HonCode

Go Back   HER2 Support Group Forums > Articles of Interest
Register Gallery FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-10-2010, 07:49 AM   #1
Jean
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,154
Does tumor size trump biology

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/...&src=journalnl
__________________
Stage 1, Grade 1, 3/30/05
Lumpectomy 4/15/05 - 6MM IDC
Node Neg. (Sentinel node)
ER+ 90% / PR-, Her2+++ by FISH
Ki-67 40%
Arimidex 5/05
Radiation 32 trt, 5/30/05
Oncotype DX test 4/17/06, 31% high risk
TOPO 11 neg. 4/06
Stopped Arimidex 5/06
TCH 5/06, 6 treatments
Herceptin 5/06 - for 1 yr.
9/06 Completed chemo
Started Femara Sept. 2006
Jean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 10:27 AM   #2
Ellie F
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,526
Re: Does tumor size trump biology

Hi Jean
Do you know the login and password?

Thanks Ellie
Ellie F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 11:42 AM   #3
Jean
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,154
Re: Does tumor size trump biology

Ellie, if you clink on the clink it will take you to the article.
sorry I do not know the site password - but you could try her2support.

jean
__________________
Stage 1, Grade 1, 3/30/05
Lumpectomy 4/15/05 - 6MM IDC
Node Neg. (Sentinel node)
ER+ 90% / PR-, Her2+++ by FISH
Ki-67 40%
Arimidex 5/05
Radiation 32 trt, 5/30/05
Oncotype DX test 4/17/06, 31% high risk
TOPO 11 neg. 4/06
Stopped Arimidex 5/06
TCH 5/06, 6 treatments
Herceptin 5/06 - for 1 yr.
9/06 Completed chemo
Started Femara Sept. 2006
Jean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 12:54 PM   #4
Ellie F
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,526
Re: Does tumor size trump biology

Jean
When I click on the link it brings up medscape login page and no article.I have tried it several times but no success and really want to read it!

Thanks Ellie
Ellie F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 02:47 PM   #5
Chelee
Senior Member
 
Chelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Southern, CA
Posts: 2,511
Re: Does tumor size trump biology

Ellie,
I get the same thing you do. I think Joe use to have a user name and password we could use for Medscape but I can't remember what it was? I tried her2support in both boxes...that didn't work.

I did a google search and I believe this is the same article...so try this.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/720411

Chelee
__________________
DX: 12-20-05 - Stage IIIA, Her2/Neu, 3+++,Er & Pr weakly positive, 5 of 16 pos nodes.
Rt. MRM on 1-3-06 -- No Rads due to compromised lungs.
Chemo started 2-7-06 -- TCH - - Finished 6-12-06
Finished yr of wkly herceptin 3-19-07
3-15-07 Lt side prophylactic simple mastectomy. -- Ooph 4-05-07
9-21-09 PET/CT "Recurrence" to Rt. axllia, Rt. femur, ilium. Possible Sacrum & liver? Now stage IV.
9-28-09 Loading dose of Herceptin & started Zometa
9-29-09 Power Port Placement
10-24-09 Mass 6.4 x 4.7 cm on Rt. femur head.
11-19-09 RT. Femur surgery - Rod placed
12-7-09 Navelbine added to Herceptin/Zometa.
3-23-10 Ten days of rads to RT femur. Completed.
4-05-10 Quit Navelbine--Herceptin/Zometa alone.
5-4-10 Appt. with Dr. Slamon to see what is next? Waiting on FISH results from femur biopsy.
Results to FISH was unsuccessful--this happens less then 2% of the time.
7-7-10 Recurrence to RT axilla again. Back to UCLA for options.
Chelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 12:16 AM   #6
Jean
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,154
Re: Does tumor size trump biology

Ellie, this is so strange - I click on the link and the article comes right up? I copied and pasted ...sorry for the confusion.

