Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Breast Cancer Frances Wright MD MEd FRCSC.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Breast Cancer Frances Wright MD MEd FRCSC."— Presentation transcript:

1 Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Breast Cancer Frances Wright MD MEd FRCSC

2 Objectives imaging & diagnosis historical overview of surgical treatment current practice – breast surgery – axillary staging

3 Radiologic Work-up Common –Mammogram –Ultrasound Good for young women Usually targeted Uncommon –Galactogram –MRI

4 Mammogram

5 Some cancers are not found until they reach this size A mammogram can find cancer when it is only this size Benefits of Mammogram

6 Survival and Stage of Breast Cancer

7 Mammogram X-ray of the Breast No screening tool 100% effective 85-90% of all breast cancers in women > 50 can be identified on mammogram

8 Mammograms and Cancer

9 Ultrasound of Breast Cancer

10 Magnetic Resonance Imaging

11 MRI Advantage –Not affected by breast density –Can identify occult disease Disadvantage –Dependent on who does the imaging –Sensitive, not very specific –Need MRI biopsy capability

12 Breast MRI – Screening… Who should get ? –Screening - evidence BRCA mutation carriers Untested 1 st degree relatives of carriers Family history of hereditary cancer syndrome; risk > 25% –Screening – no good evidence Prior chest radiation before age 30 (Hodgkins) Some women with LCIS/atypia

13 MRI for Surgeons Treatment Planning –3% of contralateral breast cancers are occult to physical exam/ mammo (Lehman 2007) –Occult primary with axillary mets –Paget’s disease of the nipple –Invasive lobular carcinoma –Extent of disease work up –Evaluation of residual disease

14 Breast Imaging Reporting & Data Systems = BIRADS InterpretationRisk Ca 0Incomplete assessment 1Negative0.05% 2Benign0.05% 3Probably benign2% 4Suspicious % 5Highly suspicious % 6Known cancer100%

15 Imaging BIRADs classification Needs biopsy No action

16 The work-up: Pathology Core needle biopsy –Gives more information – –type of cells – invasive vs. non-invasive Fine needle biopsy – not done as much now –Malignant vs. not malignant –Rule out cyst Excisional biopsy - uncommon now

17 Ductal carcinoma in situ Invasive ductal carcinoma Pathology: Ductal Carcinoma in situ and Invasive ductal Carcinoma No lymph node involvement Potential lymph node involvement

18 There must be clinical, radiologic and pathologic agreement (concordance) in diagnosis If one doesn’t fit – consider surgical excisional biopsy

19 The evolution of breast surgery Halsted tumour begins small systematic progression to surrounding tissues involvement of lymphatics leads to distant spread local control = cure

20 The evolution of breast surgery Halstedian principles radical mastectomy –Breast, pectoralis major and minor and axillary tissue

21

22 The evolution of breast surgery Bernard Fisher breast cancer systemic at onset surgery impact is local lumpectomy + RT = mastectomy

23 The evolution of breast surgery “Fisherian” theory breast conservation

24 The evolution of breast surgery Halstedian principles radical mastectomy versus “Fisherian” theory breast conservation

25 Breast conservation Removal of tumour with a margin of normal tissue Suitable for clinical stage I-II tumours (< 5cm, mobile) Post-operative radiation to reduce local recurrence rates Acceptable cosmetic outcome Equivalent survival to mastectomy higher local recurrence rate 7-8% vs. 5%

26 Importance of local control Local control is important 42,000 women in 78 RCT meta-analysis For every 4 local recurrences at 5 years, 1 life lost at 15 years ( Early breast cancer trialists collaborative group meta-analysis 2005 )

27 Mastectomy Large or multicentric tumours Unacceptable cosmesis, small breast : tumour ratio Persistent positive margins with conserving surgery Contraindication to radiation Patient preference

28 Surgical Treatment of Early Breast Cancer Breast Breast conservation or Mastectomy Axilla Sentinel Node Biopsy possible axillary dissection or Level I/II axillary dissection

