No abstract

Background: Screening guidelines for women at familial risk of breast cancer without a known causative gene mutation differ internationally. To our knowledge, no randomised controlled MRI-screening trial has been performed. The FaMRIsc-study aims to assess the efficacy of MRI versus mammography screening for familial risk and furthermore assesses the influence of breast density. Methods: In 12 Dutch hospitals, 1355 women aged 30-55 years with a cumulative lifetime risk of ≥20% without a BRCA1/2 mutation were randomised with a web-based computer generated hospital sequence, concealed for participants, physicians and researchers, in either the MRI-group with yearly MRI, clinical breast examination and mammography biennially, or the Mammography-group with yearly mammography and clinical breast examination. Breastfeeding, pregnancy, previous screening and previous ductal carcinoma in situ were permitted, but no previous invasive cancer. Primary outcomes were number, size and nodal-stage of breast cancers. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. Results were also stratified by mammographic density (BI-RADS AD). Intention to screen analyses were performed. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR2789. Findings: Between Jan 1 2011, and Dec 31 2017 in the MRI-group (674 women) compared to the Mammographygroup (680 women) with a median follow-up of 5.2 years for both groups, more breast cancers were detected (40 versus 15, p<0•001), invasive cancers were smaller (median size 9 versus 17 mm, p=0•010) and less frequently node positive (4/24, 17% versus 5/8, 63%, p=0•023). In the MRI-group, specificity was significantly lower compared to the Mammography-group (83•8% versus 91•0%, p<0•001), while sensitivity hardly differed (97•5% versus 86.7%, p=0.18). Clinical breast examination contributed hardly to detection (1/55). In incident cancers, tumour stage was better in the MRI-group (p=0•035), with lower numbers of node positive and ≥T2 tumours, while specificity improved in both arms (MRI-group: 87•4%, Mammography-group: 92•6%, p<0•001). All tumours ≥T2 were in the two highest density categories. In BI-RADS density A-C MRI was most effective. Interpretation: The earlier detection by MRI screening and especially the fewer late-stage cancers in incident rounds, may reduce adjuvant chemotherapy and mortality. However, especially for women with the highest breast density at the cost of more false positive results.

Background Upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (CRS-HIPEC) is the standard treatment for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in the Netherlands. This study investigates whether addition of perioperative systemic therapy to CRS-HIPEC improves oncological outcomes. Methods This open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study is performed in nine Dutch tertiary referral centres. Eligible patients are adults who have a good performance status, histologically or cytologically proven resectable PM of a colorectal adenocarcinoma, no systemic colorectal metastases, no systemic therapy for colorectal cancer within six months prior to enrolment, and no previous CRS-HIPEC. Eligible patients are randomised (1:1) to perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC (experimental arm) or upfront CRS-HIPEC alone (control arm) by using central randomisation software with minimisation stratified by a peritoneal cancer index of 0–10 or 11–20, metachronous or synchronous PM, previous systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin or mitomycin C. At the treating physician’s discretion, perioperative systemic therapy consists of either four 3-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX), six 2-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), or six 2-weekly neoadjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by four 3-weekly (capecitabine) or six 2-weekly (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) adjuvant cycles of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. Bevacizumab is added to the first three (CAPOX) or four (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. The first 80 patients are enrolled in a phase II study to explore the feasibility of accrual and the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of perioperative systemic therapy. If predefined criteria of feasibility and safety are met, the study continues as a phase III study with 3-year overall survival as primary endpoint. A total of 358 patients is needed to detect the hypothesised 15% increase in 3-year overall survival (control arm 50%; experimental arm 65%). Secondary endpoints are surgical characteristics, major postoperative morbidity, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, health-related quality of life, costs, major systemic therapy related toxicity, and objective radiological and histopathological response rates. Discussion This is the first randomised study that prospectively compares oncological outcomes of perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC with upfront CRS-HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal PM. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT02758951 , NTR/ NTR6301 , ISRCTN/ ISRCTN15977568 , EudraCT/ 2016–001865-99 .

Although the risk of distant metastases was higher in patients in the (p)N(1micro) than in the (p)N(0) group, no statistically significant differences were observed in overall or disease-free survival between (p)N(0) and (p)N(1micro). Micrometastatic lymph node involvement in itself should not be an indication for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

BackgroundTo evaluate the prognostic meaning of lymph node micrometastases in breast cancer patients.MethodsBetween January 2000 and January 2003, 1411 patients with a cT1-2N0 invasive breast carcinoma underwent surgery in 7 hospitals in the Netherlands. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was done in all patients. Based on lymph node status, patients were divided into 4 groups: pN0 (n = 922), pN1micro (n = 103), pN1a (n = 285), and pN≥1b (n = 101). Median follow-up was 6.4 years.ResultsAt the end of follow-up, 1121 women were still alive (79.4%), 184 had died (13.0%), and 106 were lost to follow-up (7.5%). Breast cancer recurred in 244 patients: distant metastasis (n = 165), locoregional relapse (n = 83), and contralateral breast cancer (n = 44). Following adjustment for possible confounding characteristics and for adjuvant systemic treatment, overall survival (OS) remained comparable for pN0 and pN1micro and was significantly worse for pN1a and pN≥1b (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.58–2.39, HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.69–3.63, HR 4.36; 95% CI 2.70–7.04, respectively). Disease-free survival (DFS) was similar too in the pN0 and pN1micro group, and worse for pN1a and pN≥1b (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.56–1.67 vs HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.19–2.27, HR 2.95; CI 1.98–4.42). The distant metastases rate also did not differ significantly between the pN0 and pN1micro group and was worse for pN1a and pN≥1b (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.60–2.49, HR 2.26; 95% CI 1.49–3.40, HR 3.49; CI 2.12–5.77).ConclusionsIn breast cancer patients survival is not affected by the presence of micrometastatic lymph node involvement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1245/s10434-010-1451-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Overall, the presence of IM metastases did not effect overall survival independent of other prognostic factors including axillary metastases. However, the small subgroup of patients who had IM metastases alone had worse outcome than patients without any regional lymph node metastases.

BackgroundMalignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive disease. Recently, focus has shifted toward a more aggressive and multimodal treatment approach. This study aimed to assess the patterns of care and survival for MPM patients in the Netherlands on a nationwide basis.MethodsThe records of patients with a diagnosis of MPM from 1993 to 2016 were retrieved from the Dutch Cancer Registry. Data regarding diagnosis, staging, treatment, and survival were extracted. Cox regression analyses and Kaplan–Meier survival curves were used to study overall survival.ResultsBetween 1993 and 2016, MPM was diagnosed for 566 patients. Overall, the prognosis was very poor (24% 1-year survival). The most common morphologic subtype was the epithelioid subtype (88%), followed by the biphasic (8%) and sarcomatoid (4%) subtypes. Surgical treatment has become more common in recent years, which most likely has resulted in improved survival rates. In this study, improved survival was independently associated with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21–0.55) and surgery with adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23–0.48). Nonetheless, most patients (67%) do not receive any form of anti-cancer treatment.ConclusionThis study indicated that MPM still is a rare and fatal disease. The survival rates in the Netherlands have improved slightly in the past decade, most likely due to more aggressive treatment approaches and increased use of surgery. However, most patients still do not receive cancer-directed treatment. To improve MPM management, and ultimately survival, care should be centralized in expert medical centers.