Breast Cancer

MY STORY: Prologue

My aunt received a breast cancer diagnosis at age 40, and she died at age 60, in 1970. Then, in 1975, my mother’s breast cancer was found at age 55, but only after she was examined for nipple retraction; on mammography, the cancer had been obscured by dense breast tissue. Mom had 2 metastatic nodes but participated in the earliest clinical trials of chemotherapy and lived free of breast cancer for another 41 years. Naturally I thought that, were I to develop this disease, I would want it found earlier. Ironically, it was, but only because I had spent my career trying to understand the optimal screening approaches for women with dense breasts—women like me.

Cancers are masked on mammography in dense breasts

For women, screening mammography is an important step in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer. The greatest benefits are realized by those who start annual screening at age 40, or 45 at the latest.¹ As it takes 9 to 10 years to see a benefit from breast cancer screening at the population level, it is not logical to continue this testing when life expectancy is less than 10 years, as is the case with women age 85 or older, even those in the healthiest quartile.^2–4 However, despite recent advances, the development of 3D mammography (tomosynthesis) (FIGURE 1) in particular, cancers can still be masked by dense breast tissue. Both 2D and 3D mammograms are x-rays; both dense tissue and cancers absorb x-rays and appear white.

Breast density is determined on mammography and is categorized as fatty, scattered fibroglandular, heterogeneously dense, or extremely dense (FIGURE 2).⁵ Tissue in the heterogeneous and extreme categories is considered dense. More than half of women in their 40s have dense breasts; with some fatty involution occurring around menopause, the proportion drops to 25% for women in their 60s.⁶ About half of breast cancers have calcifications, which on mammography are usually easily visible even in dense breasts. The problem is with noncalcified invasive cancers that can be hidden by dense tissue (FIGURE 3).

3D mammography improves cancer detection but is of minimal benefit in extremely dense breasts

Although 3D mammography improves cancer detection in most women, any benefit is minimal in women with extremely dense breasts, as there is no inherent soft-tissue contrast.⁷ Masked cancers are often only discovered because of a lump after a normal screening mammogram, as so-called “interval cancers.” Compared with screen-detected cancers, interval cancers tend to be more biologically aggressive, to have spread to lymph nodes, and to have worse prognoses. However, even some small screen-detected cancers are biologically aggressive and can spread to lymph nodes quickly, and no screening test or combination of screening tests can prevent this occurrence completely, regardless of breast density.

Related article:
Get smart about dense breasts

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT/COURTESY OF WENDIE A. BERG, MD, PHD

MRI provides early detection across all breast densities

In all tissue densities, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is far better than mammography in detecting breast cancer.⁸ Women at high risk for breast cancer caused by mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, p53, and other genes have poor outcomes with screening mammography alone—up to 50% of cancers are interval cancers. Annual screening MRI reduces this percentage significantly, to 11% in women with pathogenic BRCA1 mutations and to 4% in women with BRCA2 mutations.⁹ Warner and colleagues found a decrease in late-stage cancers in high-risk women who underwent annual MRI screenings compared to high-risk women unable to have MRI.¹⁰

The use of MRI for screening is limited by availability, patient tolerance,¹¹ and high cost. Research is being conducted to further validate approaches using shortened screening MRI times (so-called “abbreviated” or “fast” MRI) and, thereby, improve access, tolerance, and reduce associated costs; several investigators already have reported promising results, and a few centers offer this modality directly to patients willing to pay $300 to $350 out of pocket.^12,13 Even in normal-risk women, MRI significantly increases detection of early breast cancer after a normal mammogram and ultrasound, and the cancer detection benefit of MRI is seen across all breast densities.¹⁴

Most health insurance plans cover screening MRI only for women who meet defined risk criteria, including women who have a known disease-causing mutation—or are suspected of having one, given a family history of breast cancer with higher than 20% to 25% lifetime risk by a model that predicts mutation carrier status—as well as women who had chest radiation therapy before age 30, typically for Hodgkin lymphoma, and at least 8 years earlier.¹⁵ In addition, MRI can be considered in women with atypical breast biopsy results or a personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).¹⁶

Screening MRI should start by age 25 in women with disease-causing mutations, or at the time of atypical or LCIS biopsy results, and should be performed annually unless the woman is pregnant or has a metallic implant, renal insufficiency, or another contraindication to MRI. MRI can be beneficial in women with a personal history of cancer, although annual mammography remains the standard of care.^17–19

MRI and mammography can be performed at the same time or on an alternating 6-month basis, with mammography usually starting only after age 30 because of the small risk that radiation poses for younger women. There are a few other impediments to having breast MRI: The woman must lie on her stomach within a confined space (tunnel), the contrast that is injected may not be well tolerated, and insurance does not cover the test for women who do not meet the defined risk criteria.¹¹

Read why mammography supplemented by US is best for women with dense breasts.

Ultrasonography supplements mammography

Mammography supplemented with ultrasonography (US) has been studied as a “Goldilocks” or best-fit solution for the screening of women with dense breasts, as detection of invasive cancers is improved with the 2 modalities over mammography alone, and US is less invasive, better tolerated, and lower in cost than the more sensitive MRI.

In women with dense breasts, US has been found to improve cancer detection over mammography alone, and early results suggest a larger cancer detection benefit from US than from 3D mammography, although research is ongoing.²⁰ Adding US reduces the interval cancer rate in women with dense breasts to less than 10% of all cancers found—similar to results for women with fatty breasts.^17,21,22

US can be performed by a trained technologist or a physician using a small transducer, which usually provides diagnostic images (so that most callbacks would be for a true finding), or a larger transducer and an automated system can be used to create more than a thousand images for radiologist review.^23,24 Use of a hybrid system, a small transducer with an automated arm, has been validated as well.²⁵ Screening US is not available universally, and with all these approaches optimal performance requires trained personnel. Supplemental screening US usually is covered by insurance but is nearly always subject to a deductible/copay.

Related article:
Educate patients about dense breasts and cancer risk

Reducing false-positives, callbacks, and additional testing

Mammography carries a risk of false-positives. On average, 11% to 12% of women are called back for additional testing after a screening mammogram, and in more than 95% of women brought back for extra testing, no cancer is found.²⁶ Women with dense breasts are more likely than those with less dense breasts to be called back.²⁷ US and MRI improve cancer detection and therefore yield additional positive, but also false-positive, findings. Notably, callbacks decrease after the first round of screening with any modality or combination of tests, as long as prior examinations are available for comparison.

One advantage of 3D over 2D mammography is a decrease in extra testing for areas of asymmetry, which are often recognizable on 3D mammography as representing normal superimposed tissue.^28–30 Architectural distortion, which is better seen on 3D mammography and usually represents either cancer or a benign radial scar, can lead to false-positive biopsies, although the average biopsy rate is no higher for 3D than for 2D alone.³¹ Typically, the 3D and 2D examinations are performed together (slightly more than doubling the radiation dose), or synthetic 2D images can be created from the 3D slices (resulting in a total radiation dose almost the same as standard 2D alone).

Most additional cancers seen on 3D mammography or US are lower-grade invasive cancers with good prognoses. Some aggressive high-grade breast cancers go undetected even when mammography is supplemented with US, either because they are too small to be seen or because they resemble common benign masses and may not be recognized. MRI is particularly effective in depicting high-grade cancers, even small ones.

The TABLE summarizes the relative rates of cancer detection and additional testing by various breast screening tests or combinations of tests. Neither clinical breast examination by a physician or other health care professional nor routine breast self-examination reduces the number of deaths caused by breast cancer. Nevertheless, women should monitor any changes in their breasts and report these changes to their clinician. A new lump, skin or nipple retraction, or a spontaneous clear or bloody nipple discharge merits diagnostic breast imaging even if a recent screening mammogram was normal.

Read how to take advantage of today’s technology for breast density screening

MY STORY: Epilogue

My annual 3D mammograms were normal, even the year my cancer was present. In 2014, I entered my family history into the IBIS Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Tool (Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk) (http://www.ems-trials.org/riskevaluator/) and calculated my lifetime risk at 19.7%. That is when I decided to have a screening MRI. My invasive breast cancer was easily seen on MRI and then on US. The cancer was node-negative, easily confirmed with needle biopsy, and treated with lumpectomy and radiation. There was no need for chemotherapy.

My personal experience prompted me to join JoAnn Pushkin and Cindy Henke-Sarmento, RT(R)(M), BA, in developing a website, www.DenseBreast-info.org, to give women and their physicians easy access to information on making decisions about screening in dense breasts.

My colleagues and I are often asked what is the best way to order supplemental imaging for a patient who may have dense breasts. Even in cases in which a mammogram does not exist or is unavailable, the following prescription can be implemented easily at centers that offer US: “2D plus 3D mammogram if available; if dense, perform ultrasound as needed.”

Related article:
DenseBreast-info.org: What this resource can offer you, and your patients

Breast density screening: Take advantage of today’s technology

Breast screening and diagnostic imaging have improved significantly since the 1970s, when many of the randomized trials of mammography were conducted. Breast density is one of the most common and important risk factors for development of breast cancer and is now incorporated into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model (https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm) and the Tyrer-Cuzick model (see also http://densebreast-info.org/explanation-of-dense-breast-risk-models.aspx).³² Although we continue to validate newer approaches, women should take advantage of the improved methods of early cancer detection, particularly if they have dense breasts or are at high risk for breast cancer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

MY STORY: Prologue

My aunt received a breast cancer diagnosis at age 40, and she died at age 60, in 1970. Then, in 1975, my mother’s breast cancer was found at age 55, but only after she was examined for nipple retraction; on mammography, the cancer had been obscured by dense breast tissue. Mom had 2 metastatic nodes but participated in the earliest clinical trials of chemotherapy and lived free of breast cancer for another 41 years. Naturally I thought that, were I to develop this disease, I would want it found earlier. Ironically, it was, but only because I had spent my career trying to understand the optimal screening approaches for women with dense breasts—women like me.

Cancers are masked on mammography in dense breasts

For women, screening mammography is an important step in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer. The greatest benefits are realized by those who start annual screening at age 40, or 45 at the latest.¹ As it takes 9 to 10 years to see a benefit from breast cancer screening at the population level, it is not logical to continue this testing when life expectancy is less than 10 years, as is the case with women age 85 or older, even those in the healthiest quartile.^2–4 However, despite recent advances, the development of 3D mammography (tomosynthesis) (FIGURE 1) in particular, cancers can still be masked by dense breast tissue. Both 2D and 3D mammograms are x-rays; both dense tissue and cancers absorb x-rays and appear white.

Breast density is determined on mammography and is categorized as fatty, scattered fibroglandular, heterogeneously dense, or extremely dense (FIGURE 2).⁵ Tissue in the heterogeneous and extreme categories is considered dense. More than half of women in their 40s have dense breasts; with some fatty involution occurring around menopause, the proportion drops to 25% for women in their 60s.⁶ About half of breast cancers have calcifications, which on mammography are usually easily visible even in dense breasts. The problem is with noncalcified invasive cancers that can be hidden by dense tissue (FIGURE 3).

