preoperative radiotherapy in operable mammary carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1980;6:287–290.
47. Nevin JE, Baggerly JT, Laird TK. Radiotherapy as an adjuvant in the treatment of cancer of the breast. Cancer 1982;49:1194–1200.
48. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, et al. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med 2002;347:567–575.
49. Overgaard M, Hansen P, Overgaard J, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk premenopausal women with breast cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 1997;337:949–955.
50. Ragaz J, Jackson SM, Le N, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in node-positive premenopausal women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;337:956–962.
51. Overgaard M, Jensen MB, Overgaard J, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk postmenopausal breast cancer patients given adjuvant tamoxifen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82c randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353:1641–1648.
52. Katz A, Strom EA, Buchholz TA, et al. Locoregional recurrence patterns after mastectomy and doxorubicin-based chemotherapy: implications for postoperative irradiation. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2817–2827.
53. Woodward WA, Strom EA, Tucker SL, et al. Locoregional recurrence after doxorubicin-based chemotherapy and postmastectomy: implications for breast cancer patients with early stage disease and predictors for recurrence after postmastectomy radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:336–344.
54. Sharma R, Bedrosian I, Lucci A, et al. Present-day locoregional control in patients with T1 or T2 breast cancer with 0 and 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes after mastectomy without radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:2899–2908.
55. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al. Effect of radiotherapy and of difference in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and the 15 years survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;9503:2087–2106.
56. Recht A, Edge SB, Solin LJ, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1539–1569.
57. Keynes G. Conservative treatment of cancer of the breast. BMJ 1937;2:643–647.
58. Calle R, Pilleron JP, Schlienger P, et al. Conservative management of operable breast cancer: ten years' experience at the Foundation Curie. Cancer 1978;42:2045–2053.
59. Prosnitz LR, Goldenberg IS, Packard RA, et al. Radiation therapy as initial treatment for early stage cancer of the breast without mastectomy. Cancer 1977;39:917–923.
60. Harris JR, Helllman S, Silen W. Conservative management of breast cancer. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott, 1983.
61. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1227–1232.
62. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1233–1241.
63. Sarrazin D, Le MG, Arrigada R, et al. Ten-year results of a randomized trial comparing a conservative treatment to mastectomy in early breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 1989;14:177–184.
64. Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowan KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995;332:907–911.
65. van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1143–1150.
66. Truong PT, Berthelet E, Lee J, et al. The prognostic significance of the percentage of positive/dissected axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer recurrence and survival in patients with one to three positive axillary lymph nodes. Cancer 2005;103:2006–2014.
67. National Institutes of Health. NIH consensus conference on the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA 1991;265:391–395.
68. Ivens D, Hoe AL, Podd TJ, et al. Assessment of morbidity from complete axillary dissection. Br J Cancer 1992;66:136–138.
69. Goffman TE, Laronga C, Wilson L, et al. Lymphedema of the arm and breast in irradiated breast cancer patients: risks in an era of dramatically changing axillary surgery. Breast J 2004;10:405–411.
70. Gui GP, Joubert DJ, Reichert R, et al. Continued axillary sampling is unnecessary and provides no further information to sentinel node biopsy in staging breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:707–714.
71. Changsri C, Prakash S, Sandweiss L, et al. Prediction of additional axillary metastasis of breast cancer following sentinel lymph node surgery. Breast J 2004;10:392–397.
72. Giuliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM, et al. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 1994;220:391–401.
73. Wilson L, Giuliano A. Sentinel lymph node mapping for primary breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 2005;7:12–17.
74. Krag DN, Weaver DL, Alex JC, et al. Surgical resection and radiolocalization of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer using a gamma probe. Surg Oncol 1993;2:335–339.
75. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet 1997;349:1864–1867.
76. Giuliano AE, Haigh PI, Brennan MB, et al. Prospective observational study of sentinel lymphadenectomy without further axillary dissection in patients with sentinel node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;13:2553–2559.
77. Veronesi U, Viale G, Paganelli G. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg 2010;251:595–600.
Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs. no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2011;305:569--575.
79. Green MC, Hortobagyi GN. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2002;387:109–116.
Murphy GP, Lawrence W, Lenhard RE, eds. American Cancer Society textbook of clinical oncology. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 1995:213.
81. Brezden C, Phillips KA, Abdolell M, et al. Cognitive function in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2695–2701.
82. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2817–2826.
83. Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW, et al. Factors influencing prognosis in node-negative breast carcinoma: analysis of 767 T1N0M0/T2N0M0 patients with long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:2090–2100.
84. Rapiti E, Fioretta G, Verkooigen HM, et al. Survival of young and older breast cancer patients in Geneva from 1990 to 2001. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:1446–1452.
85. Trudeau ME, Pritchard KI, Chapman JA, et al. Prognostic factors affecting the natural history of node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;89:35–45.
86. Kollias J, Elston CW, Ellis IO, et al. Early-onset breast cancer—histopathological and prognostic considerations. Br J Cancer 1997;75:1318–1323.
87. Paik S, Bryant J, Park C, et al. ErbB-2 and response to doxorubicin in patients with node-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1361–1370.
88. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 2001;344:783– 792.
89. Romond E, Perez E, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1673–1684.
90. Smith I, Procter M, Gelber RD, et al. HERA study team. 2-year follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369:29–36.
91. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1659–1672.
92. Nissen-Meyer R. The Scandinavian clinical trials. Experientia Suppl 1982;41:571–579.
93. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P. Adjuvant systemic therapy for resectable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1985;3:259–275.