29 Axillary Surgery Axillary status most significant prognostic indicator Role in determining need for adjuvant therapy Provides local control if nodes involved with tumour Controversial survival benefit

30 Why Axillary Surgery? Clinical Examination – not accurate –35-40% of non-palpable nodes have histological evidence of metastases (Luini 2005) Prognosis –The most important prognosticator –Presence, size and number of metastases in LNs

31 Why Axillary Surgery? Aids in determining best adjuvant therapy –50% of adjuvant systemic therapy decisions need axillary staging (Olivotto 1998) –30% of breast cancer patients might be considered for post mastectomy radiation (Manitoba data)

32 Why Axillary Surgery? Local control issues –5% survival benefit ( Orr 1999 )

33 Likelihood of having lymph node involvement Diameter of primary tumour Percent with positive axillary nodes cm 21 % cm 33 % 2.0 – 2.9 cm 45 % 3.0 – 3.9 cm 55 % 4.0 – 4.9 cm 60 % > 5.0cm 70 % Carter 1989

34 The sentinel node for breast cancer Cabanas penile cancer and inguinal nodes Morton melanoma Krag isotope in breast cancer Guiliano - blue dye in breast cancer Albertini - blue dye and isotope

35 Sentinel node concept First node or nodes in the draining nodal basin most likely to harbour metastases Status of the sentinel node reflects the status of the entire nodal basin If found to be negative, no further axillary nodes removed Enables staging with less morbidity

36 tumour

37 Radioisotope +/-Blue Dye

38 radioactivity blue dye

39 Identifying the Sentinel Lymph Node Gamma Probe used intra-operatively to identify “hot” node

40 Identifying the Sentinel Lymph Node Blue dye is injected under the areola by the surgeon intra- operatively to aid SN identification

41 Pathological evaluation Axillary dissection - bi-valve of nodes retrieval of fewer nodes (1-3) allows more extensive evaluation – H & E multiple sections every 2-3mm – immunohistochemical staining (IHC) –No accepted standard

42

43 Weaver 2005 Effect of additional sections on identification of LN metastases

44 Do LN micromets indicate a worse survival? LN micromets (< 0.2 mm or 0.2-2mm) indicate that the patient has a worse overall survival Noguchi 2002, ASCO 2005

45 Who should get a Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy? T1, T2 breast cancer with clinically negative nodes –ASCO guidelines (2005) also support SLN in T2 cancers (non-randomized data) Multicentric breast cancer DCIS with mastectomy Cancer Care Ontario 2009

46 DCIS – a few caveats *If doing a mastectomy *Mastectomy and immediate reconstruction * Large area > 5cm –27% will have an invasive foci *Core biopsy with suspected or proven micro- invasion –10% risk of axillary mets with micro-invasion +/- Palpable Adamovich 2003, ASCO 2005*, Cancer Care Ontario 2009

47 Who should NOT get a SLNB? Inflammatory breast cancer (T4) Cancer Care Ontario 2009

48 Inconclusive or inadequate evidence Pregnancy – case reports only (blue dye concerns) Before pre-operative therapy T3 or T4 tumors DCIS (without mastectomy) Suspicious palpable axillary nodes Prior breast surgery After pre-operative systemic therapy (ongoing study) Cancer Care Ontario 2009

49 Why Sentinel Lymph Node biopsy? Assessment of randomized patients ( SLN vs ALND 6, 24 months Less pain Less numbness Less arm swelling Better arm mobility Veronesi 2003

50 Sentinel node biopsy by whom? Specialized multidisciplinary technique involving surgeon, nuclear medicine and pathology Surgeons should be familiar with risks/benefits and perform breast surgery routinely Recommended surgeons have performed at least 20 cases with “back up” axillary dissection first Should have a localization rate > 90% Should have false negative rate < 5%