3D mammography improves cancer detection but is of minimal benefit in extremely dense breasts

Although 3D mammography improves cancer detection in most women, any benefit is minimal in women with extremely dense breasts, as there is no inherent soft-tissue contrast.⁷ Masked cancers are often only discovered because of a lump after a normal screening mammogram, as so-called “interval cancers.” Compared with screen-detected cancers, interval cancers tend to be more biologically aggressive, to have spread to lymph nodes, and to have worse prognoses. However, even some small screen-detected cancers are biologically aggressive and can spread to lymph nodes quickly, and no screening test or combination of screening tests can prevent this occurrence completely, regardless of breast density.

Related article:
Get smart about dense breasts

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT/COURTESY OF WENDIE A. BERG, MD, PHD

MRI provides early detection across all breast densities

In all tissue densities, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is far better than mammography in detecting breast cancer.⁸ Women at high risk for breast cancer caused by mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, p53, and other genes have poor outcomes with screening mammography alone—up to 50% of cancers are interval cancers. Annual screening MRI reduces this percentage significantly, to 11% in women with pathogenic BRCA1 mutations and to 4% in women with BRCA2 mutations.⁹ Warner and colleagues found a decrease in late-stage cancers in high-risk women who underwent annual MRI screenings compared to high-risk women unable to have MRI.¹⁰

The use of MRI for screening is limited by availability, patient tolerance,¹¹ and high cost. Research is being conducted to further validate approaches using shortened screening MRI times (so-called “abbreviated” or “fast” MRI) and, thereby, improve access, tolerance, and reduce associated costs; several investigators already have reported promising results, and a few centers offer this modality directly to patients willing to pay $300 to $350 out of pocket.^12,13 Even in normal-risk women, MRI significantly increases detection of early breast cancer after a normal mammogram and ultrasound, and the cancer detection benefit of MRI is seen across all breast densities.¹⁴

Most health insurance plans cover screening MRI only for women who meet defined risk criteria, including women who have a known disease-causing mutation—or are suspected of having one, given a family history of breast cancer with higher than 20% to 25% lifetime risk by a model that predicts mutation carrier status—as well as women who had chest radiation therapy before age 30, typically for Hodgkin lymphoma, and at least 8 years earlier.¹⁵ In addition, MRI can be considered in women with atypical breast biopsy results or a personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).¹⁶

Screening MRI should start by age 25 in women with disease-causing mutations, or at the time of atypical or LCIS biopsy results, and should be performed annually unless the woman is pregnant or has a metallic implant, renal insufficiency, or another contraindication to MRI. MRI can be beneficial in women with a personal history of cancer, although annual mammography remains the standard of care.^17–19

MRI and mammography can be performed at the same time or on an alternating 6-month basis, with mammography usually starting only after age 30 because of the small risk that radiation poses for younger women. There are a few other impediments to having breast MRI: The woman must lie on her stomach within a confined space (tunnel), the contrast that is injected may not be well tolerated, and insurance does not cover the test for women who do not meet the defined risk criteria.¹¹

Read why mammography supplemented by US is best for women with dense breasts.

Ultrasonography supplements mammography

Mammography supplemented with ultrasonography (US) has been studied as a “Goldilocks” or best-fit solution for the screening of women with dense breasts, as detection of invasive cancers is improved with the 2 modalities over mammography alone, and US is less invasive, better tolerated, and lower in cost than the more sensitive MRI.

In women with dense breasts, US has been found to improve cancer detection over mammography alone, and early results suggest a larger cancer detection benefit from US than from 3D mammography, although research is ongoing.²⁰ Adding US reduces the interval cancer rate in women with dense breasts to less than 10% of all cancers found—similar to results for women with fatty breasts.^17,21,22

US can be performed by a trained technologist or a physician using a small transducer, which usually provides diagnostic images (so that most callbacks would be for a true finding), or a larger transducer and an automated system can be used to create more than a thousand images for radiologist review.^23,24 Use of a hybrid system, a small transducer with an automated arm, has been validated as well.²⁵ Screening US is not available universally, and with all these approaches optimal performance requires trained personnel. Supplemental screening US usually is covered by insurance but is nearly always subject to a deductible/copay.

Related article:
Educate patients about dense breasts and cancer risk

Reducing false-positives, callbacks, and additional testing

Mammography carries a risk of false-positives. On average, 11% to 12% of women are called back for additional testing after a screening mammogram, and in more than 95% of women brought back for extra testing, no cancer is found.²⁶ Women with dense breasts are more likely than those with less dense breasts to be called back.²⁷ US and MRI improve cancer detection and therefore yield additional positive, but also false-positive, findings. Notably, callbacks decrease after the first round of screening with any modality or combination of tests, as long as prior examinations are available for comparison.

One advantage of 3D over 2D mammography is a decrease in extra testing for areas of asymmetry, which are often recognizable on 3D mammography as representing normal superimposed tissue.^28–30 Architectural distortion, which is better seen on 3D mammography and usually represents either cancer or a benign radial scar, can lead to false-positive biopsies, although the average biopsy rate is no higher for 3D than for 2D alone.³¹ Typically, the 3D and 2D examinations are performed together (slightly more than doubling the radiation dose), or synthetic 2D images can be created from the 3D slices (resulting in a total radiation dose almost the same as standard 2D alone).

Most additional cancers seen on 3D mammography or US are lower-grade invasive cancers with good prognoses. Some aggressive high-grade breast cancers go undetected even when mammography is supplemented with US, either because they are too small to be seen or because they resemble common benign masses and may not be recognized. MRI is particularly effective in depicting high-grade cancers, even small ones.

The TABLE summarizes the relative rates of cancer detection and additional testing by various breast screening tests or combinations of tests. Neither clinical breast examination by a physician or other health care professional nor routine breast self-examination reduces the number of deaths caused by breast cancer. Nevertheless, women should monitor any changes in their breasts and report these changes to their clinician. A new lump, skin or nipple retraction, or a spontaneous clear or bloody nipple discharge merits diagnostic breast imaging even if a recent screening mammogram was normal.

Read how to take advantage of today’s technology for breast density screening

MY STORY: Epilogue

My annual 3D mammograms were normal, even the year my cancer was present. In 2014, I entered my family history into the IBIS Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Tool (Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk) (http://www.ems-trials.org/riskevaluator/) and calculated my lifetime risk at 19.7%. That is when I decided to have a screening MRI. My invasive breast cancer was easily seen on MRI and then on US. The cancer was node-negative, easily confirmed with needle biopsy, and treated with lumpectomy and radiation. There was no need for chemotherapy.

My personal experience prompted me to join JoAnn Pushkin and Cindy Henke-Sarmento, RT(R)(M), BA, in developing a website, www.DenseBreast-info.org, to give women and their physicians easy access to information on making decisions about screening in dense breasts.

My colleagues and I are often asked what is the best way to order supplemental imaging for a patient who may have dense breasts. Even in cases in which a mammogram does not exist or is unavailable, the following prescription can be implemented easily at centers that offer US: “2D plus 3D mammogram if available; if dense, perform ultrasound as needed.”

Related article:
DenseBreast-info.org: What this resource can offer you, and your patients

Breast density screening: Take advantage of today’s technology

Breast screening and diagnostic imaging have improved significantly since the 1970s, when many of the randomized trials of mammography were conducted. Breast density is one of the most common and important risk factors for development of breast cancer and is now incorporated into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model (https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm) and the Tyrer-Cuzick model (see also http://densebreast-info.org/explanation-of-dense-breast-risk-models.aspx).³² Although we continue to validate newer approaches, women should take advantage of the improved methods of early cancer detection, particularly if they have dense breasts or are at high risk for breast cancer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

MY STORY: Prologue

My aunt received a breast cancer diagnosis at age 40, and she died at age 60, in 1970. Then, in 1975, my mother’s breast cancer was found at age 55, but only after she was examined for nipple retraction; on mammography, the cancer had been obscured by dense breast tissue. Mom had 2 metastatic nodes but participated in the earliest clinical trials of chemotherapy and lived free of breast cancer for another 41 years. Naturally I thought that, were I to develop this disease, I would want it found earlier. Ironically, it was, but only because I had spent my career trying to understand the optimal screening approaches for women with dense breasts—women like me.

Cancers are masked on mammography in dense breasts

For women, screening mammography is an important step in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer. The greatest benefits are realized by those who start annual screening at age 40, or 45 at the latest.¹ As it takes 9 to 10 years to see a benefit from breast cancer screening at the population level, it is not logical to continue this testing when life expectancy is less than 10 years, as is the case with women age 85 or older, even those in the healthiest quartile.^2–4 However, despite recent advances, the development of 3D mammography (tomosynthesis) (FIGURE 1) in particular, cancers can still be masked by dense breast tissue. Both 2D and 3D mammograms are x-rays; both dense tissue and cancers absorb x-rays and appear white.

Breast density is determined on mammography and is categorized as fatty, scattered fibroglandular, heterogeneously dense, or extremely dense (FIGURE 2).⁵ Tissue in the heterogeneous and extreme categories is considered dense. More than half of women in their 40s have dense breasts; with some fatty involution occurring around menopause, the proportion drops to 25% for women in their 60s.⁶ About half of breast cancers have calcifications, which on mammography are usually easily visible even in dense breasts. The problem is with noncalcified invasive cancers that can be hidden by dense tissue (FIGURE 3).

3D mammography improves cancer detection but is of minimal benefit in extremely dense breasts

Although 3D mammography improves cancer detection in most women, any benefit is minimal in women with extremely dense breasts, as there is no inherent soft-tissue contrast.⁷ Masked cancers are often only discovered because of a lump after a normal screening mammogram, as so-called “interval cancers.” Compared with screen-detected cancers, interval cancers tend to be more biologically aggressive, to have spread to lymph nodes, and to have worse prognoses. However, even some small screen-detected cancers are biologically aggressive and can spread to lymph nodes quickly, and no screening test or combination of screening tests can prevent this occurrence completely, regardless of breast density.

