Prospective Multicenter Study Validate a Prediction Model for Surgery Uptake Among Women with Atypical Breast Lesions

Catherine Uzan, Chafika Mazouni, Caroline Rossoni, Brigitte De Korvin, Christine Tunon de Lara, Monique Cohen, Nathalie Chabbert, Sonia Zilberman, Veronique Boussion, Anne Vincent Salomon, Marc Espie, Charles Coutant, Frederic Marchal, Flore Salviat, Loic Boulanger, Isabelle Doutriaux-Dumoulin, Eva Jouve, Carole Mathelin, Pierre de Saint Hilaire, Joelle Mollard, Corinne Balleyguier, Natacha Joyon, Magali Lacroix Triki, Suzette Delaloge, Stefan Michiels, Catherine Uzan, Chafika Mazouni, Caroline Rossoni, Brigitte De Korvin, Christine Tunon de Lara, Monique Cohen, Nathalie Chabbert, Sonia Zilberman, Veronique Boussion, Anne Vincent Salomon, Marc Espie, Charles Coutant, Frederic Marchal, Flore Salviat, Loic Boulanger, Isabelle Doutriaux-Dumoulin, Eva Jouve, Carole Mathelin, Pierre de Saint Hilaire, Joelle Mollard, Corinne Balleyguier, Natacha Joyon, Magali Lacroix Triki, Suzette Delaloge, Stefan Michiels

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis of atypical breast lesions (ABLs) leads to unnecessary surgery in 75-90% of women. We have previously developed a model including age, complete radiological target excision after biopsy, and focus size that predicts the probability of cancer at surgery. The present study aimed to validate this model in a prospective multicenter setting.

- methods: Women with a recently diagnosed ABL on image-guided biopsy were recruited in 18 centers, before wire-guided localized excisional lumpectomy. Primary outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) of the model.

Results: The NOMAT model could be used in 287 of the 300 patients included (195 with ADH). At surgery, 12 invasive (all grade 1), and 43 in situ carcinomas were identified (all ABL: 55/287, 19%; ADH only: 49/195, 25%). The area under the receiving operating characteristics curve of the model was 0.64 (95% CI 0.58-0.69) for all ABL, and 0.63 for ADH only (95% CI 0.56-0.70). For the pre-specified threshold of 20% predicted probability of cancer, NPV was 82% (77-87%) for all ABL, and 77% (95% CI 71-83%) for patients with ADH. At a 10% threshold, NPV was 89% (84-94%) for all ABL, and 85% (95% CI 78--92%) for the ADH. At this threshold, 58% of the whole ABL population (and 54% of ADH patients) could have avoided surgery with only 2 missed invasive cancers.

Conclusion: The NOMAT model could be useful to avoid unnecessary surgery among women with ABL, including for patients with ADH.

Clinical trial registration: NCT02523612.

Keywords: Atypical breast lesion; Atypical ductal hyperplasia; B3 lesion; Biopsy; Breast cancer; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Model.

