1 / 34

M icrometastases and I solated tumor cells: R elevant and R obust O r R ubbish?

Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen , MJ Pepels, M de Boer, GF Borm, JA van Dijck, CH van Deurzen, EM Adang, MB Menke-Pluymers, PJ van Diest and P Bult On behalf of the Dutch Breast Cancer Trialists’ Group (BOOG) ‏ Funded by T he Netherlands organization for health research and development (ZonMw).

dixon
Télécharger la présentation

M icrometastases and I solated tumor cells: R elevant and R obust O r R ubbish?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen, MJ Pepels, M de Boer, GF Borm, JA van Dijck, CH van Deurzen, EM Adang, MB Menke-Pluymers, PJ van Diest and P Bult On behalf of the Dutch Breast Cancer Trialists’ Group (BOOG)‏ Funded by The Netherlands organization for health research and development (ZonMw) Impact of omission of completion ALND or axRT in breast cancer patients with pN1mi or pN0(i+) in SN: results from the Dutch MIRROR study

  2. The MIRROR study Micrometastases and Isolated tumor cells: Relevant and Robust Or Rubbish? A cohort study from the Netherlands in 2680 early stage breast cancer patients who had undergone a SN procedure in 1997 – 2005

  3. Background MIRROR study • SN procedure has led to an increased detection of isolated tumor cells, pN0(i+), and micrometastases, pN1mi • Previous studies - before the SN era - showed conflicting results on the prognostic impact of small nodal metastases

  4. MIRROR conclusions, SABCS ‘08 • In patients not receiving AST, pN0(i+) and pN1mi were prognostic factors for DFS • pN0(i+): HR 1.50 (95%CI 1.15-1.95) • pN1mi: HR 1.52 (95%CI 1.11-2.09) • Our data show that both patients with pN0(i+) and pN1mi benefit from AST • pN0(i+): HR 0.67 (95%CI 0.46-0.96) • pN1mi: HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.35-0.72) De Boer et al. SABCS dec 2008; oral #23

  5. Background 2nd MIRROR analyses • Nearly 50% of 795 patients with pN0(i+)(sn) and approximately 15% of 1028 patients with pN1mi(sn) had not received further axillary treatment • In 8% of patients with pN0(i+)(sn) or pN1mi(sn)axillary treatment consisted of axRT only • Data on safety and efficacy of such strategies regarding axillary recurrence (AR) are, however, lacking

  6. Patients and methods • Patients selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry • invasive breast cancer diagnosed 1997 - 2005 • SN procedure • final N-status: pN0, pN0(i+) or pN1mi • favorable characteristics (Dutch guidelines 2002)‏ • tumor size ≤ 1 cm irrespective of grade OR tumor size 1-3 cm and grades I-II

  7. Accrual n = 3205 selected from Netherlands Cancer Registry • no pathology review • macrometastases • unfavorable tumor characteristics • other reasons n = 2680 inclusion after central pathology review SN only N= 1218 cALND N= 1314 axRT N= 148

  8. Accrual n = 3205 selected from Netherlands Cancer Registry • no pathology review • macrometastases • unfavorable tumor characteristics • other reasons n = 2680 inclusion after central pathology review SN only N= 1218 cALND N= 1314 axRT N= 148

  9. Accrual n = 3205 selected from Netherlands Cancer Registry • no pathology review • macrometastases • unfavorable tumor characteristics • other reasons n = 2680 inclusion after central pathology review SN only N= 1218 cALND N= 1314 axRT N= 148 Present analysis: categorized by SN-status

  10. Baseline characteristics

  11. Baseline characteristics

  12. Baseline characteristics

  13. Baseline characteristics

  14. Axillary recurrence rate in all included patients 5-yrs AR 1.7%

  15. Objectives • To determine the impact of omission of axillary therapy on 5-yrs AR rate by SN status • To determine the efficacy of axRT vs cALND • To determine other factors predictive for AR