Related article:
Get smart about dense breasts

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT/COURTESY OF WENDIE A. BERG, MD, PHD

MRI provides early detection across all breast densities

In all tissue densities, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is far better than mammography in detecting breast cancer.⁸ Women at high risk for breast cancer caused by mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, p53, and other genes have poor outcomes with screening mammography alone—up to 50% of cancers are interval cancers. Annual screening MRI reduces this percentage significantly, to 11% in women with pathogenic BRCA1 mutations and to 4% in women with BRCA2 mutations.⁹ Warner and colleagues found a decrease in late-stage cancers in high-risk women who underwent annual MRI screenings compared to high-risk women unable to have MRI.¹⁰

The use of MRI for screening is limited by availability, patient tolerance,¹¹ and high cost. Research is being conducted to further validate approaches using shortened screening MRI times (so-called “abbreviated” or “fast” MRI) and, thereby, improve access, tolerance, and reduce associated costs; several investigators already have reported promising results, and a few centers offer this modality directly to patients willing to pay $300 to $350 out of pocket.^12,13 Even in normal-risk women, MRI significantly increases detection of early breast cancer after a normal mammogram and ultrasound, and the cancer detection benefit of MRI is seen across all breast densities.¹⁴

Most health insurance plans cover screening MRI only for women who meet defined risk criteria, including women who have a known disease-causing mutation—or are suspected of having one, given a family history of breast cancer with higher than 20% to 25% lifetime risk by a model that predicts mutation carrier status—as well as women who had chest radiation therapy before age 30, typically for Hodgkin lymphoma, and at least 8 years earlier.¹⁵ In addition, MRI can be considered in women with atypical breast biopsy results or a personal history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).¹⁶

Screening MRI should start by age 25 in women with disease-causing mutations, or at the time of atypical or LCIS biopsy results, and should be performed annually unless the woman is pregnant or has a metallic implant, renal insufficiency, or another contraindication to MRI. MRI can be beneficial in women with a personal history of cancer, although annual mammography remains the standard of care.^17–19

MRI and mammography can be performed at the same time or on an alternating 6-month basis, with mammography usually starting only after age 30 because of the small risk that radiation poses for younger women. There are a few other impediments to having breast MRI: The woman must lie on her stomach within a confined space (tunnel), the contrast that is injected may not be well tolerated, and insurance does not cover the test for women who do not meet the defined risk criteria.¹¹

Read why mammography supplemented by US is best for women with dense breasts.

Ultrasonography supplements mammography

Mammography supplemented with ultrasonography (US) has been studied as a “Goldilocks” or best-fit solution for the screening of women with dense breasts, as detection of invasive cancers is improved with the 2 modalities over mammography alone, and US is less invasive, better tolerated, and lower in cost than the more sensitive MRI.

In women with dense breasts, US has been found to improve cancer detection over mammography alone, and early results suggest a larger cancer detection benefit from US than from 3D mammography, although research is ongoing.²⁰ Adding US reduces the interval cancer rate in women with dense breasts to less than 10% of all cancers found—similar to results for women with fatty breasts.^17,21,22

US can be performed by a trained technologist or a physician using a small transducer, which usually provides diagnostic images (so that most callbacks would be for a true finding), or a larger transducer and an automated system can be used to create more than a thousand images for radiologist review.^23,24 Use of a hybrid system, a small transducer with an automated arm, has been validated as well.²⁵ Screening US is not available universally, and with all these approaches optimal performance requires trained personnel. Supplemental screening US usually is covered by insurance but is nearly always subject to a deductible/copay.

Related article:
Educate patients about dense breasts and cancer risk

Reducing false-positives, callbacks, and additional testing

Mammography carries a risk of false-positives. On average, 11% to 12% of women are called back for additional testing after a screening mammogram, and in more than 95% of women brought back for extra testing, no cancer is found.²⁶ Women with dense breasts are more likely than those with less dense breasts to be called back.²⁷ US and MRI improve cancer detection and therefore yield additional positive, but also false-positive, findings. Notably, callbacks decrease after the first round of screening with any modality or combination of tests, as long as prior examinations are available for comparison.

One advantage of 3D over 2D mammography is a decrease in extra testing for areas of asymmetry, which are often recognizable on 3D mammography as representing normal superimposed tissue.^28–30 Architectural distortion, which is better seen on 3D mammography and usually represents either cancer or a benign radial scar, can lead to false-positive biopsies, although the average biopsy rate is no higher for 3D than for 2D alone.³¹ Typically, the 3D and 2D examinations are performed together (slightly more than doubling the radiation dose), or synthetic 2D images can be created from the 3D slices (resulting in a total radiation dose almost the same as standard 2D alone).

Most additional cancers seen on 3D mammography or US are lower-grade invasive cancers with good prognoses. Some aggressive high-grade breast cancers go undetected even when mammography is supplemented with US, either because they are too small to be seen or because they resemble common benign masses and may not be recognized. MRI is particularly effective in depicting high-grade cancers, even small ones.

The TABLE summarizes the relative rates of cancer detection and additional testing by various breast screening tests or combinations of tests. Neither clinical breast examination by a physician or other health care professional nor routine breast self-examination reduces the number of deaths caused by breast cancer. Nevertheless, women should monitor any changes in their breasts and report these changes to their clinician. A new lump, skin or nipple retraction, or a spontaneous clear or bloody nipple discharge merits diagnostic breast imaging even if a recent screening mammogram was normal.

Read how to take advantage of today’s technology for breast density screening

MY STORY: Epilogue

My annual 3D mammograms were normal, even the year my cancer was present. In 2014, I entered my family history into the IBIS Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Tool (Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk) (http://www.ems-trials.org/riskevaluator/) and calculated my lifetime risk at 19.7%. That is when I decided to have a screening MRI. My invasive breast cancer was easily seen on MRI and then on US. The cancer was node-negative, easily confirmed with needle biopsy, and treated with lumpectomy and radiation. There was no need for chemotherapy.

My personal experience prompted me to join JoAnn Pushkin and Cindy Henke-Sarmento, RT(R)(M), BA, in developing a website, www.DenseBreast-info.org, to give women and their physicians easy access to information on making decisions about screening in dense breasts.

My colleagues and I are often asked what is the best way to order supplemental imaging for a patient who may have dense breasts. Even in cases in which a mammogram does not exist or is unavailable, the following prescription can be implemented easily at centers that offer US: “2D plus 3D mammogram if available; if dense, perform ultrasound as needed.”

Related article:
DenseBreast-info.org: What this resource can offer you, and your patients

Breast density screening: Take advantage of today’s technology

Breast screening and diagnostic imaging have improved significantly since the 1970s, when many of the randomized trials of mammography were conducted. Breast density is one of the most common and important risk factors for development of breast cancer and is now incorporated into the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model (https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htm) and the Tyrer-Cuzick model (see also http://densebreast-info.org/explanation-of-dense-breast-risk-models.aspx).³² Although we continue to validate newer approaches, women should take advantage of the improved methods of early cancer detection, particularly if they have dense breasts or are at high risk for breast cancer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

MADRID – Until funders pulled the financial rug out from under them, investigators in the GEICAM/2006-10 trial thought they were going to find out whether adding fulvestrant (Faslodex) to anastrozole (Femara) could improve disease-free survival for postmenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer.

But, when the results of the FACT trial were published, showing no advantage for fulvestrant and anastrozole over anastrozole alone as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer, recruitment in the GEICAM 2006-10 trial was halted midstream after only 872 of the planned 2852 patients were enrolled.

MADRID – Until funders pulled the financial rug out from under them, investigators in the GEICAM/2006-10 trial thought they were going to find out whether adding fulvestrant (Faslodex) to anastrozole (Femara) could improve disease-free survival for postmenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer.

But, when the results of the FACT trial were published, showing no advantage for fulvestrant and anastrozole over anastrozole alone as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer, recruitment in the GEICAM 2006-10 trial was halted midstream after only 872 of the planned 2852 patients were enrolled.

MADRID – Until funders pulled the financial rug out from under them, investigators in the GEICAM/2006-10 trial thought they were going to find out whether adding fulvestrant (Faslodex) to anastrozole (Femara) could improve disease-free survival for postmenopausal women with early-stage hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2–) breast cancer.

But, when the results of the FACT trial were published, showing no advantage for fulvestrant and anastrozole over anastrozole alone as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer, recruitment in the GEICAM 2006-10 trial was halted midstream after only 872 of the planned 2852 patients were enrolled.

MADRID – For women with luminal breast cancer who are not initially candidates for breast-conserving surgery, neoadjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor and a cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor offered a slightly higher residual cancer burden prior to surgery, but a significantly better safety profile than conventional chemotherapy with similar near-term safety outcomes, results of a phase 2 parallel group, noncomparative trial suggested.

Among 60 patients evaluable for response in an interim analysis of the UNICANCER NeoPAL trial, one patient (3.3%) treated with a combination of letrozole (Femara) and palbociclib (Ibrance) had a residual cancer burden (RCB) score of 0 (equivalent to a pathologic complete response; pCR), whereas three patients (10%) treated with FEC 100 chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) had RCB 0 or I, reported Paul-Henri Cottu, MD, of the Institut Curie in Paris.

MADRID – For women with luminal breast cancer who are not initially candidates for breast-conserving surgery, neoadjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor and a cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor offered a slightly higher residual cancer burden prior to surgery, but a significantly better safety profile than conventional chemotherapy with similar near-term safety outcomes, results of a phase 2 parallel group, noncomparative trial suggested.

Among 60 patients evaluable for response in an interim analysis of the UNICANCER NeoPAL trial, one patient (3.3%) treated with a combination of letrozole (Femara) and palbociclib (Ibrance) had a residual cancer burden (RCB) score of 0 (equivalent to a pathologic complete response; pCR), whereas three patients (10%) treated with FEC 100 chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) had RCB 0 or I, reported Paul-Henri Cottu, MD, of the Institut Curie in Paris.

MADRID – For women with luminal breast cancer who are not initially candidates for breast-conserving surgery, neoadjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor and a cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor offered a slightly higher residual cancer burden prior to surgery, but a significantly better safety profile than conventional chemotherapy with similar near-term safety outcomes, results of a phase 2 parallel group, noncomparative trial suggested.

Among 60 patients evaluable for response in an interim analysis of the UNICANCER NeoPAL trial, one patient (3.3%) treated with a combination of letrozole (Femara) and palbociclib (Ibrance) had a residual cancer burden (RCB) score of 0 (equivalent to a pathologic complete response; pCR), whereas three patients (10%) treated with FEC 100 chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) had RCB 0 or I, reported Paul-Henri Cottu, MD, of the Institut Curie in Paris.

Madrid – A combination of the investigational cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) agent abemaciclib and a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) was associated with a near doubling of progression-free survival in postmenopausal women with previously untreated hormone-receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer.

At a planned 18-month interim analysis of the MONARCH 3 trial, the median investigator-assessed progression free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached for 328 patients assigned to receive abemaciclib with either anastrozole (Arimidex) or letrozole (Femara). In contrast, the median PFS for 165 patients assigned to an AI and a placebo was 14.7 months, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.543 (P = .000021), reported Angelo Di Leo, MD, of Hospital of Prato, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Prato, Italy.

“Abemaciclib in combination with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor is superior to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor alone in terms of progression-free survival, but also in terms of the objective response rate as the initial treatment of HER2-negative, endocrine sensitive advanced breast cancer,” he said at a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

op@frontlinemedcom.com

Madrid – A combination of the investigational cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) agent abemaciclib and a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) was associated with a near doubling of progression-free survival in postmenopausal women with previously untreated hormone-receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer.

