Invasive lobular breast cancer and its variants: How special are they for systemic therapy decisions?

The WHO classification of breast tumors distinguishes, besides invasive breast cancer 'of no special type' (former invasive ductal carcinoma, representing 60-70% of all breast cancers), 30 special types, of which invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the most common (5-15%). We review the literature on (i) the specificity and heterogeneity of ILC biology as documented by various analytical techniques, including the results of molecular testing for risk of recurrence; (ii) the impact of lobular histology on prediction of prognosis and effect of systemic therapies in patients. Though it is generally admitted that ILC has a better prognosis than IDC, is endocrine responsive, and responds poorly to chemotherapy, currently available data do not unanimously support these assumptions. This review demonstrates some lack of specific data and a need for improving clinical research design to allow oncologists to make informed systemic therapy decisions in patients with ILC. Importantly, future studies should compare various endpoints in ILC breast cancer patients among the group of hormonosensitive breast cancer.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II): presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Appropriate use of colonoscopy is a key component of quality management in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In an update of a 1998 publication, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE II) defined appropriateness criteria for various colonoscopy indications. This introductory paper therefore deals with methodology, general appropriateness, and a review of colonoscopy complications. METHODS:The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate the appropriateness of various diagnostic colonoscopy indications, with 14 multidisciplinary experts using a scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Evidence reported in a comprehensive updated literature review was used for these decisions. Consolidation of the ratings into three appropriateness categories (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate) was based on the median and the heterogeneity of the votes. The experts then met to discuss areas of disagreement in the light of existing evidence, followed by a second rating round, with a subsequent third voting round on necessity criteria, using much more stringent criteria (i. e. colonoscopy is deemed mandatory). RESULTS: Overall, 463 indications were rated, with 55 %, 16 % and 29 % of them being judged appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate, respectively. Perforation and hemorrhage rates, as reported in 39 studies, were in general < 0.1 % and < 0.3 %, respectively CONCLUSIONS: The updated EPAGE II criteria constitute an aid to clinical decision-making but should in no way replace individual judgment. Detailed panel results are freely available on the internet (www.epage.ch) and will thus constitute a reference source of information for clinicians.