Explore the vast range of titles available.

Four previously published randomised clinical trials have shown that tamoxifen can reduce the risk of breast cancer in healthy women at increased risk of breast cancer in the first 10 years of follow-up. We report the long-term follow-up of the IBIS-I trial, in which the participants and investigators remain largely masked to treatment allocation. In the IBIS-I randomised controlled trial, premenopausal and postmenopausal women 35–70 years of age deemed to be at an increased risk of developing breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral tamoxifen 20 mg daily or matching placebo for 5 years. Patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups by telephone or fax according to a block randomisation schedule (permuted block sizes of six or ten). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment by use of central randomisation and coded drug supply. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of breast cancer (invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess breast cancer occurrence and mortality. The trial is closed to recruitment and active treatment is completed, but long-term follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with controlledtrials.com, number ISRCTN91879928. Between April 14, 1992, and March 30, 2001, 7154 eligible women recruited from genetics clinics and breast care clinics in eight countries were enrolled into the IBIS-I trial and were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups: 3579 to tamoxifen and 3575 to placebo. After a median follow up of 16·0 years (IQR 14·1–17·6), 601 breast cancers have been reported (251 [7·0%] in 3579 patients in the tamoxifen group vs 350 [9·8%] in 3575 women in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·60–0·83], p<0·0001). The risk of developing breast cancer was similar between years 0–10 (226 [6·3%] in 3575 women in the placebo group vs 163 [4·6%] in 3579 women in the tamoxifen group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72 [95% CI 0·59–0·88], p=0·001) and after 10 years (124 [3·8%] in 3295 women vs 88 [2·6%] in 3343, respectively; HR 0·69 [0·53–0·91], p=0·009). The greatest reduction in risk was seen in invasive oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·54–0·81], p<0·0001) and ductal carcinoma in situ (0·65 [0·43–1·00], p=0·05), but no effect was noted for invasive oestrogen receptor-negative breast cancer (HR 1·05 [95% CI 0·71–1·57], p=0·8). These results show that tamoxifen offers a very long period of protection after treatment cessation, and thus substantially improves the benefit-to-harm ratio of the drug for breast cancer prevention. Cancer Research UK (UK) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

We previously confirmed the non-inferiority of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with interstitial brachytherapy in terms of local control and overall survival compared with whole-breast irradiation for patients with early-stage breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery in a phase 3 randomised trial. Here, we present the 5-year late side-effects and cosmetic results of the trial. We did this randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial at 16 centres in seven European countries. Women aged 40 years or older with stage 0–IIA breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery with microscopically clear resection margins of at least 2 mm were randomly assigned 1:1, via an online interface, to receive either whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy with a tumour-bed boost of 10 Gy or APBI with interstitial brachytherapy. Randomisation was stratified by study centre, menopausal status, and tumour type (invasive carcinoma vs ductal carcinoma in situ), with a block size of ten, according to an automated dynamic algorithm. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint of our initial analysis was ipsilateral local recurrence; here, we report the secondary endpoints of late side-effects and cosmesis. We analysed physician-scored late toxicities and patient-scored and physician-scored cosmetic results from the date of breast-conserving surgery to the date of onset of event. Analysis was done according to treatment received (as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00402519. Between April 20, 2004, and July 30, 2009, we randomly assigned 1328 women to receive either whole-breast irradiation (n=673) or APBI with interstitial brachytherapy (n=655); 1184 patients comprised the as-treated population (551 in the whole-breast irradiation group and 633 in the APBI group). At a median follow-up of 6·6 years (IQR 5·8–7·6), no patients had any grade 4 toxities, and three (<1%) of 484 patients in the APBI group and seven (2%) of 393 in the whole-breast irradiation group had grade 3 late skin toxicity (p=0·16). No patients in the APBI group and two (<1%) in the whole-breast irradiation group developed grade 3 late subcutaneous tissue toxicity (p=0·10). The cumulative incidence of any late side-effect of grade 2 or worse at 5 years was 27·0% (95% CI 23·0–30·9) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 23·3% (19·9–26·8) in the APBI group (p=0·12). The cumulative incidence of grade 2–3 late skin toxicity at 5 years was 10·7% (95% CI 8·0–13·4) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 6·9% (4·8–9·0) in the APBI group (difference −3·8%, 95% CI −7·2 to 0·4; p=0·020). The cumulative risk of grade 2–3 late subcutaneous tissue side-effects at 5 years was 9·7% (95% CI 7·1–12·3) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 12·0% (9·4–14·7) in the APBI group (difference 2·4%; 95% CI −1·4 to 6·1; p=0·28). The cumulative incidence of grade 2–3 breast pain was 11·9% (95% CI 9·0–14·7) after whole-breast irradiation versus 8·4% (6·1–10·6) after APBI (difference −3·5%; 95% CI −7·1 to 0·1; p=0·074). At 5 years' follow-up, according to the patients' view, 413 (91%) of 454 patients had excellent to good cosmetic results in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 498 (92%) of 541 patients in the APBI group (p=0·62); when judged by the physicians, 408 (90%) of 454 patients and 503 (93%) of 542 patients, respectively, had excellent to good cosmetic results (p=0·12). No treatment-related deaths occurred, but six (15%) of 41 patients (three in each group) died from breast cancer, and 35 (85%) deaths (21 in the whole-breast irradiation group and 14 in the APBI group) were unrelated. 5-year toxicity profiles and cosmetic results were similar in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by either APBI with interstitial brachytherapy or conventional whole-breast irradiation, with significantly fewer grade 2–3 late skin side-effects after APBI with interstitial brachytherapy. These findings provide further clinical evidence for the routine use of interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy-based APBI in the treatment of patients with low-risk breast cancer who opt for breast conservation. German Cancer Aid.

