HER-2, p53, p21 and hormonal receptors proteins expression as predictive factors of response and prognosis in locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel plus epirubicin combination

Abstract Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been considered the standard care in locally advanced breast cancer. However, about 20% of the patients do not benefit from this clinical treatment and, predictive factors of response were not defined yet. This study was designed to evaluate the importance of biological markers to predict response and prognosis in stage II and III breast cancer patients treated with taxane and anthracycline combination as neoadjuvant setting. Methods Sixty patients received preoperative docetaxel (75 mg/m2) in combination with epirubicin (50 mg/m2) in i.v. infusion in D1 every 3 weeks after incisional biopsy. They received adjuvant chemotherapy with CMF or FEC, attaining axillary status following definitive breast surgery. Clinical and pathologic response rates were measured after preoperative therapy. We evaluated the response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the prognostic significance of clinicopathological and immunohistochemical parameters (ER, PR, p51, p21 and HER-2 protein expression). The median patient age was 50.5 years with a median follow up time 48 months after the time of diagnosis. Results Preoperative treatment achieved clinical response in 76.6% of patients and complete pathologic response in 5%. The clinical, pathological and immunohistochemical parameters were not able to predict response to therapy and, only HER2 protein overexpression was associated with a decrease in disease free and overall survival (P = 0.0007 and P = 0.003) as shown by multivariate analysis. Conclusion Immunohistochemical phenotypes were not able to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clinical response is inversely correlated with a risk of death in patients submitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2 overexpression is the major prognostic factor in stage II and III breast cancer patients treated with a neoadjuvant docetaxel and epirubicin combination.

Thyroid hormone profile in breast cancer patients in postmenopause

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine thyroid hormone (TH) profile in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer (BC). Subjects and methods: 12 CaM patients stages I or II, without interventions that could interfere with tumor progression were selected, as well as and a control group with 18 postmenopausal women without CaM. We measured serum anti-thyroperoxidase antibody (TPOAB), thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free thyroxine (T4L), estradiol (E2), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing hormone (LH), before and after surgery, besides immunohistochemistry for estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptors. Results: Four patients with CaM showed changes in thyroid hormone profile: two had hyperthyroidism, one hypothyroidism, and one was positive for TPO-AB. All of them positive for ER and PR.TSH levels in breast cancer patients were not different from levels found in the control group (1.89 +/- 1.56 vs. 2.86 +/- 3.12 mIU/mL), but the levels of T4L in patients with CaM were statistically higher than those of the control group (1.83 +/- 0.57 vs. 1.10 +/- 0.20 ng/dL). Conclusion: These results reinforce the need for assessment of thyroid status in CaM patients, since in the absence of E2, changes in clinical HTs can act in E2-controlled processes. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metab. 2012;56(4):238-43

Evaluation of frozen-section analysis of surgical margins in the treatment of breast cancer

Objective: To evaluate surgical margins in cases of ductal carcinoma through a histopathological exam using frozen sections. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study encompassing 242 conservative surgeries, 179 of which included intraoperative frozensection histopathology and 63 intraoperative nonfreezing techniques (macroscopy/gross examination and cytology). The results of such analyses were compared with those of the histology processing following paraffin embedment and hematoxylin and eosin (H & E) staining. A margin was deemed free when the distance between the tumor and the surgical border was equal to or greater than two millimeters. The factors given consideration for possibly affecting the results were: age, surgical aspects (skin removal and widening of surgical margins), histopathological findings (size, affected lymph nodes, and angiolymphatic invasion), and extensive intraductal and immunohistochemical components (estrogen, progesterone, Ki-67, and HER-2 receptors). In the statistical analyses, the chi-square test was used and negative predictive values were calculated. Results: The negative predictive values were 87.1% and 79.3% for frozen and nonfrozen sections, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.14). The factors under consideration had no influence on the results of the intraoperative exam of the margins. Conclusion: The present study allowed to conclude that the intraoperative exam of the surgical margins by frozen section is not superior to a macroscopy and / or cytology exam.

Evaluation of Aesthetic Abdominal Surgery Using a New Clinical Scale

Evaluation of outcomes after aesthetic surgery still is a challenge in plastic surgery. The evaluation frequently is based on subjective criteria. This study used a new clinical grading scale to evaluate aesthetic results for plastic surgeries to the abdomen. The method scores each of the following five parameters: volume of subcutaneous tissue, contour, excess of skin, aspect of the navel, and quality of the scar on the abdominal wall. The scale options are 0 (poor), 1 (fair), and 2 (good), and the total rate can range from 0 to 10. The study included 40 women ages 18-53 years. Of these 40 women, 20 underwent traditional abdominoplasty, and 20 had liposuction alone. Preoperatively and at least 1 year later, photographic results were analyzed and scored by three independent plastic surgeons. In the abdominoplasty group, the average grade rose from 2.9 +/- A 0.4 to 6.8 +/- A 0.4 postoperatively. In the liposuction group, the average grade was 5.3 +/- A 0.5 preoperatively and 7.7 +/- A 0.4 postoperatively. In both groups, the average postoperative grade was significantly higher than the preoperative grade. The mean scores for groups A and L were significantly different, demonstrating that the scale was sensitive in identifying different anatomic abnormalities in the abdomen. The rating scale used for the aesthetic evaluation of the abdomen was effective in the analysis of two different procedures: conventional abdominoplasty and liposuction. Abdominoplasty provided the greater gain according to a comparison of the pre- and postoperative scores.