Efficacy of injecting platelet concentrate combined with hyaluronic acid for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women with history of breast cancer: a phase 2 pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 50% to 70% of breast cancer survivors are affected by one or more symptoms of vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA). For those who cannot take hormone therapy, autologous platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid (A-PRP-HA) may provide a new alternative therapy for the treatment of VVA in postmenopausal women with history of breast cancer. METHODS: We enrolled 20 postmenopausal breast cancers survivors with VVA and a score of <15 on the Gloria Bachman Vaginal Health Index (VHI) comprised of five items including: vaginal pH, elasticity, fluid volume (secretions), epithelial integrity, and moisture.We administered intramucosal injections of A-PRP combined with HA (Regenkit) and performed clinical evaluations at 0, 1, 3, and 6 months. Primary endpoint: evaluation of vulvovaginal mucosa changes using the VHI; secondary endpoint: evaluation of dyspareunia and sexual dysfunction based on the Female Sexual Distress (FSD) score. RESULTS: All participants (20 women) showed improvement in the clinical symptoms of vaginal dryness and dyspareunia. The VHI score showed a significant increase at 6 months, going from a total baseline score (pretreatment) of 10.7 ±â€Š2.12 to 20.75 ±â€Š4.8 (P < 0.0001) at 6 months. Improvement in hydration and vaginal epithelial integrity was reported. A VHI score of > 15 showed a successful treatment outcome. The FSD score decreased significantly during the study, from a baseline score of 36.35 ±â€Š2.53 pretreatment to 30.15 ±â€Š2.47 6 months after treatment, representing improvement of 17% (P < 0.0001, respectively). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The injection of A-PRP-HA appeared to be a promising method to improve the trophicity and hydration of vaginal mucosa for the treatment of VVA in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors with contraindications to hormone therapy.

Expression of somatostatin type-2 and -4 receptor and correlation with histological type in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Somatostatin is produced by hypothalamic cells and also by tumors. We were interested to evaluate the somatostatin type 2 (SSTR2) and type 4 (SSTR4) receptor expression on a large sample cohort of breast cancer cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used two different Tissue Micro Arrays (TMA) to evaluate SSTR2 and SSTR4 distribution. We evaluated the correlation between SSTR2 and SSTR4 expression and 18 tumor cells markers. We also assessed SSTR mRNA expression on an independent breast cancer population and correlated levels of SSTR2 and SSTR4 expression to molecular breast cancer subtypes. RESULTS: 268 tumors were analyzed. The tumor overexpression of estrogen receptor was significantly correlated to the expression of SSTR2 (p=0.05) and SSTR4 (p=0.04). On principal component analysis, SSTR2 subtype characterized the luminal tumor type. On an independent breast cancer population, expression of SSTR2 and SSTR4 are independent from Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (Her2) and correlated with luminal tumors. CONCLUSION: Expression of somatostatin receptors is a marker of luminal breast tumors.

Multiple synchronous (multifocal and multicentric) breast cancer: clinical implications.

Multifocality in breast cancer is a frequent phenomenon, whose prevalence may vary between 13 and 75%. The differences in estimation of the prevalence of multifocality across studies may be explained by the differing definitions used for multifocality and multicentricity; this inconsistency makes it difficult to analyze the literature on the subject. The incidence of multifocality is probably often underestimated. Currently, the diagnosis relies on imaging. The performance of mammography is relatively low, but the addition of breast ultrasonography can improve diagnostic sensitivity. Recently, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to be more accurate for detecting multifocality compared to conventional imaging. However, this modality is associated with high rates of false-positives that could result in inappropriate disease management. Thus, the use of MRI is not recommended as a first-line technique for diagnosing multifocality. The diagnosis of multifocality is important for breast cancer management, particularly with regards to the choice of surgery. A finding of multifocality may spur a decision to perform a wider excision that will avoid positive margins. Regarding the results of conservative surgery in the presence of multifocality, studies are contradictory, and no international consensus exists. Multifocality may also modify the management of the axillary basin; studies have shown that multifocality is associated to an over-risk of 20% of lymph node invasion. The sentinel node biopsy has been considered as an alternative to complete axillary lymph node dissection by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The prognostic value of multifocality is still not well known, although some studies have suggested that it is associated with a worst prognosis. Further studies are needed to better assess the impact of multifocality on breast cancer prognosis.

Prospective multicenter comparison of models to predict four or more involved axillary lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer with one to three metastatic sentinel lymph nodes.

PURPOSE: Three models have been developed to predict four or more involved axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) in patients with breast cancer with one to three involved sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs). Two scores were developed by Chagpar et al (Louisville scores excluding or including method of detection), and a nomogram was developed by Katz et al. The purpose of our investigation was to compare these models in a prospective, multicenter study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our study involved a cohort of 536 patients having one to three involved SLNs who underwent ALN dissection. We evaluated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration (for the Katz nomogram only), false-negative (FN) rate, and clinical utility of the three models. Results were compared with the optimal logistic regression (OLR) model that was developed from the validation cohort. RESULTS: Among the 536 patients, 57 patients (10.6%) had > or = four involved ALNs. The AUC for the Katz nomogram was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.86). The Louisville score excluding method of detection was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.78). The Louisville score including method of detection was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.79). The FN rates were 2.5% (eight of 321 patients), 1.8% (two of 109 patients), and 0% (zero of 27 patients) for the Katz nomogram and the Louisville scores excluding and including method of detection, respectively. The Katz nomogram was well calibrated. Optimism-corrected bootstrap estimate AUC of the OLR model was 0.86. Using this result as a reasonable target for an external model, the performance of the Katz nomogram was remarkable. CONCLUSION: We validated the three models for their use in clinical practice. The Katz nomogram outperformed the two other models.