Management of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: recommendations of a panel of experts from the Brazilian Society of Mastology.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogenous subtype involving different patterns of behavior and clinical course, demanding a complex, individualized sequence of treatment. The knowledge and attitudes of the affiliated members of the Brazilian Society of Mastology regarding TNBC were evaluated and a consensus regarding management and treatment was reached. METHODS: Affiliates completed a survey involving 44 objective questions. In addition, a specialist meeting was held with 27 experts and 3 ad hoc consultants. The panelists completed the survey before and after brainstorming. Answers achieving 70% of agreement were considered consensual. The chi-square test was used to compare answers between panelists and affiliates and the Kappa coefficient to calculate agreement. RESULTS: Consensus among the panelists increased from 26 (59.1%) to 32 questions (72.7%) following brainstorming (p = 0.17), including 7/10 questions on systemic treatment. Among the affiliates, consensus was achieved for 24 questions (54.5%), resulting in moderate agreement (κ = 0.445). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be indicated for almost all cases (except cT1a-b N0) and should include platinum agents. When indicated, immunotherapy is part of the standard of care. The panel reaffirmed the concept of no ink on tumor as indicative of adequate margins and the possibility of sentinel lymph node biopsy for cN1 patients who become cN0 following neoadjuvant therapy. Controversies remain on combining immunotherapy with capecitabine/olaparib in pertinent cases. CONCLUSION: Expert consensus was achieved for > 70% of the questions, with moderate agreement between panelists and affiliates. Educational interventions on systemic breast cancer treatment affected decision-making in 60% of the questions.

Sonobreast: predicting individualized probabilities of malignancy in solid breast masses with echographic expression.

To create an individualized predictive tool for the risk of malignancy in solid breast masses, based on echographic and clinical characteristics. Research Ethics Committee approval and informed consent were obtained. This multi-center study included 1,403 solid breast masses prospectively. Each ultrasound feature was analyzed and compared with the definitive diagnosis. The ultrasound results, women's ages and family histories of breast cancer were included in a multivariate logistic regression model. Among the 1,403 lesions included in the study, 1,390 (99.1%) had a conclusive diagnosis: 343 malignant tumors (24.7%), and 1,047 benign masses (75.3%). The odds ratio (and confidence interval) for breast malignancy for each variable included in the model, as calculated by multivariate analysis, were as follows: irregular shape/noncircumscribed margins, 16.02 (7.75-33.09); heterogeneous echo texture, 4.50 (2.42-8.23); vertical orientation (not parallel to the skin), 2.23 (1.04-4.75); anterior echogenic rim, 2.62 (1.09-6.31); posterior shadowing, 2.38 (1.23-4.62); age more than 40 years, 2.19 (1.26-3.81); positive first-degree family history (mother, sister or daughter), 7.50 (2.65-21.18). There was no advantage in including the presence of internal vascularity, presence of thickened Cooper's ligaments or size of the mass, in the model. The predictive tool was named SONOBREAST and it is freely available for medical purposes on the internet site: http://www.sonobreast.com. The probability of malignancy in breast masses can be specified based on their ultrasound features, the woman's age and the family history of breast cancer.

A comparision of aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy according to tumor size of suspicious breast lesions.

The purpose of the study was to compare the accuracy of FNAC, CNB, and combined biopsy according to tumor size of suspicious breast lesions. FNAC and CNB were performed in 264 patients with suspicious breast lesions from August, 1997 to August, 2002. The procedures were guided by ultrasound and performed in the same session by the same operator. The lesions were divided in four groups according to the tumor size in the histopathology report: lesions smaller than 1 cm, between 1 and 2 cm, between 2 and 5 cm, and lesions greater than 5 cm. The final surgical histopatology results identified 222 (84%) malignant cases and benign lesions summed 42 (16%). For lesions smaller than 1 cm, FNAC, CNB, and combined biopsy were equivalent for all parameters. For lesions between 1 and 2 cm, FNAC and CNB were equivalent. Combined biopsy showed higher absolute sensitivity (P = 0.007) and lower inadequate rate (P = 0.03) when compared to FNAC. However, when combined biopsy and CNB were compared, no difference were found. For lesions between 2 and 5 cm, CNB showed higher absolute sensitivity (P < 0.001) and lower inadequate rate (P < 0.007) when compared to FNAC. Combined biopsy showed higher sensitivity compared to FNAC and CNB alone (P < 0.05) in this group. For lesions greater than 5 cm, FNAC and CNB were equivalent for all parameters. Combined biopsy only showed higher absolute sensitivity (P = 0.04) when compared with FNAC alone. The combination of FNAC and CNB can improve the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions higher than 1 cm. However, for lesions smaller than 1 cm, our results showed no difference between FNAC, CNB, and combined biopsy, for these lesions any modality has technical limitations.

Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of breast masses: How many cores are necessary to diagnose cancer?

PURPOSE: To investigate the number of cores required to diagnose breast cancer using ultrasound (US)-guided core needle biopsy. METHODS: US-guided core biopsy of 150 masses was performed in 144 patients. For each mass, 6 cores were obtained and analyzed separately. The histopathologic diagnosis was classified as benign, malignant, or normal breast tissue. Each core was analyzed separately. For diagnostic purposes, the cases were grouped as follows: group G1 comprised the first core; group G2 comprised the first and second core; group G3 comprised the first 3 cores; up to group G6, which included all 6 cores. The results were also analyzed by tumor size (2 cm). RESULTS: The sensitivity in the diagnosis of breast cancer was 90.1% in group G1 and 94.1% in the remaining groups (G2-G6). In tumors 2 cm the sensitivity was 91.4% for group G1 and 96.6% when 2 or more cores were obtained. CONCLUSION: It appears that 2 cores are sufficient to diagnose breast cancer in this study population assuming no technical error occurred in US guidance of the needle through the mass.