At a planned 18-month interim analysis of the MONARCH 3 trial, the median investigator-assessed progression free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached for 328 patients assigned to receive abemaciclib with either anastrozole (Arimidex) or letrozole (Femara). In contrast, the median PFS for 165 patients assigned to an AI and a placebo was 14.7 months, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.543 (P = .000021), reported Angelo Di Leo, MD, of Hospital of Prato, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Prato, Italy.

“Abemaciclib in combination with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor is superior to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor alone in terms of progression-free survival, but also in terms of the objective response rate as the initial treatment of HER2-negative, endocrine sensitive advanced breast cancer,” he said at a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

op@frontlinemedcom.com

Madrid – A combination of the investigational cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) agent abemaciclib and a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) was associated with a near doubling of progression-free survival in postmenopausal women with previously untreated hormone-receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer.

At a planned 18-month interim analysis of the MONARCH 3 trial, the median investigator-assessed progression free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached for 328 patients assigned to receive abemaciclib with either anastrozole (Arimidex) or letrozole (Femara). In contrast, the median PFS for 165 patients assigned to an AI and a placebo was 14.7 months, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.543 (P = .000021), reported Angelo Di Leo, MD, of Hospital of Prato, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Prato, Italy.

“Abemaciclib in combination with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor is superior to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor alone in terms of progression-free survival, but also in terms of the objective response rate as the initial treatment of HER2-negative, endocrine sensitive advanced breast cancer,” he said at a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

op@frontlinemedcom.com

MADRID – Adding the investigational PI3K inhibitor taselisib to letrozole (Femara) significantly improved overall response rates, compared with neoadjuvant letrozole alone, in postmenopausal women with early estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (ER+/HER2–) breast cancer, results of the LORELEI trial show.

In this phase 2 trial, the overall response rate (ORR), the primary endpoint, was 50% for 166 patients assigned to letrozole plus taselisib, compared with 39.3% for 168 patients assigned to letrozole plus placebo, reported Cristina Saura, MD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

MADRID – Adding the investigational PI3K inhibitor taselisib to letrozole (Femara) significantly improved overall response rates, compared with neoadjuvant letrozole alone, in postmenopausal women with early estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (ER+/HER2–) breast cancer, results of the LORELEI trial show.

In this phase 2 trial, the overall response rate (ORR), the primary endpoint, was 50% for 166 patients assigned to letrozole plus taselisib, compared with 39.3% for 168 patients assigned to letrozole plus placebo, reported Cristina Saura, MD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

MADRID – Adding the investigational PI3K inhibitor taselisib to letrozole (Femara) significantly improved overall response rates, compared with neoadjuvant letrozole alone, in postmenopausal women with early estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (ER+/HER2–) breast cancer, results of the LORELEI trial show.

In this phase 2 trial, the overall response rate (ORR), the primary endpoint, was 50% for 166 patients assigned to letrozole plus taselisib, compared with 39.3% for 168 patients assigned to letrozole plus placebo, reported Cristina Saura, MD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

Surgeons, not clinical factors, accounted for 20% of variation in rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), according to the results of a large survey study.

Only 4% of patients elected CPM when their surgeons were among those who least favored it overall and most preferred breast-conserving treatment, according to Steven J. Katz, MD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his associates. But 34% of patients chose CPM when their surgeons least favored BCT and were most willing to perform CPM, the researchers found. “Attending surgeons exert strong influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after diagnosis of breast cancer,” highlighting “the need to help surgeons address this growing clinical conundrum in the examination room,” they wrote (JAMA Surg. 2017 Sep 13. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.3415).

Rates of CPM have risen markedly in the United States although it has not been shown to confer a survival advantage for average-risk women. To examine how surgeons themselves affected rates of CPM, the investigators sent surveys to 7,810 women treated for stage 0 to II breast cancer from 2013 to 2015 and included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. (Among the 7,810 women, 507 were ineligible.) The researchers also surveyed 488 attending surgeons of these patients.

Response rates were high – 70% among patients (5,080 of 7,303) and 77% (377 of 488) among surgeons, the investigators reported. The average age of the patients was 62 years; 28% had an elevated risk of second primary cancer, and 16% underwent CPM. Patients whose surgeons’ rates of CPM exceeded the mean by at least one standard deviation had nearly threefold greater odds of undergoing CPM themselves (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-3.4) regardless of age, date of diagnosis, BRCA mutation status, or risk of second primary cancer.

“One quarter of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM,” the researchers wrote. Additional predictors of CPM included elevated risk of second primary breast cancer, BRCA mutation, and younger age.

“We observed a range of reasons why a surgeon would be willing to perform CPM if asked: give peace of mind, yield better cosmetic outcomes, avoid conflict with patient, reduce need for surveillance, improve long-term quality of life, reduce recurrence of invasive disease, avoid losing patient to another surgeon, or improve survival (in order of endorsement),” the researchers wrote. “Our findings reinforce the need to address better ways to communicate with patients with regard to their beliefs about the benefits of more extensive surgery and their reactions to the management plan including surgeon training and deployment of decision aids.”

The National Cancer Institute provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

Surgeons, not clinical factors, accounted for 20% of variation in rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), according to the results of a large survey study.

Only 4% of patients elected CPM when their surgeons were among those who least favored it overall and most preferred breast-conserving treatment, according to Steven J. Katz, MD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his associates. But 34% of patients chose CPM when their surgeons least favored BCT and were most willing to perform CPM, the researchers found. “Attending surgeons exert strong influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after diagnosis of breast cancer,” highlighting “the need to help surgeons address this growing clinical conundrum in the examination room,” they wrote (JAMA Surg. 2017 Sep 13. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.3415).

Rates of CPM have risen markedly in the United States although it has not been shown to confer a survival advantage for average-risk women. To examine how surgeons themselves affected rates of CPM, the investigators sent surveys to 7,810 women treated for stage 0 to II breast cancer from 2013 to 2015 and included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. (Among the 7,810 women, 507 were ineligible.) The researchers also surveyed 488 attending surgeons of these patients.

Response rates were high – 70% among patients (5,080 of 7,303) and 77% (377 of 488) among surgeons, the investigators reported. The average age of the patients was 62 years; 28% had an elevated risk of second primary cancer, and 16% underwent CPM. Patients whose surgeons’ rates of CPM exceeded the mean by at least one standard deviation had nearly threefold greater odds of undergoing CPM themselves (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-3.4) regardless of age, date of diagnosis, BRCA mutation status, or risk of second primary cancer.

“One quarter of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM,” the researchers wrote. Additional predictors of CPM included elevated risk of second primary breast cancer, BRCA mutation, and younger age.

“We observed a range of reasons why a surgeon would be willing to perform CPM if asked: give peace of mind, yield better cosmetic outcomes, avoid conflict with patient, reduce need for surveillance, improve long-term quality of life, reduce recurrence of invasive disease, avoid losing patient to another surgeon, or improve survival (in order of endorsement),” the researchers wrote. “Our findings reinforce the need to address better ways to communicate with patients with regard to their beliefs about the benefits of more extensive surgery and their reactions to the management plan including surgeon training and deployment of decision aids.”

The National Cancer Institute provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

Surgeons, not clinical factors, accounted for 20% of variation in rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), according to the results of a large survey study.

Only 4% of patients elected CPM when their surgeons were among those who least favored it overall and most preferred breast-conserving treatment, according to Steven J. Katz, MD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his associates. But 34% of patients chose CPM when their surgeons least favored BCT and were most willing to perform CPM, the researchers found. “Attending surgeons exert strong influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after diagnosis of breast cancer,” highlighting “the need to help surgeons address this growing clinical conundrum in the examination room,” they wrote (JAMA Surg. 2017 Sep 13. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.3415).

Rates of CPM have risen markedly in the United States although it has not been shown to confer a survival advantage for average-risk women. To examine how surgeons themselves affected rates of CPM, the investigators sent surveys to 7,810 women treated for stage 0 to II breast cancer from 2013 to 2015 and included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. (Among the 7,810 women, 507 were ineligible.) The researchers also surveyed 488 attending surgeons of these patients.

Response rates were high – 70% among patients (5,080 of 7,303) and 77% (377 of 488) among surgeons, the investigators reported. The average age of the patients was 62 years; 28% had an elevated risk of second primary cancer, and 16% underwent CPM. Patients whose surgeons’ rates of CPM exceeded the mean by at least one standard deviation had nearly threefold greater odds of undergoing CPM themselves (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-3.4) regardless of age, date of diagnosis, BRCA mutation status, or risk of second primary cancer.

“One quarter of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM,” the researchers wrote. Additional predictors of CPM included elevated risk of second primary breast cancer, BRCA mutation, and younger age.

“We observed a range of reasons why a surgeon would be willing to perform CPM if asked: give peace of mind, yield better cosmetic outcomes, avoid conflict with patient, reduce need for surveillance, improve long-term quality of life, reduce recurrence of invasive disease, avoid losing patient to another surgeon, or improve survival (in order of endorsement),” the researchers wrote. “Our findings reinforce the need to address better ways to communicate with patients with regard to their beliefs about the benefits of more extensive surgery and their reactions to the management plan including surgeon training and deployment of decision aids.”

The National Cancer Institute provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

A follow-up to a study showing the noninferiority of sentinel lymph node dissection to axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer in overall and disease-free survival at a median of 6.3 years found similar noninferiority in overall survival at 10 years.

Axillary lymph node dissection has a risk of complications including lymphedema, numbness, axillary web syndrome, and decreased upper-extremity range of motion. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial sought to determine if the procedure could be avoided without inferior survival outcomes.

Criticism of the study focused on the potential for later recurrence, particularly in patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. All enrolled patients had one or two sentinel nodes with metastases. At randomization, 436 received sentinel lymph node dissection alone, and 420 received the additional axillary lymph node dissection. The patients were assessed every 6 months for the first 3 years, then annually.

After a median of 9.3 years, 110 of the patients had died of any cause – 51 in the sentinel lymph node dissection group and 59 in the axillary lymph node dissection group – a 10-year overall survival rate of 86.3% and 83.6%, respectively. This met the study’s primary endpoint of showing noninferior overall survival without the riskier procedure. In the study’s secondary endpoint, disease-free survival, there was not a significant difference either (80.2% vs. 78.2%).

“Axillary dissections are associated with considerable morbidity, and the results of this trial demonstrated that this morbidity can be avoided without decreasing cancer control. … These findings do not support routine use of axillary lymph node dissection in this patient population based on 10-year outcomes,” wrote Armando E. Guiliano, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical, Los Angeles and his coauthors (JAMA. 2017;318[10]:918-26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470).

dwatson@frontlinemedcom.com

A follow-up to a study showing the noninferiority of sentinel lymph node dissection to axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer in overall and disease-free survival at a median of 6.3 years found similar noninferiority in overall survival at 10 years.