References

    1. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DGet al. Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Collaborators. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 353:1784–92, 2005
    1. Plevritis SK, Munoz D, Kurian AW, et al. Association of screening and treatment with breast cancer mortality by molecular subtype in US women, 2000–2012. JAMA. 319:154–164, 2018
    1. Welch HG, Prorok PC, O’Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375:1438–1447.
    1. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH et al. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. NEngl J Med. 353:229–37, 2005
    1. Mastropasqua MG, Viale G. Clinical and pathological assessment of high-risk ductal and lobular breast lesions: what surgeons must know. Eur J Surg Oncol. 43:278-284, 2017
    1. Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, et al. Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ—The LORD study. Eur J Cancer. 51:1497–510, 2015
    1. Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 51:2296–303, 2015
    1. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, et al. The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open. 9:e026797, 2019
    1. Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EAM, Pinker K, et al. Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat.;174:279–296, 2019
    1. Uzan C, Mazouni C, Ferchiou M, et al. A model to predict the risk of upgrade to malignancy at surgery in atypical breast lesions discovered on percutaneous biopsy specimens. Ann Surg Oncol. 20:2850–7, 2013
    1. Mooney KL, Bassett LW, Apple SK. Upgrade rates of high-risk breast lesions diagnosed on core needle biopsy: a single-institution experience and literature review. Mod Pathol. 29:1471–1484, 2016
    1. Rageth CJ, Rubenov R, Bronz C, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and the risk of underestimation: tissue sampling method, multifocality, and associated calcification significantly influence the diagnostic upgrade rate based on subsequent surgical specimens. Breast Cancer. 26:452–458, 2019
    1. Bendifallah S, Defert S, Chabbert-Buffet N, et al. Scoring to predict the possibility of upgrades to malignancy in atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy device: an external validation study. Eur J Cancer. 48:30–6, 2012
    1. Linsk A, Mehta TS, Dialani V, et al. Surgical upgrade rate of breast atypia to malignancy: an academic center’s experience and validation of a predictive model. Breast J. 24:115–119, 2018
    1. Van Calster B, Nieboer D, Vergouwe Y, et al. A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data. J Clin Epidemiol. 74:167–76, 2016
    1. McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, Wasif N, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia on core biopsy: an automatic trigger for excisional biopsy? Ann Surg Oncol. 19:3264–3269, 2012
    1. Ko E, Han W, Lee JW, et al. Scoring system for predicting malignancy in patients diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia at ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 112:189–195, 2008
    1. Buckley E, Sullivan T, Farshid G, et al. Risk profile of breast cancer following atypical hyperplasia detected through organized screening. Breast. 24:208–12, 2015
    1. Mazzola E, Coopey SB, Griffin M, et al. Reassessing risk models for atypical hyperplasia: age may not matter. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 165:285–91, 2017
    1. Vierkant RA, Degnim AC, Radisky DC, et al. Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer in women with atypical hyperplasia: an observational cohort study from the Mayo Clinic Benign Breast Disease (BBD) cohort. BMC Cancer. 17:84, 2017
    1. Bevers TB, Helvie M, Bonaccio E, et al. Breast Cancer screening and diagnosis, version 3.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16(11):1362–89.
    1. Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PAet al. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA. 313:1122–32, 2015
    1. Forgeard C, Benchaib M, Guerin N, et al. Is surgical biopsy mandatory in case of atypical ductal hyperplasia on 11-gauge core needle biopsy? A retrospective study of 300 patients. Am J Surg. 196:339–45, 2008
    1. Khoury T, Li Z, Sanati S, et al. The risk of upgrade for atypical ductal hyperplasia detected on magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy: a study of 100 cases from four academic institutions. Histopathology. 68:713–721, 2016
    1. Peña A, Shah SS, Fazzio RT, et al. Multivariate model to identify women at low risk of cancer upgrade after a core needle biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 164:295–304, 2017
    1. Bahl M, Barzilay R, Yedidia AB, et al. High-risk breast lesions: a machine learning model to predict pathologic upgrade and reduce unnecessary surgical excision. Radiology. 286:810–818, 2018
    1. Harrington L, diFlorio-Alexander R, Trinh K, MacKenzie T, Suriawinata A, Hassanpour S. Prediction of atypical ductal hyperplasia upgrades through a machine learning approach to reduce unnecessary surgical excisions. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2:1–11, 2018
    1. Speer ME, Huang ML, Dogan BE, Adrada BE, Candelaria RP, Hess KR, Hansakul P,Yang WT, Rauch GM. High risk breast lesions identified on MRI-guided vacuum-assisted needle biopsy: outcome of surgical excision and imaging follow-up. Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1090):20180300.
    1. Tsuchiya K, Mori N, Schacht DV, Sheth D, Karczmar GS, Newstead GM, Abe H. Value of breast MRI for patients with a biopsy showing atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46(6):1738–1747.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren