ca breast final
TRANSCRIPT
KIRTI DIXIT IV TERM BGS GIMS GUIDE- Dr. DHARANI
CA BREAST GRADING, STAGING &
PROGNOSTIC FACTORS
OVERVIEW
Introduction
Grading
Staging
Prognostic factors
CACINOMA OFTHE BREAST Worldwide – most common primary cancer
In India Second to cervical cancer
25% to 31% of all cancers amongst women in Indian cities.
STATISTICAL FACTS
PREDISPOSING FACTORS Gender and age Age of menarche and menopause Age at first live birth First degree relatives with breast ca Atypical Hyperplasia Race/Ethnicity Estrogen exposure Breast radiodensity Radiation exposure Carcinoma of contralateral breast or endometrium
Obesity
Breastfeeding & Exercise
Environmental toxins
AETIOPATHOGENESIS – 12% FAMILIAL
CLASSIFICATION OF CA BREAST
NON- INVASIVE
INVASIVE
MORPHOLOGIAL AND HISTOLOGICAL BASIS
MOLECULAR SUBTYPES
DUCTAL CARCINOMA IN-SITU
MUCINOUS CARCINOMA LUMINAL-AER + , HER2 -
LOBAR CARCINOMA IN SITU
MEDULLARY CARCINOMA LUMINAL-BER + , HER2 +
PAGETS DISEASE PAPILLARY CARCINOMA HER2 POSISTIVEER - , HER2 +
LOBULAR CARCINOMA TRIPLE NEGATIVEER - , HER2 -
TUBULAR CARCINOMA
MICROPAPILLARY CARCINOMA
GRADING Degree of maturity or differentiation of tumor cells under the microscope
1. Histologic grade - resemblance between tumor and normal cells
2. Nuclear grade - size and shape of nucleus regularity, compactness.
3. Abnormal mitotic figures and their numbers
GRADING– WHY ….?
For treatment and prognosis
Lower grade better prognosis
Higher grade worse prognosis
HISTOLOGICAL TYPE OF TUMOR
GRADE 1 (LOW GRADE) – NON METASTASISING Intraductal & lobar carcinoma in situ
GRADE 2 (INTERMEDIATE GRADE) – LESS COMMONLY METASTASISING medullary, papillary, tubular, colloid, Adenoid cystic & secretory carcinomas
GRADE 3 (HIGH GRADE) –COMMONLY METASTASISING infiltrating duct, invasive lobar & inflammatory carcinomas
NUCLEAR PLEOMORPHISM
NUCLEAR PLEOMORPHISM
,
STAGING Extent of the primary tumor and extent of spread in the body
Importance - Allows the health professional to determine appropriate treatment
( primary, adjuvant) -Allows assessment of prognosis and outcomes -Enables the reliable evaluation of treatment results -Results in quality cancer care
CA BREAST AJCC STAGING
STAGE
T: PRIMARY TUMOUR N: LYMPH NODE M: METASTASIS
5 YR SURVIVAL
0 DCIS / LCIS NO absent 92%
I Invasive ca =/<02 cm
NO absent 87%
II Invasive Ca >02 cm
Invasive Ca <5cm
No LN
1-3 LN positive
absent 75%
III Invasive Ca >5 cm
Any size Invassive ca
INLAMMATORY CA
1-3LN pos
>4LNposive
LN posi/neg
absent 46%
IV Any size LN posi/neg present 13%
TNM STAGING Primary Tumor (T) TX - Primary tumor cannot be evaluated T0 - No evidence of primary tumor Tis - Carcinoma in situ (has not spread) T1 - = /< 2 Cm T2 - 2 Cm to 5 Cm across T3 - > 5 Cm across T4 - Any size with direct extesion to the chest and / or to the skin
Regional Lymph Nodes (N) NX - Regional lymph nodes cannot be evaluated N0 - No regional lymph node involvement N1 - Metastases to movable ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes. N2 - Metastases in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes that are clinically fixed or matted. N3 - Metastases in ipsilateral infraclavicular lymph nodes with or without axillary lymph node involvement.