Axillary lymph node dissection has a risk of complications including lymphedema, numbness, axillary web syndrome, and decreased upper-extremity range of motion. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial sought to determine if the procedure could be avoided without inferior survival outcomes.

Criticism of the study focused on the potential for later recurrence, particularly in patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. All enrolled patients had one or two sentinel nodes with metastases. At randomization, 436 received sentinel lymph node dissection alone, and 420 received the additional axillary lymph node dissection. The patients were assessed every 6 months for the first 3 years, then annually.

After a median of 9.3 years, 110 of the patients had died of any cause – 51 in the sentinel lymph node dissection group and 59 in the axillary lymph node dissection group – a 10-year overall survival rate of 86.3% and 83.6%, respectively. This met the study’s primary endpoint of showing noninferior overall survival without the riskier procedure. In the study’s secondary endpoint, disease-free survival, there was not a significant difference either (80.2% vs. 78.2%).

“Axillary dissections are associated with considerable morbidity, and the results of this trial demonstrated that this morbidity can be avoided without decreasing cancer control. … These findings do not support routine use of axillary lymph node dissection in this patient population based on 10-year outcomes,” wrote Armando E. Guiliano, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical, Los Angeles and his coauthors (JAMA. 2017;318[10]:918-26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470).

dwatson@frontlinemedcom.com

A follow-up to a study showing the noninferiority of sentinel lymph node dissection to axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer in overall and disease-free survival at a median of 6.3 years found similar noninferiority in overall survival at 10 years.

Axillary lymph node dissection has a risk of complications including lymphedema, numbness, axillary web syndrome, and decreased upper-extremity range of motion. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial sought to determine if the procedure could be avoided without inferior survival outcomes.

Criticism of the study focused on the potential for later recurrence, particularly in patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. All enrolled patients had one or two sentinel nodes with metastases. At randomization, 436 received sentinel lymph node dissection alone, and 420 received the additional axillary lymph node dissection. The patients were assessed every 6 months for the first 3 years, then annually.

After a median of 9.3 years, 110 of the patients had died of any cause – 51 in the sentinel lymph node dissection group and 59 in the axillary lymph node dissection group – a 10-year overall survival rate of 86.3% and 83.6%, respectively. This met the study’s primary endpoint of showing noninferior overall survival without the riskier procedure. In the study’s secondary endpoint, disease-free survival, there was not a significant difference either (80.2% vs. 78.2%).

“Axillary dissections are associated with considerable morbidity, and the results of this trial demonstrated that this morbidity can be avoided without decreasing cancer control. … These findings do not support routine use of axillary lymph node dissection in this patient population based on 10-year outcomes,” wrote Armando E. Guiliano, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical, Los Angeles and his coauthors (JAMA. 2017;318[10]:918-26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470).

dwatson@frontlinemedcom.com

Breast cancer survivors comprise the most prevalent cancer survivor population in the United States.¹ The number of breast cancer survivors is increasing because of early detection and diagnosis, and advances in treatment have resulted in increased life expectancy. Therefore, greater attention is needed to improve the long-term quality of life of these survivors and to help them re-adjust to normal life. For many women, although the medical treatment may have been completed, the recovery process may have not.² The prevalence of long-term mental and physical illness is significant among many breast cancer survivors. Long-term mental consequences may include memory problems, anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence³, and long-term physical consequences may include pain, fatigue, and lymphedema, among others.⁴

El Paso, Texas, is the fourth most populous city in Texas and has a Hispanic majority. This provides an opportunity to conduct clinical research targeting participants of Hispanic descent. Several studies have noted the influence of race/ethnicity on the psychosocial function of breast cancer survivors.^5,6 We have previously reported that Hispanic breast cancer survivors might experience decreased mental and physical health-related quality of life (QoL) which limit their normal social functioning.⁶Other studies have similarly reported poor outcomes of breast cancer survivors and higher rates of fatigue and depression among Hispanic patients.⁷ However, there is a paucity of research addressing specific interventions needed to improve these outcomes and provide better QoL for breast cancer survivors.^8,9 In addition, a few survivorship care interventions have focused on minorities. We sought to assess whether a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program in a primarily Hispanic populated area would lead to improved QoL and reduce anxiety and depressive symptoms among breast cancer survivors.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we recruited consecutive patients who were treated at our institution during October 2013-October 2014 and obtained informed consent from them. The participants were within the first 5 years after diagnosis with stages I-III breast cancer and had completed surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy. We sought to determine whether breast cancer survivors would benefit from this intervention as determined by improvement of performance at 12 months compared with baseline based on the following self-reported validated questionnaires: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression; General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7); and Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36, version 2) for patient quality of life. The participants were enrolled in a comprehensive survivorship program staffed by an oncologist, an oncology nurse practitioner, a nutritionist, and a certified clinical psychologist who had trained in mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR).

Interventions

The participants received a one-on-one individual psychological consultation visit every 3 months for 20-45 minutes during which the psychologist addressed each patient’s emotional and psychological issues in depth, discussed relaxation techniques, and provided psychosocial counselling. In addition, all participants were asked to attend an 8-week-course (in Spanish or English) using MBSR, an interventional program in which participants receive training to promote reduction of stress by self-regulating mindfulness practice.^3,10 Our institution’s MBSR program consists of a weekly 2-hour class for 8 sessions or more. The program is provided 3 times a year, in English and Spanish. It includes the following components:

• Learning various mindfulness meditation techniques (eg, body scans, awareness of breathing, sitting/walking meditations);
• Practicing the mindfulness techniques in class; and
• Practicing techniques at home through audiorecordings of mindfulness meditation exercises and daily diary writing.

Participants were provided with a workbook on MBSR in their preferred language.¹¹ In addition to the psychological component, they were also provided with oncologic evaluations by an oncology nurse practitioner. The nurse practitioner met with participants every 3 months and provided each one with a personalized summary of all the treatments received and routine oncology follow-up care in consultation with the patients’ regular oncologists. This care also addresses the long-term sequelae of treatment, including arthritis and osteoporosis, referrals to receive screening for other cancers (eg, cervical and colon cancer), and genetic counselling as appropriate. In addition, a nutritionist provided general dietary advice in individual and group sessions every 3 months.

The self-administered questionnaires, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and SF-36, were completed at baseline, and every 3 months for 12 months. The scores were reviewed by the psychologist and the oncologist. The PHQ-9 was used to initially screen survivors for depression and monitor their improvement after the intervention. The PHQ-9 is a reliable and validated self-administered depression module.¹² The PQH-9 exclusively focuses on the 9 diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV depression disorder and it can be used as a useful measure for monitoring outcomes of depression therapy. A score of 5-14 suggests mild-moderate depression, and a score of >15 suggests severe depression

The survivors were screened for anxiety using the GAD-7, a brief 7-item self-report scale to identify probable cases of anxiety disorder that has been shown to be an efficient tool for screening and assessing the severity of anxiety.¹³ For GAD-7, a score of 5 or higher is suggestive of anxiety. Scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively.

Survivor QoL was evaluated using the SF-36 questionnaire, a multipurpose survey containing 36 questions. It ranges from 0-100 and a score that is <50.0 is considered low. The lower the score, the worse the mental or physical function.¹⁴ The SF-36 yields a patient profile of 8 health domains – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical, emotional, and social role functioning; and mental health.^15,16 A score of 50.0 on either the Physical Component Summary (PCS – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical role functioning) or Mental Component Summary (MCS – emotional and social role functioning, and mental health) is consistent with the US norm.

Statistical analysis

In this study, the primary objective was to use the MBSR survivorship program to improve the survivors’ outcomes at 12 months compared with baseline using the following measures: PHQ-9 for depression, GAD-7 for anxiety, and SF-36 for QoL using the PCS and MCS. Quantitative data were described using the mean and standard deviation, and categorical data were described using frequency and percentage. The outcome measures were compared between patients who completed 12-month follow-up and those who did not, using unpaired t test. The change in outcome measures at 12 months from baseline was evaluated using paired t test. The effect of intervention was summarized using relative percentage change. The “dose” of the intervention was categorized the number of MBSR sessions – ≤4 sessions, 5-7 sessions, or ≤8 sessions. The change in outcome measures were compared among three groups using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc multiple comparison using the Bonferroni adjustment. In addition, the effect of intervention on each outcome was evaluated by important baseline characteristics of patients. In each subgroup, the changes were compared with baseline measures using the paired t test, whereas changes in outcome between groups were compared using the unpaired t test. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.3. P-values less than 5% were considered to be significant.

Results

A total of 94 survivors of breast cancer were included in this study and 60 (63.8%) completed the 12 months of follow-up. The average age of the participants was 54.4 years (SD, 8.7), and 90.4% were Hispanic (Table 1). Tumor characteristics were as follows: invasive ductal carcinoma (84.04%), estrogen receptor–positive (ER-, 71.28%), progesterone receptor–positive (PR-, 58.51%), and HER2-neu–positive (20%). In regard to therapy received, 48% of the participants had received anthracycline- and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy and 23%, nonanthracycline-based chemotherapy; 71% had received anti-estrogen (hormonal) therapy and 80%, radiation therapy. In regard to surgery, half of the participants had a lumpectomy, and half, a mastectomy. The trends in the outcome measures over the follow-up period are show in the Figure 1.

The effect of the number of MBSR sessions attended on the outcome measures is summarized in Table 3. There were significant improvements in the 12-month MCS scores for patients who completed 5-7 sessions of MBSR or ≥8 sessions, compared with patients who completed ≤4 sessions of MBSR. There was an improvement observed in PCS scores only among patients who received at least 8 sessions of MBSR. There was a marked improvement observed in GAD-7 and PHQ-9 among patients who received ≥8 sessions. There was no statistically significant change in the GAD-7 or PHQ-9 scores between patients who received ≤4 sessions and 5-7 sessions. No significant association was obtained between number of MBSR sessions attended and BMI.

