Can one-step nucleic acid amplification assay predict four or more positive axillary lymph node involvement in breast cancer patients: a single-centre retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: One-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) assay is a proven, accurate, intraoperative method for the detection of lymph node (LN) metastases. The aim of this study was to assess if the total tumour load (TTL) as calculated by OSNA could be used to predict N2 stage disease, ie ≥4 LN containing metastases, in invasive breast cancer patients. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2019 at St Richard's Hospital, Chichester, all macro-metastasis-positive OSNA cases for invasive breast cancer were retrospectively reviewed. The association between clinicopathological variables and ≥4 LNs containing metastases was analysed using regression analysis. RESULTS: In total, 134 patients with positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) on OSNA undergoing axillary node clearance were analysed, 53% of whom had no further positive LN, 25% had ≥4 lymph nodes positive. TTL was calculated as the aggregate of cytokeratin-19 mRNA copy count of all SLN tissue analysed via OSNA. TTL ≥1.1×105copies/µl and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were both significant predictors of N2 stage disease on both univariate (TTL p=0.04, LVI p=0.005) and multivariate (TTL p=0.008, LVI p=0.039) regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that SLN TTL via intraoperative OSNA assay can predict four or more positive axillary LN involvement in invasive breast cancer. This is important in that it may be used intraoperatively by surgeons to decide on whether to proceed with a full axillary node clearance in order to stage the axilla. Further research is required to shape future guidance.

Tumour grade on core biopsy and evidence of axillary involvement on ultrasound predicts response in elderly co-morbid patients treated with primary hormone therapy for oestrogen receptor positive breast carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of women with oestrogen-receptor positive breast cancer who are high risk for general anaesthetic remains controversial. Current guidance is based on studies pre-dating aromatase inhibitors (AIs) which may have also included hormone-receptor negative patients. Such studies have demonstrated improved disease-free survival and local disease control following surgery when compared with primary hormone therapy (PHT) alone. However uncertainty persists regarding benefit of surgery over optimal hormone treatment in patients with significant co-morbidity. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study comparing efficacy of PHT in oestrogen-receptor positive breast cancer patients considered unsuitable for surgery. Co-morbidity was scored retrospectively using the Charlson Index. Overall survival and disease specific survival were noted and multivariate analysis performed to identify predictors of treatment failure. RESULTS: 106 patients treated for breast cancer at Southampton University Hospital with PHT without surgery were identified (Mean age 84.1 years, range 48-101). 94.3% had a probability of 10 year survival of 2.25% or less according to the age-weighted Charlson score. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a four-year survival of 30% and breast cancer specific survival of 60%. Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated high-grade disease (grade III vs. grade I/II: HR = 2.007; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.004-4.014. P = 0.049) and ultrasound axillary staging (indeterminate/definite lymphatic involvement vs. no involvement: HR = 1.944; 95% CI = 1.010-3.742. P = 0.047) independently predicted early failure of PHT. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of elderly and comorbid patients die with breast cancer rather than from breast cancer. Elderly comorbid patients who initially respond to primary hormone therapy have a less than 30% incidence of delayed treatment failure during their life time; however patients with grade III disease or an abnormal axillary ultrasound are twice as likely to fail first choice PHT.

Do patients require outpatient follow-up after rapid referral double contrast barium enema?

INTRODUCTION: In our hospital, patients above the age of 40 years referred with a change in bowel habit without rectal bleeding undergo a double contrast barium enema (DCBE) ideally within 2 weeks. Results of benign studies are sent to a consultant colorectal surgeon and a routine clinic visit arranged. The aim of this study was to identify whether, following DCBE, patients (i) presented at a later date with colorectal cancer and (ii) needed assessment in clinic. METHOD: This is a review looking at all patients who underwent DCBE prior to routine clinic visit between January 2004 and December 2005. Hospital databases were cross-referenced to identify any patients presenting with a new diagnosis of colorectal malignancy between DCBE and April 2007. Clinic letters were reviewed to identify the number of outpatient visits prior to discharge and reasons for continued follow-up. RESULTS: During the study period, 521 patients (age range 31-93 years, 316 female) had DCBE prior to assessment in clinic. Diagnoses: cancer 48 (9.2%), polyps 13 (2.5%), colitis 3 (0.6%), no significant pathology 457 (87.7%). Of this latter cohort, 387 (84.7%) were discharged after one clinic visit; 54 (11.9%) attended twice and 11 (2.4%) were seen more than twice. Reasons for multiple attendances were management of haemorrhoids/anal fissure or investigations of unrelated symptoms. No new cancers were identified in this cohort between January 2004 and April 2007. CONCLUSION: Double contrast barium enema is a safe screening tool following a '2-week rule' referral with CIBH. Following a report of no significant pathology, there is no need to arrange routine follow-up.