51 What’s the early evidence for sentinel lymph node biopsy? ALMANAC trial 2006, Veronesi 2003 –no difference in staging, survival Veronesi prospective randomized trial –516 patients (T1) ages 40-75, randomized to either –SLNB + automatic ALND –SLNB and ALND only if SNB positive Outcomes variables –Breast cancer events (axillary mets, Supraclav mets, recurrence in ipsilateral breast, or contra lateral breast, distant mets), morbidity

52 What’s the evidence for Sentinel Node Biopsy? Results –32.3% LN positive in ALND –35.5% LN positive in SLNB Accuracy of SLNB (from automatic ALND group) 97% No cases of axillary metastases in group that underwent SLN alone No difference in breast cancer events between 2 groups

53 NSABP 32 Sentinel lymph node biopsy compared with conventional ALND in clinically node negative patients with breast cancer Women with invasive breast cancer (n=5611) Randomized SLNB + ALND Group I SLNB and ALND Only if SLNB positive Group II

54 Technical Issues with the SLNB NSABP 32 –Stratification Age (≤ 49, > 50) Surgical treatment plan (lumpectomy vs. mastectomy) Clinical tumor size (≤ 2cm, 2.1-4cm, ≥4.1cm) –All surgeons did 1-5 pre-qualifying cases of SLNB SLNB identified with both blue dye, radioactive tracer Krag 2007

55 Technical Issues with the SLNB Demographics and Results –97% were T1/ T2 –Technical success 97%, median number of SLNs removed was 2 –SLN positivity rate 26% and 25.7% –Location 98.6% located in axillary level I, II 0.5% located in level III 1% elsewhere (internal mammary, supraclavicular) Krag 2007

56 Technical aspects of the Sentinel node biopsy Overall positive rate 29.2% 1.4% SLN outside of axillary levels I, II 24.3% labeled with radioactivity only (no blue dye) 9.8% False negative –Need to palpate axilla for very firm suspicious nodes –Lateral breast cancers, previous excisional biopsy, fewer nodes (i.e. 1 node 17.7%, 2 nodes 10%, 3 nodes 6.9%) higher FN Krag et al. Lancet :

57 Update from B No difference in overall survival Group I SLNB + ALND Group II SLNB and ALND only if SLNB positive Deaths140/ /2011 Overall survival (8 year KM estimate) 91.8%90.3% Number of regional node recurrences 814

58 Update for Z0010 Data from ASCO update only (no paper) Study design – prospective, multicentre –5210 women who had lumpectomy, SNLB and bilateral iliac crest bone marrow aspiration –Negative sentinel nodes and the bone marrow aspirates were examined by IHC

59 Update for Z0010 Results –Median patient age 56 –85% of tumors < 2cm –80% invasive ductal and 80% ER positive –76% (n=3995) sentinel nodes were negative 349 patients (10%) had IHC positive nodes –Bone marrow micromets found in 104/ 3413 (3%) of patients examined

60 Update for Z0010 Results –IHC positive bone marrow not related to tumor size –5 year survival 93% histologically identified positive SNB 96% with IHC positive SNB or nodes with no metastases Bone marrow mets not associated with overall worse survival –Predictors of survival: histologically positive SNB, younger age, tumor size (not IHC positive node, not bone marrow mets) Conclusion: routine examination of sentinel node with IHC not warranted

61 Update for Z0011 Inclusion criteria –T1, T2 –Lumpectomy (negative margins) and positive SLNB –All patients received radiation –All patients received adjuvant therapy Exclusion –Implants, multicentric disease, bilateral breast cancer, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal therapy, history of ipsilateral axillary surgery, pregnant/ lactating, mastectomy –IHC only positive SLN –Distant mets –***Matted nodes, gross extranodal disease at time of SLNB and three or more involved SLNs

62 Update for Z0011 Study schema Sentinel node positive Randomized to ALND or no further axillary treatment –ALND – had to have at least 10 nodes and be performed within 42 days of positive SLNB Both groups got whole breast radiation and adjuvant systemic therapy Annals of Surgery 2010