jean


Introduction

The widespread use of screening technologies has resulted in the identification of tumors that are significantly smaller in size. This has resulted in thought-provoking issues related to systemic therapy, especially chemotherapy, for these patients. In early days of chemotherapy, tumors > 2 cm were considered high risk and merited the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. More recently, in the 1990s, when taxanes were introduced, the trials were open for patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. The definition of high risk was > 1 cm irrespective of estrogen receptor (ER) status. The decisions with regard to size and biology were also made easier by the fact that there is a good correlation between tumor size and grade; larger tumors are generally of high grade. As we understand more and more about tumor biology and as the tumor sizes continue to plummet, the question of relative importance of these distinct parameters of assessing tumors has come to the forefront.
In this issue of the Clinical Breast Cancer, Chéreau et al present the data with regard to the outcomes of breast cancers detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.[1] They compare the outcomes with a similar group of patients diagnosed by more traditional means. As one might expect, they find that patients diagnosed through the use of MRI had smaller tumors. However, this did not translate into significant differences in 3-year disease-free or overall survival. They state that the treatment decisions were made as per the St. Gallen guidelines.[2] For patients hormone receptor (HR)–negative or high-histologic-grade tumors with node-negative disease, these guidelines recommend the use of chemotherapy only if the tumors are > 1 cm. Because significant numbers of the patients with BRCA mutations have high-grade HR-negative tumors but were under 1 cm in size, these patients did not get adjuvant chemotherapy. In fact, patients in the group diagnosed through MRI were half as likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (43% vs. 86%).
Several studies have analyzed the issue of prognosis in T1ab N0 breast cancers. Leitner et al analyzed a series of 218 patients and found that poor nuclear grade and presence of lymphatic invasion identified a small subset of patients with significant risk of recurrence that warranted adjuvant systemic therapy.[3] Studies from the Finland and British Columbia Cancer registries have documented recurrence rates between 15% and 30% for these small tumors.[4,5] More recently, there have been back-to-back articles on the outcomes in small HER2-positive tumors, irrespective of their ER status.[6–8] These show that HER2 positivity is associated with a two- to five-fold increase in the absolute risks of recurrence. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that these patients are as likely to benefit from anti-HER2 therapies as those patients with larger tumors.[9]
There is a dearth of studies analyzing the prognosis of small tumors in the triple-negative population. Evans et al, in a study of 1944 women with screen-detected tumors < 15 mm, showed that basal phenotype was significantly associated with poor survival.[10] In addition, there are several aspects of triple-negative tumors that are unique. Size does not appear to be a reliable prognostic factor in these tumors.[11] These tumors tend to spread via the hematogenous route rather than by classical lymphatic route;[12] thus, the tumors are more likely to be understaged.
All of these articles bring home a simple message: ignore biology at your peril. So the next question that needs to be answered is how low does one go?
The past often provides clues about the future. Since the early 1970s, evaluation of HR status, in addition to size, is routinely performed in the management of invasive cancers. The St. Gallen guidelines recommend the use of chemotherapy for patients with ER-positive tumors only for large (≥ T2) tumors.[2] Perhaps the treatment algorithm for the treatment of small (T1ab N0) tumors might be similar to that used in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ, where multiple parameters are used to guide therapy. It is quite possible that a multi-parametric equation that takes into account the patient parameters such as age and menopausal status; tumor characteristics such as histology, immunophenotype, and size; as well as type of surgery and width of margins will enable educated decision making for these small tumors. Based on the recent data in ER-positive tumors,[13] one may also postulate that race could play a role in determining outcome. Needless to say, women need to be made aware of the risks and benefits of therapies and be involved in the treatment of their cancer.
References
__________________
Stage 1, Grade 1, 3/30/05
Lumpectomy 4/15/05 - 6MM IDC
Node Neg. (Sentinel node)
ER+ 90% / PR-, Her2+++ by FISH
Ki-67 40%
Arimidex 5/05
Radiation 32 trt, 5/30/05
Oncotype DX test 4/17/06, 31% high risk
TOPO 11 neg. 4/06
Stopped Arimidex 5/06
TCH 5/06, 6 treatments
Herceptin 5/06 - for 1 yr.
9/06 Completed chemo
Started Femara Sept. 2006
Jean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 04:55 PM   #7
Chelee
Senior Member
 
Chelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Southern, CA
Posts: 2,511
Re: Does tumor size trump biology

Jean,
This is really strange! I found the same article and posted the link. But now it doesn't work either...it goes to the same medscape login page.

Thanks for taking the time to post the article for us...we sure appreciate it.

Chelee
__________________
DX: 12-20-05 - Stage IIIA, Her2/Neu, 3+++,Er & Pr weakly positive, 5 of 16 pos nodes.
Rt. MRM on 1-3-06 -- No Rads due to compromised lungs.
Chemo started 2-7-06 -- TCH - - Finished 6-12-06
Finished yr of wkly herceptin 3-19-07
3-15-07 Lt side prophylactic simple mastectomy. -- Ooph 4-05-07
9-21-09 PET/CT "Recurrence" to Rt. axllia, Rt. femur, ilium. Possible Sacrum & liver? Now stage IV.
9-28-09 Loading dose of Herceptin & started Zometa
9-29-09 Power Port Placement
10-24-09 Mass 6.4 x 4.7 cm on Rt. femur head.
11-19-09 RT. Femur surgery - Rod placed
12-7-09 Navelbine added to Herceptin/Zometa.
3-23-10 Ten days of rads to RT femur. Completed.
4-05-10 Quit Navelbine--Herceptin/Zometa alone.
5-4-10 Appt. with Dr. Slamon to see what is next? Waiting on FISH results from femur biopsy.
Results to FISH was unsuccessful--this happens less then 2% of the time.
7-7-10 Recurrence to RT axilla again. Back to UCLA for options.
Chelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 02:39 PM   #8
Ellie F
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,526
Re: Does tumor size trump biology

Thanks Jean
Really appreciate your effort for us.

Ellie
Ellie F is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright HER2 Support Group 2007 - 2021
free webpage hit counter