Circulating Tumor Cells in Breast Cancer: Correlation with Clinicopathological Parameters, Hormone Profile and MicroRNA Polymorphisms

A comprehensive comparison of circulating tumor cells and breast imaging modalities as screening tools for breast cancer in Chinese women

Background

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been recognized as a sensitive biomarker for breast cancer (BC). This study aimed to comprehensively compare CTC with imaging modalities, including ultrasonography, mammography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in screening for BC in Chinese women.

Methods

Three hundred forty-three participants were enrolled in this study, including 102 treatment-naive BC patients, 177 with breast benign diseases (BBD) and 64 healthy female patients. All participants underwent CTC testing and at least one of the following examinations, ultrasonography, mammography, and MRI at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University between December 2017 and November 2020. CTCs were quantitatively assessed using cell counting (CTC detection rate/counts) and categorically examined using a cutoff value (CTC classification). The diagnostic power of CTC tests and imaging modalities, including accuracy and capability to predict clinicopathological characteristics of BC, were evaluated and compared.

Results

CTC classification with a cutoff value of 2 showed a “good” diagnostic accuracy of 0.889 for early- to mid-stage BC comparable to breast imaging modalities using Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). MRI demonstrated the highest sensitivity of 0.872 for BC, and CTC classification had the highest specificity of 0.938. A relatively low sensitivity was found for mammography in this cohort of patients. Successful detection of BC by CTC detection rate/counts, but not CTC classification, correlated with two important clinicopathological features, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage. The detection power of certain imaging modalities was also associated with AJCC stage (ultrasonography, p = 0.0438 and MRI, p = 0.0422) and lymph node metastasis (ultrasonography, 0.0157). There were clear correlations between CTC tests (counts or classification) and imaging BI-RADS scoring system in detecting positive BC cases (p < 0.05). Further correlation analysis suggested that CTC quantity, but not CTC classification, had the capability to predict clinicopathological traits of BC that were identified by ultrasonography.

Conclusions

CTC tests have a diagnostic potency comparable to breast imaging modalities, and may be used as an alternative screening tool for BC.

Impact of adjuvant endocrine therapy on prognosis in small hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer has been previously established. However, significant adverse events related to endocrine therapy cannot be ignored. T1 breast cancer is expected to have a good prognosis. Therefore, adjuvant endocrine therapy for T1a breast cancer patients is controversial. Thus, in this study, we examined the effect of endocrine therapy on the prognosis of T1N0 hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer patients in each tumor size group, and re-considered the application of endocrine therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively obtained clinical and pathological data from medical records of 7635 patients who underwent surgery for breast cancer at Aichi Cancer Hospital between January 2000 and December 2017. The primary end point of our analysis was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary end points were distant disease-free survival (DDFS), overall survival (OS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). The log-rank test, cumulative survival generated curves with Kaplan-Meier methods and the hazard ratio (HR) calculated with a Cox regression model were used to assess the effects of endocrine therapy on prognosis.

RESULTS

The 5-year DFS was worse in the non-endocrine therapy (non-ET) group (78%) than the endocrine therapy (ET) group (95%) in the T1c population (p < 0.001, HR 0.25). However, there was no statistically significant difference in DFS between the ET and the non-ET groups in T1a (ET 96% vs non-ET 93%, p = 0.9314, HR 0.94) and T1b (ET 96% vs non-ET 93%, p = 0.1481HR 0.53) breast cancer. The OS, DDFS, and BCSS of the patients also showed that endocrine therapy was associated with improvement of the prognosis in the T1c group, but not in the T1a and T1b groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant endocrine therapy may be essential for T1c breast cancer patients. In contrast, this therapy should be discussed for T1a and T1b luminal breast cancer patients under some circumstances, such as suffering from adverse events.