Breast cancer diagnosis in women < or = 40 versus 50 to 60 years: increasing size and stage disparity compared with older women over time.

BACKGROUND: Women < or = 40 years account for 5% of new breast cancer diagnoses. Although there is increased awareness of genetic and other breast cancer risk factors, it is not clear whether this has resulted in earlier diagnosis in young women. METHODS: A database review identified 8892 women treated for breast cancer from 1980 to 2002. We compared 925 women aged < or = 40 years with 2362 women aged 50 to 60 years. The mean and median tumor size and lymph node status were determined for each group. RESULTS: There were significant differences in tumor size and lymph node status in younger versus older women. From 1980 to the mid 1990s, tumor size and nodal status did not differ. Since the mid 1990s, tumor size has decreased more rapidly for women aged 50 to 60 years than for those < or = 40 years. In 1998 to 2002, the mean tumor size reached a plateau of 1.8 cm in women 50 to 60 years, compared with a plateau of 2.4 cm in women < or = 40 years (P < .001). The median tumor size in 1998 to 2002 was 1.4 cm in women 50 to 60 years compared with 1.9 cm in women < or = 40 years (P < .001). Lymph node status was also significantly different during 1998 to 2002: 23.9% positive in women 50 to 60 years versus 35.2% in women < or = 40 years (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Since the 1980s, women aged 50 to 60 years have enjoyed a greater decrease in tumor size and percentage with positive nodes. These data could be the result of ineffective screening of younger women or of more aggressive tumor biology. Further study is required to determine whether more effective identification and screening of young, high-risk women can result in earlier detection.

Prevalence of hereditary breast/ovarian carcinoma risk in patients with a personal history of breast or ovarian carcinoma in a mammography population.

BACKGROUND: Identifying BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers is increasingly important as new management options show promise in decreasing morbidity and mortality in these women. The authors sought to determine the prevalence of family histories suggestive of a hereditary breast carcinoma syndrome in a cohort of patients with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian carcinoma presenting for mammography. METHODS: The authors reviewed the family histories of all women with a history of breast or ovarian carcinoma presenting for mammography over a 37-week period. Using the Myriad model, the authors evaluated the prevalence of family histories with a > or = 10% risk of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. RESULTS: During the period of the current study, 14,597 women completed a family history questionnaire. Of these women, 1764 had a personal history of breast or ovarian carcinoma, 86.6% had unilateral breast carcinoma, 4.6% had bilateral breast carcinoma, 8.2% had ovarian carcinoma, and 0.5% had both breast and ovarian carcinoma. Overall, 20.6% met the criteria for a > or = 10% risk of mutation according to the Myriad model. This incidence was higher among Ashkenazi women (47.3%) and among patients with a personal history of ovarian carcinoma (35.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Application of the Myriad model to women with a personal history of breast and ovarian carcinoma suggested that approximately 1 in 5 of these women (20.6%) will have family histories suspicious for a genetic mutation. This risk was higher for Ashkenazi women and for those with a personal history of ovarian carcinoma. This prevalence was considerably higher than the rate reported among women with no personal history of cancer, and has significant implications for their management, as well as for the capacity for risk assessment and testing.

A comparison of sentinel node biopsy before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: timing is important.

BACKGROUND: Because neoadjuvant chemotherapy is being used more frequently, the optimal timing of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) remains controversial. We previously evaluated the predictive value of SNB before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in clinically node-negative breast cancer. Our identification rate of the sentinel node among 52 patients before chemotherapy with a mean tumor size of 4 cm was 100%. In this study, we compared the identification rates of SNB before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and evaluated the false-negative rate of SNB after chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective institutional database review identified 36 women who underwent SNB after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer from 1999 to 2004. The initial clinical tumor size and lymph node status, SNB pathology, axillary lymph node dissection pathology, and residual pathologic tumor size were reviewed. RESULTS: Sixteen of 36 patients had a clinically negative axilla before neoadjuvant therapy. SNB after neoadjuvant therapy was successful in 29 patients (80.6%), although 7 patients did not map (19.4%). Six of the 7 patients who failed to map had a clinically positive axilla initially. Axillary disease was found in 6 of 7 of these patients at dissection (85.7%). Of the 29 patients who mapped successfully, 13 (45%) were SNB negative, and 16 (55%) were SNB positive. Of the 13 SNB-negative patients, 2 had a positive axillary lymph node dissection, yielding a false-negative rate of 11%. Thirteen patients who mapped had a clinically positive axilla before therapy (45%). Of the 11 patients with true-negative SNBs, 7 (64%) were clinically node negative at presentation. The initial tumor sizes on examination ranged from 2 to 9 cm (mean, 5.0 cm), and residual pathologic tumor sizes ranged from 0 to 6 cm (mean, 1.8 cm). Failure to map correlated with a clinically positive axilla at presentation (100% vs 45%) but did not correlate with initial tumor size. CONCLUSIONS: Sentinel node identification rates are significantly better when mapping is performed before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (100% vs 80.6%), with failure to map correlated with clinically positive nodal disease at presentation and residual disease at axillary lymph node dissection. Among patients who map successfully after chemotherapy, the false-negative rate is high (11%). Given these findings, we currently recommend SNB before neoadjuvant chemotherapy for clinically node-negative patients, and raise concerns about the use of SNB after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with an initially clinically positive axilla.