In a study involving women undergoing breast-conserving therapy, the group that had the cavity of tumor resection shaved had a significantly lower rate of positive margins than the no-shave group (19% vs. 34%). Half as many such patients required second surgery for margin clearance. Many women who receive a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer opt for breast-conserving surgery with partial mastectomy. 1 Although the survival rate with such surgery is equivalent to that with total mastectomy, margin status is a critical determinant of local recurrence. 2 Approximately 20 to 40% of patients have positive margins (margins positive for tumor) after partial mastectomy and require a second operation for margin clearance. 3 , 4 Retrospective studies have shown that taking additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by partial mastectomy (also known as cavity shave margins) may reduce the rate of positive margins. However, others have argued that it . . .

Two large clinical trials have shown a reduced rate of breast cancer development in high-risk women in the initial 5 years of follow-up after use of aromatase inhibitors (MAP.3 and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II [IBIS-II]). Here, we report blinded long-term follow-up results for the IBIS-II trial, which compared anastrozole with placebo, with the objective of determining the efficacy of anastrozole for preventing breast cancer (both invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ) in the post-treatment period. IBIS-II is an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer were recruited and were randomly assigned (1:1) to either anastrozole (1 mg per day, oral) or matching placebo daily for 5 years. After treatment completion, women were followed on a yearly basis to collect data on breast cancer incidence, death, other cancers, and major adverse events (cardiovascular events and fractures). The primary outcome was all breast cancer. 3864 women were recruited between Feb 2, 2003, and Jan 31, 2012. 1920 women were randomly assigned to 5 years anastrozole and 1944 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 131 months (IQR 105–156), a 49% reduction in breast cancer was observed for anastrozole (85 vs 165 cases, hazard ratio [HR] 0·51, 95% CI 0·39–0·66, p<0·0001). The reduction was larger in the first 5 years (35 vs 89, 0·39, 0·27–0·58, p<0·0001), but still significant after 5 years (50 vs 76 new cases, 0·64, 0·45–0·91, p=0·014), and not significantly different from the first 5 years (p=0·087). Invasive oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer was reduced by 54% (HR 0·46, 95% CI 0·33–0·65, p<0·0001), with a continued significant effect in the period after treatment. A 59% reduction in ductal carcinoma in situ was observed (0·41, 0·22–0·79, p=0·0081), especially in participants known to be oestrogen receptor-positive (0·22, 0·78–0·65, p<0·0001). No significant difference in deaths was observed overall (69 vs 70, HR 0·96, 95% CI 0·69–1·34, p=0·82) or for breast cancer (two anastrozole vs three placebo). A significant decrease in non-breast cancers was observed for anastrozole (147 vs 200, odds ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·57–0·91, p=0·0042), owing primarily to non-melanoma skin cancer. No excess of fractures or cardiovascular disease was observed. This analysis has identified a significant continuing reduction in breast cancer with anastrozole in the post-treatment follow-up period, with no evidence of new late side-effects. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect on breast cancer mortality. Cancer Research UK, the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Sanofi Aventis, and AstraZeneca.