Distant Metastasis (M) MX - Distant metastasis cannot be evaluated M0 - No distant metastasis M1 - Distant metastasis
Tumour not involving skin or chest wall
PROGNOSTIC FACTORS
Major MinorInvasive v/s in situ Histologic subtypesDistant Metastasis Histologic GradeLymphnode Metastasis Estrogen Progesterone
Receptors Tumor size HER2 OverexpressinLocally Advanced Disease Lymphovascular InvasionInflammatory Carcinoma Proliferative Rate
DNA Content Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy Gene Expression Profiling
MAJOR PROGNOSTIC FACTORS 1 ) Invasive v/s In situ :
In situ better prognosis
Ductal carcinoma in situ – if detected on time and treated can be cured
Invasive carcinoma metastasizes and leads to poor prognosis
2) DISTANT METASTASIS Poor prognosis
Lymphatic route – Internal Mammary, Mediastinal,
supraclavicular and pleural lymphnodes & pleural
lymphatics
Hematogenous – lungs, liver, bone, brain, ovaries
Unlikely to cure
3) Lymph Node Metastasis
Axillary lymphnode status – most important prognostic factor in the absence of distant
metastasis. 10 year survival rate - No nodes- 70-80% - 1 to 3 nodes- 35-40 % - >10 nodes- 10-15%
Macrometastasis (>0.2cm) – proven prognostic importance Micrometastasis (<0.2cm)– immunohistochemistry for keratins PCR based detection of tumor specific mRNA
Sentinal lymphnode – biopsy restricted to sentinal nodes negative for metastasis distant nodes not involved
4) TUMOR SIZE
2ND most important prognostic factor of invasive carcinoma
10 year survival rate in node negative cases <1 cm – 90%, > 2 cm – 77%,
5 ) Locally advanced disease :
Carcinomas invading into skin or skeletal muscles
Poor prognosis
Ususally large , difficult to treat surgically
6 ) Inflammatory Ca - Peau d’ orange :
Obstruction of dermal lymphatics
Breast swelling and skin thickening
Poor prognosis
MINOR PROGNOSTIC FACTORS
1)Histological Grades –
Nottingham histological grade correlates with survival rates.
Long Term survival rate - GRADE 1 70 % - GRADE 2 slightly better than grade 3 - GRADE 3 45 %
BETTER PROGNOSIS (>60%)
RELATIVELY POOR PROGNOSIS (<20%)
•Mucinous • Micropapillary
• Medullary • Metastatic
• Papillary
•Tubular
• Lobar
• Cystic
2 ) Histologic subtypes
3) Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors ER / PR positive – 40% respond to hormonal
therapy ER + PR positive –80 % respond to hormonal
therapy ER & PR negative – only 10 % to hormonal but
more to chemotherapy.
Nuclear hormone receptors – detected by
immunohistochemistry
4) HER2 Overexpression – indicates poor prognosis but treatment with
agents (trastuzumab) to target the receptor
is very effective.
Member of family of epidermal growth factors
Transmembrane protein with tyrosine kinase activity
Detected by – immunohistochemistry - fluorescence in situ therapy
Triple negative carcinomas/Basal like carcinomas
Absence of ER,PR & HER2/neu
Absence of expression of markers typical of
myoepithelial cells –basal keratins, P cadherin, p63
Very poor response to hormone therapy
Chemotherapy used for treatment
5) Lymphovascular Invasion –
Presence of tumor cells within lymphatics or small capillaries.
Leads to inflammatory breast carcinoma
Associated with lymph node metastasis
Poor prognosis
6) Proliferative rate –
judged by abnormal mitotic figures
higher the rate poorer the prognosis
Measured by - immunohistochemical detection of cellular proteins (Ki-67) produced during cell cycle - flow cytometry - thymidine labelling index
7) DNA Content–
Determination of Amount of DNA per tumor cell
– flowcytometry - image analysis of tissue
section Tumor cell with DNA index 1
Same total amount of DNA as normal diploid cell
Aneuploid tumors with abnormal indices have worse prognosis than tumor cells with DNA index 1.
8) Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy
Systemic treatment before surgery
Doesn’t improve survival
Treated tumor responds better to chemotherapy
good prognosis
9) Gene Expression Profiling –
Determines - metastatic potetial, -type of chemotherapy required for
treatment
Formalin fixed paraffin embeded tissues used
CONCLUSION
Grading staging and evaluation of prognostic
factors of breast carcinoma are extremely important modalities which help
the clinician to - devise an effective plan of treatment - counsel the patients better - provide quality cancer care