| Literature DB >> 32428688 |
Romano Demicheli1, Christine Desmedt2, Mike Retsky3, Christos Sotiriou4, Martine Piccart5, Elia Biganzoli6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dormant avascular micrometastases and single, or small groups of, non-proliferating cells are currently assumed to explain the multipeak dynamics of distant metastases (DM) following primary breast cancer surgical removal.Entities:
Keywords: Adjuvant chemotherapy effects; Breast cancer; Distant metastasis dynamics; Dormancy states; Surgery effects
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32428688 PMCID: PMC7375586 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.05.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast ISSN: 0960-9776 Impact factor: 4.380
Patient characteristics.
| Number of patients (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Untreated n = 397 | CMF ± Dx 8 m n = 673 | CMF ± Epi 6 m n = 448 | Merged series n = 1121 | ||
| Type of surgery | |||||
| Mastectomy | 345 (87) | 289 (43) | 292 (65) | 581 (52) | |
| Conservative | 52 (13) | 293 (44) | 156 (35) | 449 (40) | |
| Other | – | 91 (13) | 91 (8) | ||
| pT, cm | |||||
| ≤ 2 | 168 (42) | 393 (58) | 186 (42) | 579 (51) | |
| 2-5 | 206 (52) | 280 (42)∗ | 165 (37) | 445 (40) | |
| > 5 | 23 (6) | – | 8 (1) | 8 (1) | |
| Unknown | – | – | 89 (20) | 89 (8) | |
| No. of positive nodes | |||||
| 1-3 | 272 (69) | 402 (60) | 271 (60) | 673 (60) | |
| ≥ 4 | 125 (31) | 271 (40) | 177 (40) | 448 (40) | |
| Patients with known ER status | 106 (27) | 620 (92) | 382 (85) | 1002 (89) | |
| Positive | 70 (66) | 470 (76) | 282 (74) | 752 (75) | |
| Negative | 36 (34) | 150 (24) | 100 (26) | 250 (25) | |
CMF = cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil; Dx = Doxorubicin; Epi = Epirubicin; Tam = Tamoxifen; ∗ 2–5 cm and >5 cm cumulated; pT = pathologic tumour size; ER = Estrogen receptor.
Fig. 1Distant metastasis dynamics. The distant metastasis dynamics for premenopausal patients from Milan trials (673 patients) (blue) and the Belgian trial (448 patients) (pink) are reported. The curves reveal a prominent coherence of distant metastasis dynamics regarding peak pattern behaviour between patients from the Milan and Belgian trials. Cause-specific hazard rates were estimated within a six-month interval. Smoothed curves were obtained by a Kernel-like smoothing procedure. Standard deviation estimates for single points are also reported.
Fig. 2Distant metastasis dynamics changes related to adjuvant chemotherapy. Distant metastasis dynamics for 398 premenopausal patients undergoing primary tumour removal without any adjuvant systemic treatment (panel A) and for 1120 patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy after primary tumour removal (panel B). The comparison between the two recurrence dynamics shows that the systemic treatment apparently acts on the clinical appearance of distant metastasis at specific and separate time clusters occurring during the first, third and sixth year of follow-up, while the late time cluster at about year ten does not change. The distant metastasis risk pattern is characterized by a sequence of metastasis appearance which are serially sensible (coloured dotted boxes) and refractory to administered adjuvant cytotoxic drugs. Cause-specific hazard rates were estimated within a six-month interval. Smoothed curves were obtained by a Kernel-like smoothing procedure. Standard deviation estimates for single points are also reported.
Fig. 3Distant metastasis dynamics by estrogen receptors. Distant metastasis dynamics for 752 ER-positive and 250 ER-negative premenopausal axillary node positive patients undergoing primary tumour removal and adjuvant systemic treatment. The DM dynamics is similar during the first 6 years with higher risk level for ER-negative patients, as expected. The comparison between the DM dynamics afterwards is not informative due to the insufficient number of patients at risk (133 patients) and events (8 events) for ER-negative patients in comparison with ER-positive patients (458 patients at risk and 77 events).
Fig. 4Outline of the time extended model describing the metastatic process. Findings of present analysis are compatible with the presence of one micro-metastatic state (corresponding to the early-1 peak) and three different nano-metastatic states (corresponding to the early-2, intermediate and late peaks) that are under the effect of the homeostatic control from the primary tumour. Primary tumour removal disrupts the homeostasis and enhances transitions between dormancy states. If surgery induced transitions are chemo sensitive, the corresponding peaks will be dampened by adjuvant chemotherapy. On the base of such picture, the pattern of microscopic developing metastases may be described as follows: micrometastases undergoing surgery-driven active vascularization (sensitive to adjuvant chemotherapy); activated nanometastases, in transit to micrometastases (sensitive to adjuvant chemotherapy); activated nanometastases needing further evolution to transit to micrometastases (sensitive to adjuvant chemotherapy); activated nanometastases needing further extensive evolution to transit to micrometastases (mostly refractory to adjuvant chemotherapy).