63 Update for Z0011 Planned accrual of 1900 patients –891 patients randomized (35 then excluded as withdrew consent) **** Intention to treat analysis

64 Z0011 study sample Remember accrual meant To be 1900 (46%)

65 Z0011 Results Median patient age 56 (67% > 50) –83% invasive ductal, 83% ER positive, 40% LVI, 30% Grade III, –96% had adjuvant systemic therapy (either chemo {46%} or hormones {58%} p=NS) Median total number of positive nodes with ALND = 1 Median number of positive nodes with SLNB = 1

66 Treatment received Results ALND n=388SNLB n=425 Median number of nodes removed 172 Positive nodes, % (n) 00.88% (3)6.9% (28) 158.1% (198)71.8% (290) 219.9% (68)18.3% (74) >321.1% (72)3% (12) ) Unknown4721 Regional recurrence in ipsilateral axilla 0.5% (2)0.9% (4) Local recurrence (median 6.3 year) 3.6%(15)1.8% (8) Receipt of adjuvant therapy 403 (96%)423 (97%)

67 Z0011 data 27% (n=97) in ALND arm had additional nodal mets removed by ALND At a median of 6.3 years – authors suggest that not all non SN metastases develop into clinically detectable disease

68 Z0011 Caveats Study is significantly underpowered (meant to accrue 1900, accrued < 900) Most patients were post menopausal All the patients had a lumpectomy and whole breast radiation –Likely irradiating lower axilla 96% of patients had systemic therapy –Which lowers rate of loco-regional recurrence

69 Caveats with Z0011 Patients with extranodal disease, three or more involved SLNs and matted nodes were excluded Median f/u is 6.3 years –Is this too short for breast cancer?

70 Z0011 Conclusions In a certain subset of patients with minimal disease in axilla, having a lumpectomy, radiation and systemic therapy –Is it ok to omit the ALND? –Maybe – discuss with the patient risks and benefits –Talk with your tumor board

71 What to do in the meantime? PathologyDefinitionWhat to do pN0 (i-)No regional node mets, IHC negative Nothing pN0 (i+)< 0.2mmNothing pN1 miMicro metastases > 0.2 mm - 2mm ALND* pN1 > 2mm ALND* * Discuss at Tumor board/ with patient/ Nomogram

72 Options…. Memorial Sloan Kettering Nomogram –predict the likelihood of non sentinel lymph node metastases after a positive SLN biopsy Looks at tumour factors –Nuclear grade, LVI, multifocal, ER status, number of negative LN, Number of positive LN, pathological size of tumour, method of detecting sentinel LN. Zee 2003

73 Breast Cancer Treatment in the 20th Century: Quest for the Ideal Local-regional Therapy Radical Mastectomy Extended Radical Mastectomy Modified Radical Mastectomy Lumpectomy BC + RT Ax LND BCT + RT Sentinel Node Biopsy I D E A L T H E R A P Y 1950 Radiation Overtreatment

74 Summary Evolution of breast cancer surgery from more to less More and more specialized Less morbidity for patient

75 Update from B Patient Reported Morbidity Data –Arm symptoms (tenderness, swelling, pain, tightness, numbness, weakness) –Arm avoidance –Social and occupational activity limitations More arm symptoms for ALND vs SLNB at 6 mos and 12 mos From mos < 15% of either ALND, SLNB patients reported moderate or greater severity of any given symptom or activity limitation JCO 2010

76 Update from B Shoulder range of motion, arm volumes and numbness/ tingling Shoulder abduction –Peaked at 1 week for ALND (75%), SLNB (41%) Numbness and tingling – peaked at 6 months –ALND (49%, 23%), SLNB (15%, 10%) Arm volume ≥ 10% at 36 months –ALND 14%, SLNB 8%


Download ppt "Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Breast Cancer Frances Wright MD MEd FRCSC."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google