Cargando…

Inflammatory breast cancer: is it really a separate entity?

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is the most aggressive form of primary breast carcinoma and is associated with a dismal outcome despite the availability of multi-modality treatment options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective case control study comparing two groups of newly diag...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bastawisy, AS, Gaafar, RM, Eisa, SS, Amira, GM, Helal, MH
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cancer Intelligence 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3345939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22570674
http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2012.250
_version_ 1782232178692718592
author Bastawisy, AS
Gaafar, RM
Eisa, SS
Amira, GM
Helal, MH
author_facet Bastawisy, AS
Gaafar, RM
Eisa, SS
Amira, GM
Helal, MH
author_sort Bastawisy, AS
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is the most aggressive form of primary breast carcinoma and is associated with a dismal outcome despite the availability of multi-modality treatment options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective case control study comparing two groups of newly diagnosed patients; the first with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) and the second with locally advanced non inflammatory breast cancer (LABC). In both groups MIB1, ER, PR, Her2neu were assessed. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy consisted of four cycles of FEC100 followed by modified radical mastectomy according to clinical response, postoperative chemotherapy with two courses of the same regimen followed by radiotherapy. Tamoxifen 20 mg po daily for 5 years in ER and/or PR positive tumours, starting after the completion of radiotherapy. Primary end points were a) comparison of MIB-1 score in both groups, b) comparison of clinical and pathological responses in both groups. Secondary endpoints were comparison of progression free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: From a total of 42 patients, 21 were stage III B (T4d, N0-2 M0) IBC and 21 were stage III B (T4a-c, N0-2, M0) LABC. Patients in the age range from 28 to 68 were included and followed from November 2007 until February 2010 with a median follow-up period of 22.5 months. Toxicity of both arms, mainly haematologic, nausea and vomiting, was in general acceptable with no treatment-related deaths. Of the patients with IBC 81.3% had a high MIB-1 score as compared with 43.8% of patients with LABC (P-value = 0.028). Objective clinical response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in the IBC arm was 57.1% (4.8% complete response (CR)) as compared with 81% (9.5% CR) in LABC (P-value = 0.09). Overall pathological response (complete pathological response (pCR)+partial pathological response (pPR)) was 35.3% in the IBC arm compared with 40% in LABC arm (P-value = 0.618). One year, 2 year and median progression free survival (PFS) were 55.87%, 37.71% and 21.7 months, respectively in the IBC arm compared with 85.71%, 66.67% in LABC (median PFS was not reached) (P-value = 0.072). One and 2 year overall survival (OS) were 69.82% and 51.20%, respectively in the IBC arm compared with 95.24% and 95.24% in LABC arm (P-value = 0.0038). CONCLUSIONS: IBC should be considered as a separate entity. A high MIB-1 score is a potential molecular marker for IBC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3345939
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Cancer Intelligence
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33459392012-05-08 Inflammatory breast cancer: is it really a separate entity? Bastawisy, AS Gaafar, RM Eisa, SS Amira, GM Helal, MH Ecancermedicalscience Research Article BACKGROUND: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is the most aggressive form of primary breast carcinoma and is associated with a dismal outcome despite the availability of multi-modality treatment options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective case control study comparing two groups of newly diagnosed patients; the first with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) and the second with locally advanced non inflammatory breast cancer (LABC). In both groups MIB1, ER, PR, Her2neu were assessed. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy consisted of four cycles of FEC100 followed by modified radical mastectomy according to clinical response, postoperative chemotherapy with two courses of the same regimen followed by radiotherapy. Tamoxifen 20 mg po daily for 5 years in ER and/or PR positive tumours, starting after the completion of radiotherapy. Primary end points were a) comparison of MIB-1 score in both groups, b) comparison of clinical and pathological responses in both groups. Secondary endpoints were comparison of progression free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: From a total of 42 patients, 21 were stage III B (T4d, N0-2 M0) IBC and 21 were stage III B (T4a-c, N0-2, M0) LABC. Patients in the age range from 28 to 68 were included and followed from November 2007 until February 2010 with a median follow-up period of 22.5 months. Toxicity of both arms, mainly haematologic, nausea and vomiting, was in general acceptable with no treatment-related deaths. Of the patients with IBC 81.3% had a high MIB-1 score as compared with 43.8% of patients with LABC (P-value = 0.028). Objective clinical response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in the IBC arm was 57.1% (4.8% complete response (CR)) as compared with 81% (9.5% CR) in LABC (P-value = 0.09). Overall pathological response (complete pathological response (pCR)+partial pathological response (pPR)) was 35.3% in the IBC arm compared with 40% in LABC arm (P-value = 0.618). One year, 2 year and median progression free survival (PFS) were 55.87%, 37.71% and 21.7 months, respectively in the IBC arm compared with 85.71%, 66.67% in LABC (median PFS was not reached) (P-value = 0.072). One and 2 year overall survival (OS) were 69.82% and 51.20%, respectively in the IBC arm compared with 95.24% and 95.24% in LABC arm (P-value = 0.0038). CONCLUSIONS: IBC should be considered as a separate entity. A high MIB-1 score is a potential molecular marker for IBC. Cancer Intelligence 2012-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3345939/ /pubmed/22570674 http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2012.250 Text en © the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bastawisy, AS
Gaafar, RM
Eisa, SS
Amira, GM
Helal, MH
Inflammatory breast cancer: is it really a separate entity?
title Inflammatory breast cancer: is it really a separate entity?
title_full Inflammatory breast cancer: is it really a separate entity?
title_fullStr Inflammatory breast cancer: is it really a separate entity?
title_full_unstemmed Inflammatory breast cancer: is it really a separate entity?
title_short Inflammatory breast cancer: is it really a separate entity?
title_sort inflammatory breast cancer: is it really a separate entity?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3345939/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22570674
http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2012.250
work_keys_str_mv AT bastawisyas inflammatorybreastcancerisitreallyaseparateentity
AT gaafarrm inflammatorybreastcancerisitreallyaseparateentity
AT eisass inflammatorybreastcancerisitreallyaseparateentity
AT amiragm inflammatorybreastcancerisitreallyaseparateentity
AT helalmh inflammatorybreastcancerisitreallyaseparateentity