Vicini Frank A, Antonucci J Vito, Goldstein Neal, Wallace Michelle, Kestin Larry, Krauss Daniel, Kunzmann Jonathan, Gilbert Samuel, Schell Scott
Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA.
Cancer. 2007 Apr 1;109(7):1264-72. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22529.
Results from numerous trials have indicated that breast-conserving therapy (BCT) produces outcomes equivalent to those produced by mastectomy in terms of both locoregional control and survival. However, conservative treatment has resulted in the dilemma of how best to address recurrences when they appear in a breast treated previously with radiation therapy. Attempts have been made to characterize ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences (IBTRs) as either true recurrences of the treated malignancy or new primary carcinomas, because cancers that represent new primary tumors may be associated with a more favorable prognosis compared with cancers that represent true recurrences.
The authors studied the clonality of IBTRs relative to the initial invasive carcinomas by using a polymerase chain reaction loss-of-heterozygosity molecular comparison assay in 29 patients who received breast-conserving therapy (BCT).
Twenty-two IBTRs (76%) were related clonally to the initial carcinoma, and 7 IBTRs (24%) were clonally different. Clonally related IBTRs were more frequently higher grade (72.2% vs 14.3%; P = .009) and developed sooner after initial treatment (mean time to IBTR, 4.04 years in clonally related IBTRs vs 9.25 years in clonally different IBTRs; P = .002). Six patients subsequently developed distant metastases, and 5 of those patients (83.3%) had clonally related IBTRs. Clinical IBTR classification and molecular clonality assay results differed in 30% of all patients. The proportion of IBTRs that were related clonally at 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years after BCT were 93%, 67%, and 33%, respectively.
Clinical classifications of IBTRs were unreliable methods for determining clonality in many patients. Molecular clonality assays provided a reliable means of identifying patients who may benefit from aggressive systemic therapy at the time of IBTR and also provided a more accurate assessment of the efficacy of various forms of local therapy.
众多试验结果表明,保乳治疗(BCT)在局部区域控制和生存率方面产生的结果与乳房切除术相当。然而,保守治疗导致了一个两难困境,即当复发出现在先前接受过放射治疗的乳房中时,如何最好地处理复发问题。人们试图将同侧乳腺肿瘤复发(IBTR)表征为已治疗恶性肿瘤的真正复发或新发原发性癌,因为代表新发原发性肿瘤的癌症与代表真正复发的癌症相比,可能具有更有利的预后。
作者通过聚合酶链反应杂合性缺失分子比较分析,研究了29例接受保乳治疗(BCT)患者的IBTR相对于初始浸润性癌的克隆性。
22例IBTR(76%)与初始癌存在克隆相关性,7例IBTR(24%)克隆性不同。克隆相关的IBTR更常为高级别(72.2%对14.3%;P = 0.009),且在初始治疗后出现得更早(克隆相关IBTR的IBTR平均发生时间为4.04年,克隆性不同的IBTR为9.25年;P = 0.002)。6例患者随后发生远处转移,其中5例(83.3%)有克隆相关的IBTR。在所有患者中,30%的患者临床IBTR分类与分子克隆性分析结果不同。保乳治疗后5年、10年和15年克隆相关的IBTR比例分别为93%、67%和33%。
在许多患者中,IBTR的临床分类是确定克隆性的不可靠方法。分子克隆性分析提供了一种可靠的手段,可识别在IBTR发生时可能从积极的全身治疗中获益的患者,还能更准确地评估各种局部治疗形式的疗效。