Metastatic primary breast neuroendocrine neoplasms: a case series

BACKGROUND

Breast neuroendocrine neoplasms represent a rare subtype of breast cancer which have not been well studied or characterised, particularly in the metastatic setting.

AIM

To present clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and outcomes of a series of patients with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast and review the current literature.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review to identify and describe patients with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast at our centre between 2011 and 2021. Medical records, pathology and imaging results were examined to evaluate the clinical and histopathological features as well as the treatment pathways and prognosis of these patients.

RESULTS

We present a series of seven female patients with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast, as defined by the World Health Organization classification, over a period of 10 years (2011-2021) from a single centre. Median age at diagnosis was 48 years (range 39-63). Six of seven tissue samples expressed synaptophysin and chromogranin and were also oestrogen and progesterone receptor positive; median Ki-67 index was 50% (range 20-90%). All seven patients had demonstrated avidity on 18 F-FDG PET imaging, and the six who underwent 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET all had significant avidity. Treatment modalities and sequencing varied, but all patients received chemotherapy during their disease course. Six patients received three or more lines of treatment. Median overall survival was 31.8 months (range 3.7-108.6). Median progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line therapy for metastatic disease was 5.8 months (range 1.8-37.8).

CONCLUSIONS

This series shows the use of multiple modalities in treating this disease, with different sequencing in different patients. Despite multiple modalities used in the first-line setting, first-line PFS remains short. Larger series and further molecular characterisation are required to aid clinicians in managing this condition and to guide optimal treatment sequencing to improve outcomes in this rare patient group.

Vera Peters and the conservative management of early-stage breast cancer

During the first three quarters of the twentieth century, radical mastectomy was an accepted and common procedure in the management of patients with early stage cancer of the breast. After a lifetime of thinking about and working with patients with early-stage breast cancer, Vera Peters presented and published, in the mid-1970s, a retrospective historical case-control study that demonstrated the lack of a survival benefit for radical or modified radical mastectomy as compared with more conservative surgery with lumpectomy. In the years that followed, prospective randomized studies confirmed her findings.

Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status

BACKGROUND

The benefit of breast MRI for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients is uncertain. This study characterizes those receiving MRI versus those who did not, and reports on their short-term surgical outcomes, including time to operation, margin status, and mastectomy rate.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients seen in a multidisciplinary breast cancer clinic from July 2004 to December 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were evaluated by a radiologist, a pathologist, and surgical, radiation, and medical oncologists.

RESULTS

Among 577 patients, 130 had pretreatment MRIs. MRI use increased from 2004 (referent, 13%) versus 2005 (24%, p=0.014) and 2006 (27%, p=0.002). Patients having MRIs were younger (52.5 versus 59.0 years, p < 0.001), but its use was not associated with preoperative chemotherapy, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, presentation, or tumor features. MRI was associated with a 22.4-day delay in pretreatment evaluation (p=0.011). Breast conserving therapy (BCT) was attempted in 320 of 419 patients with complete surgical data. The odds ratio for mastectomy, controlling for T size and stage, was 1.80 after MRI versus no MRI (p=0.024). Patients having MRIs did not have fewer positive margins at lumpectomy (21.6% MRI versus 13.8% no MRI, p=0.20), or conversions from BCT to mastectomy (9.8% MRI versus 5.9% no MRI, p=0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast MRI use was not confined to any particular patient group. MRI use was not associated with improved margin status or BCT attempts, but was associated with a treatment delay and increased mastectomy rate. Without evidence of improved oncologic outcomes as a result, our study does not support the routine use of MRI to select patients or facilitate the performance of BCT.