  16. Objectives • To determine the impact of omission of axillary therapy on 5-yrs AR rate by SN status

  17. MV analysis: axillary recurrence (AR) HR, corrected for age, tumor size, differentiation grade, hormone receptor status, adjuvant systemic therapy, radiotherapy to the breast

  18. MV analysis: axillary recurrence (AR) HR, corrected for age, tumor size, differentiation grade, hormone receptor status, adjuvant systemic therapy, radiotherapy to the breast

  19. MV analysis: axillary recurrence (AR) HR, corrected for age, tumor size, differentiation grade, hormone receptor status, adjuvant systemic therapy, radiotherapy to the breast

  20. Conclusions • For low-risk patients with pN0(sn), we confirm the safety of no further axillary treatment • For low-risk patients with pN0(i+)(sn), omission of axillary treatment resulted in an increased hazard ratio (HR2.39) for AR, though statistically not significant • For patients with pN1mi(sn), omission of axillary treatment resulted in a significantly increased AR rate (5% at 5 yr, HR 4.39)

  21. Objectives • To determine the impact of omission of axillary therapy on 5-yrs AR rate by SN status • To determine the efficacy of axRT vs cALND

  22. Efficacy of axRT

  23. Conclusion • An AR rate of 0% at 5-years in patients treated with axRT is provocative, challenging the current recommendation of cALND • However, more data on axRT are needed for a meaningful statistical analysis and before firm conclusions can be drawn (e.g. AMAROS study)

  24. Axillary recurrence rate in pN1mi(sn)

  25. Objectives • To determine the impact of omission of axillary therapy on 5-yrs AR rate by SN status • To determine the efficacy of axRT vs cALND • To determine other factors predictive for AR

  26. MV analysis: 5-yrs AR rate pN1mi(sn)

  27. MV analysis: 5-yrs AR rate pN1mi(sn)

  28. MV analysis: 5-yrs AR rate pN1mi(sn)

  29. MV analysis: 5-yrs AR rate pN1mi(sn)

  30. MV analysis: 5-yrs AR rate pN1mi(sn)

  31. Conclusion • Tumor size, grade, and hormone receptor status were predictive for AR in patients with pN1mi(sn) • Omission of adjuvant systemic therapy resulted in an increased hazard ratio for AR, though statistically not significant • Radiotherapy on the breast had no impact on AR rate

  32. Take Home Message • For patients with pN0(sn), omission of axillary therapy is safe and standard policy • For patients with pN0(i+)(sn), omission of axillary therapy may only be safe in the presence of otherwise favorable tumor characteristics • We recommend completion axillary treatment in patients with pN1mi(sn) to reduce the AR rate

  33. Take Home Message • More data are needed on the efficacy of axRT, though results are provocative • Unfavorable tumor size, grade, and hormone receptor status should be taken into account when considering ‘SN only’ in patients with pN0(i+)(sn) or pN1mi(sn)

  34. Steering group - acknowledgements Project Leader: Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen, Maastricht University Medical Centre Study Coordinators: Maaike de Boer, Maastricht University Medical Centre Manon Pepels, Maastricht University Medical Centre Steering Committee: Peter Bult, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Paul van Diest, University Medical Centre Utrecht Jos van Dijck, Comprehensive Cancer Centre East, Nijmegen Eddy Adang, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Hans Nortier, Leiden University Medical Centre Emiel Rutgers, National Cancer Institute / A. van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam Caroline Seynaeve, University Medical Centre Rotterdam Marian Menke-Pluymers, University Medical Centre Rotterdam Central Pathology Review: Peter Bult, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Carolien van Deurzen, University Medical Centre Utrecht Paul van Diest, University Medical Centre Utrecht Statistical Analysis: George Borm, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Wim Lemmens, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Participating Centres: All Dutch Pathology Laboratories (n = 60)‏ All Dutch Hospitals (n = 113)‏ All Dutch Comprehensive Cancer Centres (n = 8)‏ Data Management: Comprehensive Cancer Centre East Jolanda van Beek - Schoester Supported by: Dutch Breast Cancer Trialists’ Group (BOOG)‏ Funded by: The Netherlands organization for health research and development (ZonMw)‏

More Related