94. Fisher B, Carbone P, Economou SG, et al. L-phenylalanine mustard in the management of primary breast cancer: a report of early findings. N Engl J Med 1975;292:117–122.
95. Mueller CB, Lesperance ML. NSABP trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a further look at the evidence. Ann Surg 1991;214:206–211.
96. Bonadonna G, Rossi A, Valagussa P. Adjuvant CMF chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: ten years later. World J Surg 1985;9:707–713.
97. Tancine G, Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, et al. Adjuvant CMF in breast cancer: comparative 5-year results of 12 versus 6 cycles. J Clin Oncol 1983;1:2–10.
98. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P. Dose-response effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1981;304:10–15.
99. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A, et al. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer: the results of 20 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 1995;332:901–906.
100. Zambetti M, Valagussa P, Bonadonna G. Adjuvant CMF in node-negative and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer: updated results. Ann Oncol 1996;7:481–485.
101. Fisher B, Brown AM, Dimitrov NV, et al. Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifen-nonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-15. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1483–1496.
102. Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD, et al. Improved outcomes from adding sequential paclitaxel but not from escalating doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:976–983.
103. Jones S, Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy J, et al. Docetaxel with cyclophosphamide is associated with an overall survival benefit compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide:7 year follow-up of US Oncology Research Trial 9735. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1177–1183.
104. Saurel CA, Patel TA, Perez EA. Changes to adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: a decade in review. Clin Breast Cancer 2010;10:196–208.
105. Trudeau M, Sinclair SE, Clemons M, et al. Neoadjuvant taxanes in the treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer: a systemic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2005;31:283–302.
106. Chen AM, Meric-Berstam F, Hunt KK, et al. Breast conservation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 2005;103:689–695.
107. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998;352:930–942.
108. Albain K, Green S, Ravdin P, et al. Overall survival after cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, 5-FU, and tamoxifen is superior to tamoxifen alone in post-menopausal, receptor(+), node(+) breast cancer: new findings from phase III Southwest Oncology Group Intergroup Trial S8814 (INT-0100). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:94(abst).
109. Fisher B, Digman J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1673–1682.
110. Howell A, Cuzick J, Baum M, et al. Results of the ATAC (Arimidex, tamoxifen, alone or in combination) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Lancet 2005;365:60–62.
111. Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Ingle J, et al. Meta-analysis of breast cancer outcomes in adjuvant trials of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:509–518.
112. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, et al. A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1793–1802.
113. Winer EP, Morrow M, Osborne CK, et al. Malignant tumors of the breast. In: Devita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg S, eds. Cancer principles and practice of oncology. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001:1651–1717.
114. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;365:1687–1717.
115. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Adjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen-receptor-poor breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2008;371:29–40.
116. Dhodapkar MV, Ingle JN, Cha SS, et al. Prognostic factors in elderly women with metastatic breast cancer treated with tamoxifen: an analysis of patients entered on four prospective clinical trials. Cancer 1996;77:683–690.
117. Valero V. Combination docetaxel/cyclophosphamide in patients with advanced solid tumors. Oncology 1997;11:34–36.
118. Burstein HJ, Keshaviah A, Baron AD. Trastuzumab plus vinorelbine or taxane chemotherapy for HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer: the trastuzumab and vinorelbine or taxane study. Cancer 2007;110:965–972.
119. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer2003;98:1735–1744.
120. Pavlakis B, Scmidt RL, Stockier M. Bisphosphonates for breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;3:CD003474.
121. Paget J. Disease of the mammary areola preceding cancer of the mammary gland. St Barts Hosp Rep 1874;10:89.
122. Pezzi CM, Kukora JS, Audet IM, et al. Breast conservation surgery using nipple-areolar resection for central breast cancers. Arch Surg 2004;139:32–37.
123. Barnes DM, Newman L. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer: a literature review. Surg Clin North Am 2007;87:417–430.
124. Simpson PT, Gale T, Fulford LG, et al. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: pathology of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5:258–262.
125. Barth A, Brenner RJ, Giuliano AE. Current management of ductal carcinoma in situ. West J Med 1995;163:360–366.
126. Sneige N, Wang J, Baker BA, et al. Clinical, histopathologic, and biologic features of pleomorphic lobular (ductal-lobular) carcinoma in situ of the breast: a report of 24 cases. Mod Pathol 2002;15:1044–1050.
127. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:441–452.
128. Claus EB, Stowe M, Carter D, et al. The risk of contralateral breast cancer among women diagnosed with ductal and lobular breast carcinoma in situ: data from the Connecticut Tumor Registry. Breast 2003;12:451–456.
129. Psyrri A, Burtness B. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer. Cancer J 2005;11:83–95.
130. Partridge A, Schapira L. Pregnancy and breast cancer: epidemiology, treatment, and safety issues. Oncology 2005;19:693–697.
131. Petrek JA. Breast cancer and pregnancy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1994;16:113–121.
132. Rosene-Montella K, Larson L. Diagnostic imaging. In: Lee RV, Rosene-Montella K, Barbour A, et al. eds., Medical care of the pregnant patient. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians Press, 2000:103–115.
133. Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K, Zeisler H. Breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy. Anticancer Res 2007;27:1705–1707.
134. Gentilini O, Cremonesi M, Toesca A, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in pregnant patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:78–83.
135. Gelber S, Coates A, Goldhirsch A, et al. Effect of pregnancy on overall survival after the diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1671–1675.
136. Mueller BA, Simon MS, Deapen D, et al. Childbearing and survival after breast carcinoma in young women. Cancer 2003;98:1131–1140.
Index