Browsing by Author "Petricevic, Simona (57193679705)"

Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) of early breast cancer (EBC) has been recognized as a good prognostic factor in the treatment of breast cancer because of its significant correlation with long-term disease outcome. Based on this correlation, pCR has been accepted by health authorities (FDA, EMA) as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials for accelerated drug approval. Moreover, in recent years, we have observed a tendency to treat pCR in routine clinical practice as a primary therapeutic target rather than just one of the pieces of information obtained from clinical trials. These trends in routine clinical practice are the result of recommendations in treatment guidelines, such as the ESMO recommendation “…to deliver all planned (neoadjuvant) treatment without unnecessary breaks, i.e. without dividing it into preoperative and postoperative periods, irrespective of the magnitude of tumor response”, because “…this will increase the probability of achieving pCR, which is a proven factor for a good prognosis…”. We hypothesize that the above recommendations and trends in routine clinical practice are the consequences of misunderstanding regarding the concept of pCR, which has led to a shift in its importance from a prognostic factor to a desired treatment outcome. The origin of this misunderstanding could be a strong subconscious incentive to achieve pCR, as patients who achieved pCR after NAST had a better long-term outcome compared with those who did not. In this paper, we attempt to prove our hypothesis. We performed a comprehensive analysis of the therapeutic effects of NAST and adjuvant systemic therapy (AST) in EBC to determine whether pCR, as a phenomenon that can only be achieved at NAST, improves prognosis per se. We used published papers as a source of data, which had a decisive influence on the formation of the modern attitude towards EBC therapy. We were unable to find any evidence supporting the use of pCR as a desired therapeutic goal because NAST (reinforced by pCR) was never demonstrated to be superior to AST in any context. Copyright © 2023 Ivanovic, Bjelica, Loboda, Bogdanovski, Colakovic, Petricevic, Gojgic, Zecic, Zecic and Zdravkovic.

Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) of early breast cancer (EBC) has been recognized as a good prognostic factor in the treatment of breast cancer because of its significant correlation with long-term disease outcome. Based on this correlation, pCR has been accepted by health authorities (FDA, EMA) as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials for accelerated drug approval. Moreover, in recent years, we have observed a tendency to treat pCR in routine clinical practice as a primary therapeutic target rather than just one of the pieces of information obtained from clinical trials. These trends in routine clinical practice are the result of recommendations in treatment guidelines, such as the ESMO recommendation “…to deliver all planned (neoadjuvant) treatment without unnecessary breaks, i.e. without dividing it into preoperative and postoperative periods, irrespective of the magnitude of tumor response”, because “…this will increase the probability of achieving pCR, which is a proven factor for a good prognosis…”. We hypothesize that the above recommendations and trends in routine clinical practice are the consequences of misunderstanding regarding the concept of pCR, which has led to a shift in its importance from a prognostic factor to a desired treatment outcome. The origin of this misunderstanding could be a strong subconscious incentive to achieve pCR, as patients who achieved pCR after NAST had a better long-term outcome compared with those who did not. In this paper, we attempt to prove our hypothesis. We performed a comprehensive analysis of the therapeutic effects of NAST and adjuvant systemic therapy (AST) in EBC to determine whether pCR, as a phenomenon that can only be achieved at NAST, improves prognosis per se. We used published papers as a source of data, which had a decisive influence on the formation of the modern attitude towards EBC therapy. We were unable to find any evidence supporting the use of pCR as a desired therapeutic goal because NAST (reinforced by pCR) was never demonstrated to be superior to AST in any context. Copyright © 2023 Ivanovic, Bjelica, Loboda, Bogdanovski, Colakovic, Petricevic, Gojgic, Zecic, Zecic and Zdravkovic.

[No abstract available]

[No abstract available]

Background: We present a detailed description and the preliminary results of our original technique for non-invasive three-dimensional tumor localization in the breast, which was created as an alternative to standard invasive tumor marking before neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST), aiming to enable adequate surgery after complete tumor regression. Methods: A detailed description of the technique is provided in the main text. The technique’s feasibility and precision were assessed in a single-arm, prospective study based on the histological parameters of the adequacy and rationality of the excision of completely regressed tumor beds. Results: Out of 94 recruited patients, 15 (16%) were deemed unsuitable, mainly due to the tumors’ inadequate ultrasound visibility. Among the 79 processed patients, 31 (39%) had complete clinical regression after NAST and were operated on using our technique. The histological parameters of surgical precision (signs of tumor regression: 24/31; microscopic cancer residues: 7/31) were verified in all excised specimens (100% precision). There were no positive margins in seven cases with microscopic residues, indicating our technique’s capacity to enable oncologically safe post-NAST surgery. Conclusions: The proposed technique is feasible and satisfactorily accurate in determining the location of regressed tumors, thus representing an alternative to invasive tumor marking, especially in surgical centers lacking trained staff and equipment for invasive marking. The technique’s limitations are mainly related to the inadequate ultrasound visibility of the tumor. © 2024 by the authors.

Background: We present a detailed description and the preliminary results of our original technique for non-invasive three-dimensional tumor localization in the breast, which was created as an alternative to standard invasive tumor marking before neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST), aiming to enable adequate surgery after complete tumor regression. Methods: A detailed description of the technique is provided in the main text. The technique’s feasibility and precision were assessed in a single-arm, prospective study based on the histological parameters of the adequacy and rationality of the excision of completely regressed tumor beds. Results: Out of 94 recruited patients, 15 (16%) were deemed unsuitable, mainly due to the tumors’ inadequate ultrasound visibility. Among the 79 processed patients, 31 (39%) had complete clinical regression after NAST and were operated on using our technique. The histological parameters of surgical precision (signs of tumor regression: 24/31; microscopic cancer residues: 7/31) were verified in all excised specimens (100% precision). There were no positive margins in seven cases with microscopic residues, indicating our technique’s capacity to enable oncologically safe post-NAST surgery. Conclusions: The proposed technique is feasible and satisfactorily accurate in determining the location of regressed tumors, thus representing an alternative to invasive tumor marking, especially in surgical centers lacking trained staff and equipment for invasive marking. The technique’s limitations are mainly related to the inadequate ultrasound visibility of the tumor. © 2024 by the authors.