The evidence justifying the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is limited. We did a prospective randomised trial to compare the safety of IBBR with an ADM immediately after mastectomy with that of two-stage IBBR. We did an open-label, randomised, controlled trial in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible women were older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a gene mutation linked with breast cancer who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Randomisation was done electronically, stratified per centre and in blocks of ten to achieve roughly balanced groups. Women were assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. The primary endpoint was quality of life and safety was assessed by the occurrence of adverse outcomes. Analyses were done per protocol with logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. This study is registered at Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR5446. 142 women were enrolled between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, of whom 59 (91 breasts) in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and 62 (92 breasts) in the two-stage IBBR group were included in analyses. One-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with significantly higher risk per breast of surgical complications (crude odds ratio 3·81, 95% CI 2·67–5·43, p<0·001), reoperation (3·38, 2·10–5·45, p<0·001), and removal of implant, ADM, or both (8·80, 8·24–9·40, p<0·001) than two-stage IBBR. Severe (grade 3) adverse events occurred in 26 (29%) of 91 breasts in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and in five (5%) of 92 in the two-stage IBBR group. The frequency of mild to moderate adverse events was similar in the two groups. Immediate one-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with adverse events and should be considered very carefully. Understanding of selection of patients, risk factors, and surgical and postsurgical procedures needs to be improved. Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell.

SummaryBackgroundSeveral randomised, phase 3 trials have investigated the value of different techniques of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for patients with early breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery compared with whole-breast irradiation. In a phase 3 randomised trial, we evaluated whether APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy is non-inferior compared with whole-breast irradiation. Here, we present the 10-year follow-up results. MethodsWe did a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 16 hospitals and medical centres in Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Spain, and Switzerland. Patients aged 40 years or older with early invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either whole-breast irradiation or APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy. Whole-breast irradiation was delivered in 25 daily fractions of 50 Gy over 5 weeks, with a supplemental boost of 10 Gy to the tumour bed, and APBI was delivered as 30·1 Gy (seven fractions) and 32·0 Gy (eight fractions) of high-dose-rate brachytherapy in 5 days or as 50 Gy of pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy over 5 treatment days. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral local recurrence, analysed in the as-treated population; the non-inferiority margin for the recurrence rate difference (defined for 5-year results) was 3 percentage points. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00402519; the trial is complete. FindingsBetween April 20, 2004, and July 30, 2009, 1328 female patients were randomly assigned to whole breast irradiation (n=673) or APBI (n=655), of whom 551 in the whole-breast irradiation group and 633 in the APBI group were eligible for analysis. At a median follow-up of 10·36 years (IQR 9·12–11·28), the 10-year local recurrence rates were 1·58% (95% CI 0·37 to 2·8) in the whole-breast irradiation group and 3·51% (1·99 to 5·03) in the APBI group. The difference in 10-year rates between the groups was 1·93% (95% CI –0·018 to 3·87; p=0·074). Adverse events were mostly grade 1 and 2, in 234 (60%) of 393 participants in the whole-breast irradiation group and 314 (67%) of 470 participants in the APBI group, at 7·5-year or 10-year follow-up, or both. Patients in the APBI group had a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3 late side-effects than those in the whole-breast irradiation group (17 [4%] of 393 for whole-breast irradiation vs seven [1%] of 470 for APBI; p=0·021; at 7·5-year or 10-year follow-up, or both). At 10 years, the most common type of grade 3 adverse event in both treatment groups was fibrosis (six [2%] of 313 patients for whole-breast irradiation and three [1%] of 375 patients for APBI, p=0·56). No grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths have been observed. InterpretationPostoperative APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy after breast-conserving surgery in patients with early breast cancer is a valuable alternative to whole-breast irradiation in terms of treatment efficacy and is associated with fewer late side-effects. FundingGerman Cancer Aid, Germany.