Discussion

In this study, we showed that a group of predominately Hispanic breast cancer survivors benefited from participating in a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program that emphasized in-depth psychological care and MBSR. They also benefited from an education effort that included providing survivors with personalized summaries of their treatment and oncology survivorship care, addressing potential long-term side effects of treatment, referral for genetic counselling and screening for other cancers as appropriate, as well dietary advice. We found significant improvement compared with baseline in both mental and physical determinants of the patient-reported outcomes, including anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), and HR-QoL (PCS) and (MCS). Survivors demonstrated significant improvement on the MCS and PHQ-9 if they attended 5 or more sessions of the 8-week MBSR course, and attending 8 sessions was associated with significant improvement in GAD-7 and PCS. This might suggest that survivors who are more motivated do benefit the most from such program.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to address the benefit of the MBSR intervention in Hispanic breast cancer survivors. In a randomized controlled trial that included breast cancer survivors with stages 0-III breast cancer who completed surgery, adjunctive radiation, and/or chemotherapy, MBSR was shown to reduce the symptoms of depression and anxiety and increase energy and physical functioning compared with participants who received “usual care”.³ Furthermore, Bower and colleagues have reported improvements in sleep, fatigue, and pro-inflammatory signaling in younger survivors of breast cancer.¹⁷ A similar standardized MBSR program was tested on Danish women who had been treated for stage I-III breast cancer¹⁸ and the results showed reduced levels of anxiety and depression at the 12-month follow-up. A similar study by Hoffman and colleagues¹⁹ reported improved mood, breast- and endocrine-related quality of life, and well-being with MBSR compared with standard care in women with stage 0-III breast cancer.

Several theories have been suggested to explain how MBSR reduces symptoms of depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors, one of which is that it provides supportive interaction between group members to practice meditation and apply mindfulness in daily situations.³ In addition, evidence is beginning to emerge that stress-reducing interventions such as MBSR may improve telomere length (TL) and telomerase activity (TA), the markers for cellular aging, psychological stress, and disease risk.^20-24 Lengacher and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled study to investigate the effects of MBSR on TL and TA in women with breast cancer, and suggested that MBSR increases telomere length and telomerase activity.²⁵ The 142 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer had completed adjuvant treatment with radiation and/or chemotherapy at least 2 weeks before enrollment and within 2 years of completion of treatment with lumpectomy and/or mastectomy. They were randomly assigned to either a 6-week MBSR for breast cancer program or usual care.²⁵ Assessments of TA and TL were obtained along with psychological measurements at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the patients had completed the MBSR program. The mean age of the participants was 55.3 years; 72% were non-Hispanic white; 78% had stage I or II cancer; and 36% received both chemotherapy and radiation. In analyses adjusted for baseline TA and psychological status, TA increased steadily by about 17% over 12 weeks in the MBSR group, compared with about 3% (P < .01) in the control group. No difference was observed for TL (P = .92). The authors concluded that the data provide preliminary evidence that MBSR increases TA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from breast cancer patients and have implications for understanding how MBSR may extend cell longevity at the cellular level.

In another study among healthy volunteers who were randomly assigned to a 3-month meditation retreat or a control group, the 30 participants in the meditation group had higher TA compared with controls.²⁰ In a nonrandomized study among prostate cancer patients, TA increased and psychological stress decreased following a stress-reducing, lifestyle-modification program.²¹ The results of another intervention study among overweight women showed improvement in distress, eating behavior, and metabolic health in women participating in a MBSR program, all of which correlated with increases in TA.²² Most recently, researchers explored the impact on TA of a Kirtan Kriya yogic meditation intervention compared with exposure to relaxing music in 39 dementia family caregivers. The yogic-meditation intervention group had a 43% increase in TA after the 8-week intervention period compared with 3.7% the music group (P < .05).²³ Finally, among 22 patients with cervical cancer who were randomized to a psychosocial telephone counseling intervention,²⁴ investigators found a significant association between increased TL and changes in psychological distress.²⁰ Findings from other studies have assessed interventions to improve outcome of breast cancer survivors, such as the Taking CHARGE self-management intervention that is designed to facilitate the transition to survivorship after breast cancer treatment.⁸ Another intervention using home-based physical activity was shown in a randomized controlled trial to improve self-reported physical activity, body-mass index, and health-related QoL.⁹ Findings from another study suggested that a combined exercise and psychological counselling program might improve QoL more than a single entity intervention.²⁶ As noted previously, these studies did not focus on minority breast cancer survivors’ population, and it is not clear if they are generalizable to Hispanics.

In addition to the MBSR component, our program has also included one-on-one psychological assessment for long-term treatment complications and provided participants with appropriate care and follow-up plans, adding the benefits of self-awareness and self-attention for the survivors, which can effectively reduce the fear of recurrence.³ Furthermore, we included dietary consults based on general cancer survivor guidelines recommending a high fruit and vegetable diet that is low in fat and sugar.²⁷ Healthier dietary lifestyle has been reported to improve breast cancer prognosis, metabolic disease, and cardiovascular outcomes among Hispanic breast cancer survivors.²⁸

Our study has some limitations, including a relatively small sample size. It did not include an exercise program, which would have been helpful in addressing the issue of overweight and obesity we encountered in the most of the Hispanic breast cancer survivors (baseline average BMI, 31.32 kg/m²; obesity range, >30 kg/m²). Because of the small sample size and nonrandomized design of the study, it is hard to evaluate the confounding effect of time on intervention effect. However, a subgroup analysis by MBSR number of sessions showed that the survivors who completed the full course of MBSR sessions (8 sessions) achieved superior benefit, compared with those who did not complete the full course, which indicates that the intervention did weigh in regardless of time. Despite these limitations, the participants in this interventional program showed improved outcomes, including less anxiety and depression and improved MCS score of the SF-36. A larger and longer follow-up prospective, randomized study is needed to validate the findings of this study. Implementing cancer survivorship as an integral component of cancer care during and after treatment is essential to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors and empower them in their transition from cancer treatment to survivorship.

Breast cancer survivors comprise the most prevalent cancer survivor population in the United States.¹ The number of breast cancer survivors is increasing because of early detection and diagnosis, and advances in treatment have resulted in increased life expectancy. Therefore, greater attention is needed to improve the long-term quality of life of these survivors and to help them re-adjust to normal life. For many women, although the medical treatment may have been completed, the recovery process may have not.² The prevalence of long-term mental and physical illness is significant among many breast cancer survivors. Long-term mental consequences may include memory problems, anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence³, and long-term physical consequences may include pain, fatigue, and lymphedema, among others.⁴

El Paso, Texas, is the fourth most populous city in Texas and has a Hispanic majority. This provides an opportunity to conduct clinical research targeting participants of Hispanic descent. Several studies have noted the influence of race/ethnicity on the psychosocial function of breast cancer survivors.^5,6 We have previously reported that Hispanic breast cancer survivors might experience decreased mental and physical health-related quality of life (QoL) which limit their normal social functioning.⁶Other studies have similarly reported poor outcomes of breast cancer survivors and higher rates of fatigue and depression among Hispanic patients.⁷ However, there is a paucity of research addressing specific interventions needed to improve these outcomes and provide better QoL for breast cancer survivors.^8,9 In addition, a few survivorship care interventions have focused on minorities. We sought to assess whether a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program in a primarily Hispanic populated area would lead to improved QoL and reduce anxiety and depressive symptoms among breast cancer survivors.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we recruited consecutive patients who were treated at our institution during October 2013-October 2014 and obtained informed consent from them. The participants were within the first 5 years after diagnosis with stages I-III breast cancer and had completed surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy. We sought to determine whether breast cancer survivors would benefit from this intervention as determined by improvement of performance at 12 months compared with baseline based on the following self-reported validated questionnaires: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression; General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7); and Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36, version 2) for patient quality of life. The participants were enrolled in a comprehensive survivorship program staffed by an oncologist, an oncology nurse practitioner, a nutritionist, and a certified clinical psychologist who had trained in mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR).

Interventions

The participants received a one-on-one individual psychological consultation visit every 3 months for 20-45 minutes during which the psychologist addressed each patient’s emotional and psychological issues in depth, discussed relaxation techniques, and provided psychosocial counselling. In addition, all participants were asked to attend an 8-week-course (in Spanish or English) using MBSR, an interventional program in which participants receive training to promote reduction of stress by self-regulating mindfulness practice.^3,10 Our institution’s MBSR program consists of a weekly 2-hour class for 8 sessions or more. The program is provided 3 times a year, in English and Spanish. It includes the following components:

• Learning various mindfulness meditation techniques (eg, body scans, awareness of breathing, sitting/walking meditations);
• Practicing the mindfulness techniques in class; and
• Practicing techniques at home through audiorecordings of mindfulness meditation exercises and daily diary writing.

Participants were provided with a workbook on MBSR in their preferred language.¹¹ In addition to the psychological component, they were also provided with oncologic evaluations by an oncology nurse practitioner. The nurse practitioner met with participants every 3 months and provided each one with a personalized summary of all the treatments received and routine oncology follow-up care in consultation with the patients’ regular oncologists. This care also addresses the long-term sequelae of treatment, including arthritis and osteoporosis, referrals to receive screening for other cancers (eg, cervical and colon cancer), and genetic counselling as appropriate. In addition, a nutritionist provided general dietary advice in individual and group sessions every 3 months.

The self-administered questionnaires, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and SF-36, were completed at baseline, and every 3 months for 12 months. The scores were reviewed by the psychologist and the oncologist. The PHQ-9 was used to initially screen survivors for depression and monitor their improvement after the intervention. The PHQ-9 is a reliable and validated self-administered depression module.¹² The PQH-9 exclusively focuses on the 9 diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV depression disorder and it can be used as a useful measure for monitoring outcomes of depression therapy. A score of 5-14 suggests mild-moderate depression, and a score of >15 suggests severe depression

The survivors were screened for anxiety using the GAD-7, a brief 7-item self-report scale to identify probable cases of anxiety disorder that has been shown to be an efficient tool for screening and assessing the severity of anxiety.¹³ For GAD-7, a score of 5 or higher is suggestive of anxiety. Scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively.

Survivor QoL was evaluated using the SF-36 questionnaire, a multipurpose survey containing 36 questions. It ranges from 0-100 and a score that is <50.0 is considered low. The lower the score, the worse the mental or physical function.¹⁴ The SF-36 yields a patient profile of 8 health domains – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical, emotional, and social role functioning; and mental health.^15,16 A score of 50.0 on either the Physical Component Summary (PCS – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical role functioning) or Mental Component Summary (MCS – emotional and social role functioning, and mental health) is consistent with the US norm.

Statistical analysis

In this study, the primary objective was to use the MBSR survivorship program to improve the survivors’ outcomes at 12 months compared with baseline using the following measures: PHQ-9 for depression, GAD-7 for anxiety, and SF-36 for QoL using the PCS and MCS. Quantitative data were described using the mean and standard deviation, and categorical data were described using frequency and percentage. The outcome measures were compared between patients who completed 12-month follow-up and those who did not, using unpaired t test. The change in outcome measures at 12 months from baseline was evaluated using paired t test. The effect of intervention was summarized using relative percentage change. The “dose” of the intervention was categorized the number of MBSR sessions – ≤4 sessions, 5-7 sessions, or ≤8 sessions. The change in outcome measures were compared among three groups using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc multiple comparison using the Bonferroni adjustment. In addition, the effect of intervention on each outcome was evaluated by important baseline characteristics of patients. In each subgroup, the changes were compared with baseline measures using the paired t test, whereas changes in outcome between groups were compared using the unpaired t test. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.3. P-values less than 5% were considered to be significant.

