A novel biosignature identifies patients with DCIS with high risk of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy

PURPOSE: There is an unmet need to identify women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with a low risk of in-breast recurrence (IBR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS), which could omit radiation therapy (RT), and also to identify those with elevated IBR risk remaining after BCS plus RT. We evaluated a novel biosignature for a residual risk subtype (RRt) to help identify patients with elevated IBR risk after BCS plus RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Women with DCIS treated with BCS with or without RT at centers in the US, Australia, and Sweden (n = 926) were evaluated. Patients were classified into 3 biosignature risk groups using the decision score (DS) and the RRt category: (1) Low Risk (DS ≤2.8 without RRt), (2) Elevated Risk (DS \u3e2.8 without RRt), and (3) Residual Risk (DS \u3e2.8 with RRt). Total and invasive IBR rates were assessed by risk group and treatment. RESULTS: In patients at low risk, there was no significant difference in IBR rates with or without RT (total, P = .8; invasive IBR, P = .7), and there were low overall 10-year rates (total, 5.1%; invasive, 2.7%). In patients with elevated risk, IBR rates were decreased with RT (total: hazard ratio [HR], 0.25; P \u3c .001; invasive: HR, 0.28; P = .005); 10-year rates were 20.6% versus 4.9% (total) and 10.9% versus 3.1% (invasive). In patients with residual risk, although IBR rates decreased with RT after BCS (total: HR, 0.21; P \u3c .001; invasive: HR, 0.29; P = .028), IBR rates remained significantly higher after RT compared with patients with elevated risk (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4; P = .018), with 10-year rates of 42.1% versus 14.7% (total) and 18.3% versus 6.5% (invasive). CONCLUSIONS: The novel biosignature identified patients with 3 distinct risk profiles: Low Risk patients with a low recurrence risk with or without adjuvant RT, Elevated Risk patients with excellent outcomes after BCS plus RT, and Residual Risk patients with an elevated recurrence risk remaining after BCS plus RT, warranting potential intensified or alternative treatment approaches

Conservative management of Paget disease of the breast with radiotherapy

BACKGROUND At 5-year follow-up, patients with Paget disease of the breast who were treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) had excellent results. The current report provides 10- and 15-year rates of tumor control in the breast, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates following BCS and RT in a cohort of patients with Paget disease presenting without a palpable mass or mammographic density. METHODS Through a collaborative review of patients treated with BCS and RT from seven institutions, 38 cases of Paget disease of the breast presenting without a palpable mass or mammographic density were identified. All patients had pathologic confirmation of typical Paget cells at time of diagnosis. Thirty-six of 38 patients had a minimum follow-up greater than 12 months and constitute the study cohort. Ninety-four percent of patients underwent complete or partial excision of the nipple-areola complex and all patients received a median external beam irradiation dose of 50 Gy (range, 45–54 Gy) to the whole breast. Ninety-seven percent of patients also received a boost to the remaining nipple or tumor bed, a median total dose of 61.5 Gy (range, 50.4–70 Gy). RESULTS With median follow-up of 113 months (range, 18–257 months), 4 of 36 patients (11%) developed a first recurrence of disease in the treated breast only. Two of the four recurrences in the breast were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) only and two were invasive with DCIS. Two additional patients had a recurrence in the breast as a component of first failure. Actuarial local control rates for the breast as the only site of first recurrence were 91% at 5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 80–100%) and 87% (95% CI, 75–99%) at both 10 and 15 years. Actuarial local control rates for breast recurrence, as a component of first failure, were 91% (95% CI, 80–100%), 83% (95% CI, 69–97%), and 76% (95% CI, 58–94%) at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. No clinical factors were identified as significant predictors for breast recurrence. Five-, 10- and 15-year actuarial rates for survival without disease of 97% (95% CI, 90–100%) and 5-, 10-, and 15-year actuarial rates of overall survival of 93% (95% CI, 84–100%) at 5 years and 90% (95% CI, 78–100%) at 10 and 15 years were reported. CONCLUSIONS These data confirm excellent rates of local control, disease-free survial, and overall survival at 10 and 15 years following BCS and RT for Paget disease of the breast. This study continues to support the recommendation of local excision and definitive breast irradiation as an alternative to mastectomy in the treatment of patients with Paget disease presenting without a palpable mass or mammographic density. Cancer 2003;97:2142–9. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11337Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/34369/1/11337_ftp.pd

Performance of the CMS Cathode Strip Chambers with Cosmic Rays

The Cathode Strip Chambers (CSCs) constitute the primary muon tracking device in the CMS endcaps. Their performance has been evaluated using data taken during a cosmic ray run in fall 2008. Measured noise levels are low, with the number of noisy channels well below 1%. Coordinate resolution was measured for all types of chambers, and fall in the range 47 microns to 243 microns. The efficiencies for local charged track triggers, for hit and for segments reconstruction were measured, and are above 99%. The timing resolution per layer is approximately 5 ns

Performance and Operation of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter

The operation and general performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter using cosmic-ray muons are described. These muons were recorded after the closure of the CMS detector in late 2008. The calorimeter is made of lead tungstate crystals and the overall status of the 75848 channels corresponding to the barrel and endcap detectors is reported. The stability of crucial operational parameters, such as high voltage, temperature and electronic noise, is summarised and the performance of the light monitoring system is presented

Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM

We consider the gluon fusion production cross section of a scalar Higgs boson at NLO QCD in the SM and in the MSSM. We implement the calculation in the POWHEG approach, and match the NLO-QCD results with the PYTHIA and HERWIG QCD parton showers. We discuss a few representative scenarios in the SM and MSSM parameter spaces, with emphasis on the fermion and squark mass effects on the Higgs boson distributions.Comment: 27 pages, 36 eps figures; v2: 2 eps figures added, section 3.2 expanded, version published in JHE

Calibration of the CMS Drift Tube Chambers and Measurement of the Drift Velocity with Cosmic Rays

Peer reviewe

CMS physics technical design report : Addendum on high density QCD with heavy ions

Peer reviewe

CMS Data Processing Workflows during an Extended Cosmic Ray Run

Peer reviewe

Commissioning and performance of the CMS silicon strip tracker with cosmic ray muons

This is the Pre-print version of the Article. The official published version of the Paper can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2010 IOPDuring autumn 2008, the Silicon Strip Tracker was operated with the full CMS experiment in a comprehensive test, in the presence of the 3.8 T magnetic field produced by the CMS superconducting solenoid. Cosmic ray muons were detected in the muon chambers and used to trigger the readout of all CMS sub-detectors. About 15 million events with a muon in the tracker were collected. The efficiency of hit and track reconstruction were measured to be higher than 99% and consistent with expectations from Monte Carlo simulation. This article details the commissioning and performance of the Silicon Strip Tracker with cosmic ray muons.This work is supported by FMSR (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); Academy of Sciences and NICPB (Estonia); Academy of Finland, ME, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NKTH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); NRF (Korea); LAS (Lithuania); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); PAEC (Pakistan); SCSR (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan); MST and MAE (Russia); MSTDS (Serbia); MICINN and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); NSC (Taipei); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA)