RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Data about incidence, biological, and clinical characteristics of oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC) are scarce. However, these data are essential in determining optimal treatment strategy. Gaining knowledge of these elements means observing and describing large, recent, and consecutive series of OMBC in their natural history. METHODS: We collected data retrospectively at our institution from 998 consecutive patients diagnosed and treated with synchronous or metachronous metastatic breast cancer (MBC) between January 2014 and December 2018. The only criterion used to define OMBC was the presence of one to five metastases at diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 998 MBC, 15.8% were classified OMBC. Among these, 88% had one to three metastases, and 86.7% had only one organ involved. Bone metastases were present in 52.5% of cases, 20.9% had progression to lymph nodes, 14.6% to the liver, 13.3% to the brain, 8.2% to the lungs, and 3.8% had other metastases. 55.7% had HR+/HER2- OMBC, 25.3% had HER2+OMBC, and 19% had HR-/HER2- OMBC. The HR+/HER2- subtype statistically correlated with bone metastases (p = 0.001), the HER2+subtype with brain lesions (p = 0.001), and the HR-/HER2- subtype with lymph node metastases (p = 0.008). Visceral metastases were not statistically associated with any OMBC subtypes (p = 0.186). OMBC-SBR grade III was proportionally higher than in the ESME series of 22,109 MBC (49.4% vs. 35.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: OMBC is a heterogeneous entity whose incidence is higher than has commonly been published. Not an indolent disease, each subgroup, with its biological and anatomical characteristics, merits specific management.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Óseas , Neoplasias de la Mama , Humanos , Femenino , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Receptor ErbB-2 , Pronóstico , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Neoplasias Óseas/epidemiología , Neoplasias Óseas/secundarioRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Local ablative treatment (LAT) is increasingly combined with systemic therapy in oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC), without a high-level evidence to support this strategy. We evaluated the addition of LAT to systemic treatment in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were local control (LC) and toxicity. We sought to identify prognostic factors associated with longer OS and PFS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified consecutive patients treated between 2014 and 2018 for synchronous or metachronous OMBC (defined as ≤ 5 metastases). LAT included stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), surgery, cryotherapy and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRA). PFS and OS were calculated, and Cox regression models analyzed for potential predictors of survival. RESULTS: One hundred two patients were included (no-LAT, n = 62; LAT, n = 40). Sixty-four metastases received LAT. Median follow-up was 50.4 months (95% CI [44.4; 53.4]). One patient experienced grade 3 toxicity in the LAT group. Five-year PFS and OS were 34.75% (95% CI [24.42-45.26]) and 63.21% (95% CI [50.69-73.37]) respectively. Patients receiving both LAT and systemic therapy had longer PFS and OS than those with no-LAT ([HR 0.39, p = 0.002]) and ([HR 0.31, p = 0.01]). The use of LAT, HER2-positive status and hormone-receptor positivity were associated with longer PFS and OS whereas liver metastases led to worse PFS. CONCLUSIONS: LAT was associated with improved outcomes in OMBC when added to systemic treatment, without significantly increasing toxicity. The prognostic factors identified to extend PFS and OS may help guide clinicians in selecting patients for LAT.