Results

A total of 94 survivors of breast cancer were included in this study and 60 (63.8%) completed the 12 months of follow-up. The average age of the participants was 54.4 years (SD, 8.7), and 90.4% were Hispanic (Table 1). Tumor characteristics were as follows: invasive ductal carcinoma (84.04%), estrogen receptor–positive (ER-, 71.28%), progesterone receptor–positive (PR-, 58.51%), and HER2-neu–positive (20%). In regard to therapy received, 48% of the participants had received anthracycline- and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy and 23%, nonanthracycline-based chemotherapy; 71% had received anti-estrogen (hormonal) therapy and 80%, radiation therapy. In regard to surgery, half of the participants had a lumpectomy, and half, a mastectomy. The trends in the outcome measures over the follow-up period are show in the Figure 1.

The effect of the number of MBSR sessions attended on the outcome measures is summarized in Table 3. There were significant improvements in the 12-month MCS scores for patients who completed 5-7 sessions of MBSR or ≥8 sessions, compared with patients who completed ≤4 sessions of MBSR. There was an improvement observed in PCS scores only among patients who received at least 8 sessions of MBSR. There was a marked improvement observed in GAD-7 and PHQ-9 among patients who received ≥8 sessions. There was no statistically significant change in the GAD-7 or PHQ-9 scores between patients who received ≤4 sessions and 5-7 sessions. No significant association was obtained between number of MBSR sessions attended and BMI.

Discussion

In this study, we showed that a group of predominately Hispanic breast cancer survivors benefited from participating in a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program that emphasized in-depth psychological care and MBSR. They also benefited from an education effort that included providing survivors with personalized summaries of their treatment and oncology survivorship care, addressing potential long-term side effects of treatment, referral for genetic counselling and screening for other cancers as appropriate, as well dietary advice. We found significant improvement compared with baseline in both mental and physical determinants of the patient-reported outcomes, including anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), and HR-QoL (PCS) and (MCS). Survivors demonstrated significant improvement on the MCS and PHQ-9 if they attended 5 or more sessions of the 8-week MBSR course, and attending 8 sessions was associated with significant improvement in GAD-7 and PCS. This might suggest that survivors who are more motivated do benefit the most from such program.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to address the benefit of the MBSR intervention in Hispanic breast cancer survivors. In a randomized controlled trial that included breast cancer survivors with stages 0-III breast cancer who completed surgery, adjunctive radiation, and/or chemotherapy, MBSR was shown to reduce the symptoms of depression and anxiety and increase energy and physical functioning compared with participants who received “usual care”.³ Furthermore, Bower and colleagues have reported improvements in sleep, fatigue, and pro-inflammatory signaling in younger survivors of breast cancer.¹⁷ A similar standardized MBSR program was tested on Danish women who had been treated for stage I-III breast cancer¹⁸ and the results showed reduced levels of anxiety and depression at the 12-month follow-up. A similar study by Hoffman and colleagues¹⁹ reported improved mood, breast- and endocrine-related quality of life, and well-being with MBSR compared with standard care in women with stage 0-III breast cancer.

Several theories have been suggested to explain how MBSR reduces symptoms of depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors, one of which is that it provides supportive interaction between group members to practice meditation and apply mindfulness in daily situations.³ In addition, evidence is beginning to emerge that stress-reducing interventions such as MBSR may improve telomere length (TL) and telomerase activity (TA), the markers for cellular aging, psychological stress, and disease risk.^20-24 Lengacher and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled study to investigate the effects of MBSR on TL and TA in women with breast cancer, and suggested that MBSR increases telomere length and telomerase activity.²⁵ The 142 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer had completed adjuvant treatment with radiation and/or chemotherapy at least 2 weeks before enrollment and within 2 years of completion of treatment with lumpectomy and/or mastectomy. They were randomly assigned to either a 6-week MBSR for breast cancer program or usual care.²⁵ Assessments of TA and TL were obtained along with psychological measurements at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the patients had completed the MBSR program. The mean age of the participants was 55.3 years; 72% were non-Hispanic white; 78% had stage I or II cancer; and 36% received both chemotherapy and radiation. In analyses adjusted for baseline TA and psychological status, TA increased steadily by about 17% over 12 weeks in the MBSR group, compared with about 3% (P < .01) in the control group. No difference was observed for TL (P = .92). The authors concluded that the data provide preliminary evidence that MBSR increases TA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from breast cancer patients and have implications for understanding how MBSR may extend cell longevity at the cellular level.

In another study among healthy volunteers who were randomly assigned to a 3-month meditation retreat or a control group, the 30 participants in the meditation group had higher TA compared with controls.²⁰ In a nonrandomized study among prostate cancer patients, TA increased and psychological stress decreased following a stress-reducing, lifestyle-modification program.²¹ The results of another intervention study among overweight women showed improvement in distress, eating behavior, and metabolic health in women participating in a MBSR program, all of which correlated with increases in TA.²² Most recently, researchers explored the impact on TA of a Kirtan Kriya yogic meditation intervention compared with exposure to relaxing music in 39 dementia family caregivers. The yogic-meditation intervention group had a 43% increase in TA after the 8-week intervention period compared with 3.7% the music group (P < .05).²³ Finally, among 22 patients with cervical cancer who were randomized to a psychosocial telephone counseling intervention,²⁴ investigators found a significant association between increased TL and changes in psychological distress.²⁰ Findings from other studies have assessed interventions to improve outcome of breast cancer survivors, such as the Taking CHARGE self-management intervention that is designed to facilitate the transition to survivorship after breast cancer treatment.⁸ Another intervention using home-based physical activity was shown in a randomized controlled trial to improve self-reported physical activity, body-mass index, and health-related QoL.⁹ Findings from another study suggested that a combined exercise and psychological counselling program might improve QoL more than a single entity intervention.²⁶ As noted previously, these studies did not focus on minority breast cancer survivors’ population, and it is not clear if they are generalizable to Hispanics.

In addition to the MBSR component, our program has also included one-on-one psychological assessment for long-term treatment complications and provided participants with appropriate care and follow-up plans, adding the benefits of self-awareness and self-attention for the survivors, which can effectively reduce the fear of recurrence.³ Furthermore, we included dietary consults based on general cancer survivor guidelines recommending a high fruit and vegetable diet that is low in fat and sugar.²⁷ Healthier dietary lifestyle has been reported to improve breast cancer prognosis, metabolic disease, and cardiovascular outcomes among Hispanic breast cancer survivors.²⁸

Our study has some limitations, including a relatively small sample size. It did not include an exercise program, which would have been helpful in addressing the issue of overweight and obesity we encountered in the most of the Hispanic breast cancer survivors (baseline average BMI, 31.32 kg/m²; obesity range, >30 kg/m²). Because of the small sample size and nonrandomized design of the study, it is hard to evaluate the confounding effect of time on intervention effect. However, a subgroup analysis by MBSR number of sessions showed that the survivors who completed the full course of MBSR sessions (8 sessions) achieved superior benefit, compared with those who did not complete the full course, which indicates that the intervention did weigh in regardless of time. Despite these limitations, the participants in this interventional program showed improved outcomes, including less anxiety and depression and improved MCS score of the SF-36. A larger and longer follow-up prospective, randomized study is needed to validate the findings of this study. Implementing cancer survivorship as an integral component of cancer care during and after treatment is essential to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors and empower them in their transition from cancer treatment to survivorship.

Breast cancer survivors comprise the most prevalent cancer survivor population in the United States.¹ The number of breast cancer survivors is increasing because of early detection and diagnosis, and advances in treatment have resulted in increased life expectancy. Therefore, greater attention is needed to improve the long-term quality of life of these survivors and to help them re-adjust to normal life. For many women, although the medical treatment may have been completed, the recovery process may have not.² The prevalence of long-term mental and physical illness is significant among many breast cancer survivors. Long-term mental consequences may include memory problems, anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence³, and long-term physical consequences may include pain, fatigue, and lymphedema, among others.⁴

El Paso, Texas, is the fourth most populous city in Texas and has a Hispanic majority. This provides an opportunity to conduct clinical research targeting participants of Hispanic descent. Several studies have noted the influence of race/ethnicity on the psychosocial function of breast cancer survivors.^5,6 We have previously reported that Hispanic breast cancer survivors might experience decreased mental and physical health-related quality of life (QoL) which limit their normal social functioning.⁶Other studies have similarly reported poor outcomes of breast cancer survivors and higher rates of fatigue and depression among Hispanic patients.⁷ However, there is a paucity of research addressing specific interventions needed to improve these outcomes and provide better QoL for breast cancer survivors.^8,9 In addition, a few survivorship care interventions have focused on minorities. We sought to assess whether a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program in a primarily Hispanic populated area would lead to improved QoL and reduce anxiety and depressive symptoms among breast cancer survivors.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we recruited consecutive patients who were treated at our institution during October 2013-October 2014 and obtained informed consent from them. The participants were within the first 5 years after diagnosis with stages I-III breast cancer and had completed surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy. We sought to determine whether breast cancer survivors would benefit from this intervention as determined by improvement of performance at 12 months compared with baseline based on the following self-reported validated questionnaires: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression; General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7); and Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36, version 2) for patient quality of life. The participants were enrolled in a comprehensive survivorship program staffed by an oncologist, an oncology nurse practitioner, a nutritionist, and a certified clinical psychologist who had trained in mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR).

Interventions

The participants received a one-on-one individual psychological consultation visit every 3 months for 20-45 minutes during which the psychologist addressed each patient’s emotional and psychological issues in depth, discussed relaxation techniques, and provided psychosocial counselling. In addition, all participants were asked to attend an 8-week-course (in Spanish or English) using MBSR, an interventional program in which participants receive training to promote reduction of stress by self-regulating mindfulness practice.^3,10 Our institution’s MBSR program consists of a weekly 2-hour class for 8 sessions or more. The program is provided 3 times a year, in English and Spanish. It includes the following components:

• Learning various mindfulness meditation techniques (eg, body scans, awareness of breathing, sitting/walking meditations);
• Practicing the mindfulness techniques in class; and
• Practicing techniques at home through audiorecordings of mindfulness meditation exercises and daily diary writing.

Participants were provided with a workbook on MBSR in their preferred language.¹¹ In addition to the psychological component, they were also provided with oncologic evaluations by an oncology nurse practitioner. The nurse practitioner met with participants every 3 months and provided each one with a personalized summary of all the treatments received and routine oncology follow-up care in consultation with the patients’ regular oncologists. This care also addresses the long-term sequelae of treatment, including arthritis and osteoporosis, referrals to receive screening for other cancers (eg, cervical and colon cancer), and genetic counselling as appropriate. In addition, a nutritionist provided general dietary advice in individual and group sessions every 3 months.

