Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast is considered a rare entity, and for this reason there are no data from prospective clinical trials on its optimal management. Early stage tumors are usually treated with the same strategy used for the other types of invasive breast cancer. Anthracycline-and taxane-based regimens represent the most frequently administered chemotherapy in neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, as well as for metastatic disease, although combinations of platinum compounds and etoposide have been widely used, in particular for small-cell histology and tumors with a high proliferation index. For metastatic disease, a multimodality therapeutic strategy can be considered on an individual basis, with chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, radiation therapy, surgery, or a combination of the above. In the near future, a better knowledge of the biology of these tumors will hopefully provide new therapeutic targets for personalized treatment. In this review, we discuss the current evidence and the future perspectives on diagnosis and treatment of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast. The Oncologist 2016;21:28-32 Implications for Practice: Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast (NECB) is a distinct entity of breast cancer. Clinical features and morphology are not helpful to distinguish NECB from other subtypes of breast cancer; therefore, immunohistochemistry markers for neuroendocrine differentiation, mainly chromogranin and synaptophysin, should be routinely used to confirm the diagnosis, especially in cases of mucinous or solid papillary carcinoma in which the suspicion of NECB may be relevant. Adjuvant treatment should be offered according to the same recommendations given for the other types of invasive breast cancer. An accurate diagnosis of NECB is also important in the metastatic setting, in which a multimodality approach including specific therapies such as peptide receptor radionuclide therapy can be considered.

No abstract

No abstract

Cell-proliferation markers are very important in the clinical management of cancer patients, and the identification of Ki-67 (a monoclonal antibody that recognizes proliferating cells) can make it easier to define the level of proliferative activity. This study investigated the associations between the Ki-67 levels measured by means of immunohistochemistry, and other clinical and pathological variables and prognosis in 322 breast-cancer patients. A significant association was found (p F 0.001) between Ki-67 values and tumor size, nodal status, estrogen and progesterone receptor status; multivariate analysis showed that Ki-67 levels were associated with disease-free and overall survival, thus confirming that it is an independent prognostic variable. Various statistical approaches were used in an attempt to establish the best cut-off point for dividing patients into groups at high or low risk of relapse but, in this series, we could find no evidence leading to a single ''best'' cut-off point. We conclude that the quantitative level of Ki-67 could be used as a prognostic factor in breast-cancer patients. Int.

Over the last few years, estrogen receptor determination by means of immunohistochemistry has been extensively used. The aim of this study was to compare this technique with estrogen receptor determination by means of dextran-coated charcoal, and to evaluate whether one of the two methods is more predictive of prognosis. Estrogen receptors were determined by means of both the dextran-coated charcoal method and immunohistochemistry in 405 patients with primary breast cancer; age, pathological tumor size, nodal status, and progesteron receptors by dextran-coated charcoal method were also recorded. The disease-free and overall survival probabilities were estimated using the product-limit method; Cox's proportional hazard model was used to evaluate the prognostic role of estrogen receptors as determined by the two methods. There appears to be a close association between estrogen receptor determination by the two methods (81.5% of concordant results) and their prognostic role was similar, even when the patients were divided into different groups (on the basis of their estrogen receptor status) and adjustments for the effect of other prognostic variables were taken into account. Our study shows that the two methods can be used indifferently to evaluate estrogen receptor status as a prognostic factor in breast cancer patients.

Cell-proliferation markers are very important in the clinical management of cancer patients, and the identification of Ki-67 (a monoclonal antibody that recognizes proliferating cells) can make it easier to define the level of proliferative activity. This study investigated the associations between the Ki-67 levels measured by means of immunohistochemistry, and other clinical and pathological variables and prognosis in 322 breast-cancer patients. A significant association was found (p F 0.001) between Ki-67 values and tumor size, nodal status, estrogen and progesterone receptor status; multivariate analysis showed that Ki-67 levels were associated with disease-free and overall survival, thus confirming that it is an independent prognostic variable. Various statistical approaches were used in an attempt to establish the best cut-off point for dividing patients into groups at high or low risk of relapse but, in this series, we could find no evidence leading to a single ''best'' cut-off point. We conclude that the quantitative level of Ki-67 could be used as a prognostic factor in breast-cancer patients. Int.

In our series, bone marrow positivity did not correlate with prognostic parameters or prognosis. Of interest is the relative excess of positivity when the bone marrow was obtained during surgery.

The relationship between tumor proliferative activity and response to first-line chemotherapy and survival was investigated in 76 advanced breast cancer patients. Proliferative activity was determined by means of Ki-67 immunohistologic staining on primary tumors (55 patients) or at the relapse site (21 patients), and was classified as low ( < or = 25% of stained cells) or high ( > 25% of stained cells). The usual WHO response criteria were used. The median duration of follow-up was 18 months (range 3-58). Forty-seven patients (62%) had tumors with low, and 29 (38%) had tumors with a high rate of proliferative activity. The two groups were well balanced in terms of important variables such as disease-free survival, performance status, age, menopausal status, and the type of first-line chemotherapy (anthracycline-based regimens versus cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil). The estrogen receptor (ER) content, measured by means of immunohistochemical assay, was markedly different in the two groups, with 27/47 tumors with low proliferative activity (57%) and 6/29 with high-proliferative activity (21%) being ER positive ( > or = 45% of stained cells) (p = 0.003). Moreover, a significant difference in the metastatic pattern was also evident, with a higher incidence of bone and a lower incidence of soft tissue metastases in the group of patients with tumors with low proliferative activity (p = 0.004). Overall, 10/47 responses (21%: PR = 7, and CR = 3) were observed in the group with a low rate of proliferative activity, versus 14/29 (48%: PR = 9, and CR = 5) in the group with highly proliferative tumors, the difference being statistically significant (p = 0.03). When a multivariate analysis was performed, the only factor that retained independent prognostic significance was the predominant site of disease, particularly soft tissues (p = 0.003). Despite the difference in response rate, when survival analysis was performed according to the Kaplan-Meier method, no significant difference was observed in the two groups, but when the analysis was limited to responsive patients, the median survival observed in those with a low and those with a high rate of proliferation was 35 and 19 months respectively (p = 0.02). The same results were obtained when multivariate survival analysis was carried out using Cox's regression model. These data suggest that there is a link between tumor proliferative activity and response to chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer, and may indicate the need to use more intensive treatments in selected patients with highly proliferative tumors.