We carried out a genome-wide association study of breast cancer predisposition with replication and refinement studies involving 6,145 cases and 33,016 controls and identified two SNPs (rs4415084 and rs10941679) on 5p12 that confer risk, preferentially for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors (OR = 1.27, P = 2.5 × 10 −12 for rs10941679). The nearest gene, MRPS30 , was previously implicated in apoptosis, ER-positive tumors and favorable prognosis. A recently reported signal in FGFR2 was also found to associate specifically with ER-positive breast cancer.

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

Background Studies suggest radioguided seed localization (RSL) yields fewer positive margins than wire-guided localization (WL). The goal of this study is to determine whether RSL is superior to WL. Methods Women with confirmed invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) undergoing localization and breast conserving surgery were enrolled. Outcomes measured include positive margin and reoperation rates, specimen weight, operative and localization times, and surgeon and radiologist ranking of procedural difficulty. Results Randomization was centralized, concealed, and stratified by surgeon with 153 patients in the WL group and 152 in RSL group. Localizations were performed using either ultrasound (70%) or mammographic guidance (30%). Pathology was either DCIS (18%) or invasive carcinoma (82%). Procedures were performed at 3 sites, by 7 surgeons. Only difference found for patient and tumor characteristics was more multifocal disease in RSL group. Using intention-to-treat analysis, there were no differences in positive margins rates for RSL (10.5%) and WL (11.8%), ( P = .99) or for positive or close margins (<1 mm) (RSL 19% and WL 22%; P = .61). Mean operative time (minutes) was shorter for RSL (RSL 19.4 vs WL 22.2; P < .001). Specimen volume, weight, reoperation and localization times were similar. Surgeons ranked the seed technique as easier ( P = .008), while radiologists ranked them similarly. Patient’s pain rankings during wire localization were higher ( P = .038). Conclusions In contrast to other trials positive margin and reoperation rates were similar for RSL and WL. However, for RSL operative times were shorter, and the technique was preferred by surgeons, making it an acceptable method for localization.

Background Although volume displacement (VD) is considered the gold standard for diagnosing breast cancer-related lymphedema, it is inconvenient. We compared bioimpedance (L-Dex) and VD measurements in a prospective cohort of breast cancer patients at risk for lymphedema. Methods Between 2010 and 2014, a total of 223 breast cancer patients were enrolled. Following exclusions ( n  = 37), 186 received baseline VD and L-Dex; follow-up measurements were performed at 3–6 months intervals for 3 years. At each visit, patients fitted into one of three categories: normal (normal VD and L-Dex); abnormal L-Dex (L-Dex > 10 or increase in 10 from baseline and normal VD); or lymphedema (relative arm volume difference of >10 % by VD ± abnormal L-Dex). Change in L-Dex was plotted against change in VD; correlation was assessed using the Pearson correlation. Results At a median follow-up of 18.2 months, 152 patients were normal, 25 had an abnormal L-Dex, and 9 developed lymphedema without a prior L-Dex abnormality. Of the 25 abnormal L-Dex patients, 4 progressed to lymphedema, for a total of 13 patients with lymphedema. Evaluating all time points, 186 patients had 829 follow-up measurements. Sensitivity and specificity of L-Dex compared with VD were 75 and 93 %, respectively. There was no correlation between change in VD and change in L-Dex at 3 months ( r  = 0.31) or 6 months ( r  = 0.21). Conclusions VD and bioimpedance demonstrated poor correlation with inconsistent overlap of measurements considered abnormal. Of patients with an abnormal L-Dex, few progressed to lymphedema; most patients with lymphedema did not have a prior L-Dex abnormality. Further studies are needed to understand the clinical significance of bioimpedance.