The self-administered questionnaires, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and SF-36, were completed at baseline, and every 3 months for 12 months. The scores were reviewed by the psychologist and the oncologist. The PHQ-9 was used to initially screen survivors for depression and monitor their improvement after the intervention. The PHQ-9 is a reliable and validated self-administered depression module.¹² The PQH-9 exclusively focuses on the 9 diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV depression disorder and it can be used as a useful measure for monitoring outcomes of depression therapy. A score of 5-14 suggests mild-moderate depression, and a score of >15 suggests severe depression

The survivors were screened for anxiety using the GAD-7, a brief 7-item self-report scale to identify probable cases of anxiety disorder that has been shown to be an efficient tool for screening and assessing the severity of anxiety.¹³ For GAD-7, a score of 5 or higher is suggestive of anxiety. Scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively.

Survivor QoL was evaluated using the SF-36 questionnaire, a multipurpose survey containing 36 questions. It ranges from 0-100 and a score that is <50.0 is considered low. The lower the score, the worse the mental or physical function.¹⁴ The SF-36 yields a patient profile of 8 health domains – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical, emotional, and social role functioning; and mental health.^15,16 A score of 50.0 on either the Physical Component Summary (PCS – vitality, physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, physical role functioning) or Mental Component Summary (MCS – emotional and social role functioning, and mental health) is consistent with the US norm.

Statistical analysis

In this study, the primary objective was to use the MBSR survivorship program to improve the survivors’ outcomes at 12 months compared with baseline using the following measures: PHQ-9 for depression, GAD-7 for anxiety, and SF-36 for QoL using the PCS and MCS. Quantitative data were described using the mean and standard deviation, and categorical data were described using frequency and percentage. The outcome measures were compared between patients who completed 12-month follow-up and those who did not, using unpaired t test. The change in outcome measures at 12 months from baseline was evaluated using paired t test. The effect of intervention was summarized using relative percentage change. The “dose” of the intervention was categorized the number of MBSR sessions – ≤4 sessions, 5-7 sessions, or ≤8 sessions. The change in outcome measures were compared among three groups using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc multiple comparison using the Bonferroni adjustment. In addition, the effect of intervention on each outcome was evaluated by important baseline characteristics of patients. In each subgroup, the changes were compared with baseline measures using the paired t test, whereas changes in outcome between groups were compared using the unpaired t test. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.3. P-values less than 5% were considered to be significant.

Results

A total of 94 survivors of breast cancer were included in this study and 60 (63.8%) completed the 12 months of follow-up. The average age of the participants was 54.4 years (SD, 8.7), and 90.4% were Hispanic (Table 1). Tumor characteristics were as follows: invasive ductal carcinoma (84.04%), estrogen receptor–positive (ER-, 71.28%), progesterone receptor–positive (PR-, 58.51%), and HER2-neu–positive (20%). In regard to therapy received, 48% of the participants had received anthracycline- and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy and 23%, nonanthracycline-based chemotherapy; 71% had received anti-estrogen (hormonal) therapy and 80%, radiation therapy. In regard to surgery, half of the participants had a lumpectomy, and half, a mastectomy. The trends in the outcome measures over the follow-up period are show in the Figure 1.

The effect of the number of MBSR sessions attended on the outcome measures is summarized in Table 3. There were significant improvements in the 12-month MCS scores for patients who completed 5-7 sessions of MBSR or ≥8 sessions, compared with patients who completed ≤4 sessions of MBSR. There was an improvement observed in PCS scores only among patients who received at least 8 sessions of MBSR. There was a marked improvement observed in GAD-7 and PHQ-9 among patients who received ≥8 sessions. There was no statistically significant change in the GAD-7 or PHQ-9 scores between patients who received ≤4 sessions and 5-7 sessions. No significant association was obtained between number of MBSR sessions attended and BMI.

Discussion

In this study, we showed that a group of predominately Hispanic breast cancer survivors benefited from participating in a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship program that emphasized in-depth psychological care and MBSR. They also benefited from an education effort that included providing survivors with personalized summaries of their treatment and oncology survivorship care, addressing potential long-term side effects of treatment, referral for genetic counselling and screening for other cancers as appropriate, as well dietary advice. We found significant improvement compared with baseline in both mental and physical determinants of the patient-reported outcomes, including anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), and HR-QoL (PCS) and (MCS). Survivors demonstrated significant improvement on the MCS and PHQ-9 if they attended 5 or more sessions of the 8-week MBSR course, and attending 8 sessions was associated with significant improvement in GAD-7 and PCS. This might suggest that survivors who are more motivated do benefit the most from such program.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to address the benefit of the MBSR intervention in Hispanic breast cancer survivors. In a randomized controlled trial that included breast cancer survivors with stages 0-III breast cancer who completed surgery, adjunctive radiation, and/or chemotherapy, MBSR was shown to reduce the symptoms of depression and anxiety and increase energy and physical functioning compared with participants who received “usual care”.³ Furthermore, Bower and colleagues have reported improvements in sleep, fatigue, and pro-inflammatory signaling in younger survivors of breast cancer.¹⁷ A similar standardized MBSR program was tested on Danish women who had been treated for stage I-III breast cancer¹⁸ and the results showed reduced levels of anxiety and depression at the 12-month follow-up. A similar study by Hoffman and colleagues¹⁹ reported improved mood, breast- and endocrine-related quality of life, and well-being with MBSR compared with standard care in women with stage 0-III breast cancer.

Several theories have been suggested to explain how MBSR reduces symptoms of depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors, one of which is that it provides supportive interaction between group members to practice meditation and apply mindfulness in daily situations.³ In addition, evidence is beginning to emerge that stress-reducing interventions such as MBSR may improve telomere length (TL) and telomerase activity (TA), the markers for cellular aging, psychological stress, and disease risk.^20-24 Lengacher and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled study to investigate the effects of MBSR on TL and TA in women with breast cancer, and suggested that MBSR increases telomere length and telomerase activity.²⁵ The 142 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer had completed adjuvant treatment with radiation and/or chemotherapy at least 2 weeks before enrollment and within 2 years of completion of treatment with lumpectomy and/or mastectomy. They were randomly assigned to either a 6-week MBSR for breast cancer program or usual care.²⁵ Assessments of TA and TL were obtained along with psychological measurements at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the patients had completed the MBSR program. The mean age of the participants was 55.3 years; 72% were non-Hispanic white; 78% had stage I or II cancer; and 36% received both chemotherapy and radiation. In analyses adjusted for baseline TA and psychological status, TA increased steadily by about 17% over 12 weeks in the MBSR group, compared with about 3% (P < .01) in the control group. No difference was observed for TL (P = .92). The authors concluded that the data provide preliminary evidence that MBSR increases TA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from breast cancer patients and have implications for understanding how MBSR may extend cell longevity at the cellular level.

In another study among healthy volunteers who were randomly assigned to a 3-month meditation retreat or a control group, the 30 participants in the meditation group had higher TA compared with controls.²⁰ In a nonrandomized study among prostate cancer patients, TA increased and psychological stress decreased following a stress-reducing, lifestyle-modification program.²¹ The results of another intervention study among overweight women showed improvement in distress, eating behavior, and metabolic health in women participating in a MBSR program, all of which correlated with increases in TA.²² Most recently, researchers explored the impact on TA of a Kirtan Kriya yogic meditation intervention compared with exposure to relaxing music in 39 dementia family caregivers. The yogic-meditation intervention group had a 43% increase in TA after the 8-week intervention period compared with 3.7% the music group (P < .05).²³ Finally, among 22 patients with cervical cancer who were randomized to a psychosocial telephone counseling intervention,²⁴ investigators found a significant association between increased TL and changes in psychological distress.²⁰ Findings from other studies have assessed interventions to improve outcome of breast cancer survivors, such as the Taking CHARGE self-management intervention that is designed to facilitate the transition to survivorship after breast cancer treatment.⁸ Another intervention using home-based physical activity was shown in a randomized controlled trial to improve self-reported physical activity, body-mass index, and health-related QoL.⁹ Findings from another study suggested that a combined exercise and psychological counselling program might improve QoL more than a single entity intervention.²⁶ As noted previously, these studies did not focus on minority breast cancer survivors’ population, and it is not clear if they are generalizable to Hispanics.

In addition to the MBSR component, our program has also included one-on-one psychological assessment for long-term treatment complications and provided participants with appropriate care and follow-up plans, adding the benefits of self-awareness and self-attention for the survivors, which can effectively reduce the fear of recurrence.³ Furthermore, we included dietary consults based on general cancer survivor guidelines recommending a high fruit and vegetable diet that is low in fat and sugar.²⁷ Healthier dietary lifestyle has been reported to improve breast cancer prognosis, metabolic disease, and cardiovascular outcomes among Hispanic breast cancer survivors.²⁸

Our study has some limitations, including a relatively small sample size. It did not include an exercise program, which would have been helpful in addressing the issue of overweight and obesity we encountered in the most of the Hispanic breast cancer survivors (baseline average BMI, 31.32 kg/m²; obesity range, >30 kg/m²). Because of the small sample size and nonrandomized design of the study, it is hard to evaluate the confounding effect of time on intervention effect. However, a subgroup analysis by MBSR number of sessions showed that the survivors who completed the full course of MBSR sessions (8 sessions) achieved superior benefit, compared with those who did not complete the full course, which indicates that the intervention did weigh in regardless of time. Despite these limitations, the participants in this interventional program showed improved outcomes, including less anxiety and depression and improved MCS score of the SF-36. A larger and longer follow-up prospective, randomized study is needed to validate the findings of this study. Implementing cancer survivorship as an integral component of cancer care during and after treatment is essential to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors and empower them in their transition from cancer treatment to survivorship.

As we head into vacation season and the dog days of summer, let’s reflect for a few minutes on some of the very important advances we heard about at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. Nearly 40,000 individuals registered for the conference, an indication of both the interest and the excitement around the new agents and the emerging clinical trial data. Scientific sessions dedicated to the use of combination immunotherapy, the role of antibody drug conjugates, and targeting molecular aberrations with small molecules were among the most popular (p. e236).

As we head into vacation season and the dog days of summer, let’s reflect for a few minutes on some of the very important advances we heard about at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. Nearly 40,000 individuals registered for the conference, an indication of both the interest and the excitement around the new agents and the emerging clinical trial data. Scientific sessions dedicated to the use of combination immunotherapy, the role of antibody drug conjugates, and targeting molecular aberrations with small molecules were among the most popular (p. e236).

As we head into vacation season and the dog days of summer, let’s reflect for a few minutes on some of the very important advances we heard about at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. Nearly 40,000 individuals registered for the conference, an indication of both the interest and the excitement around the new agents and the emerging clinical trial data. Scientific sessions dedicated to the use of combination immunotherapy, the role of antibody drug conjugates, and targeting molecular aberrations with small molecules were among the most popular (p. e236).