Surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: A large retrospective study from a single institution

Background: Management of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has various approaches with distinct institutional specific practice. Here, we review DCIS management in a single institution with emphasise on re-operation rates and outcome. Methods: DCIS cases diagnosed at the Nottingham Breast Institute between 1987 and 2017 were identified (n=1,249). Clinicopathological data was collected. Cases were histologically reviewed, and different factors associated with primary operation selection, re-excision, presence of residual tumour in the re-excision specimens, use of radiotherapy and ipsilateral recurrences were analysed. Results: 34% of DCIS patients were initially treated by mastectomy and were more frequently symptomatic, of high nuclear tumour grade, size >40mm, and associated with comedo necrosis and Paget’s disease of the nipple. Further surgery was due to involved or narrow surgical margins. Residual tumour tissue was detected in 53% of the re-excision specimens. Re-excision rates of patients treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) were reduced from approximately 70% to 23% and the final mastectomy rates decreased from 60% to 20%. Changes in surgical practice with acceptance of smaller excision margins and more frequent use of local radiotherapy have led to a significant decrease not only in the re-excision rate but also in the final mastectomy rate together with non-significant reduction in 5- and 10-year local recurrence rates. Conclusion: Although BCS is increasingly the preferred primary surgical option for DCIS management, a proportion of low-risk DCIS patients continue to undergo re-excision surgery or completion mastectomy. Despite acceptance of smaller margins, recurrence rate is decreasing

Role of mammography screening as a predictor of survival in postmenopausal breast cancer patients

We examined the effect of population-based screening programme on tumour characteristics by comparing carcinomas diagnosed during the prescreening (N=341) and screening (N=552) periods. We identified screen detected (N=224), interval (N=99) and clinical cancer (N=229) cases. Median tumour size and proportion of axillary lymph node negative cases were 1.5 cm and 65% in the screen detected group, 2.0 cm and 44% in cases found outside the screening, and 3.2 cm and 41% in the cases from the prescreening period. Survival of the breast cancer patients was 66% (95% CI, 60–71%) in the prescreening era group and 73% (95% CI, 66–78%) in the screening era group after 10 years of follow-up. In the screening era group the survival of the screen detected cases was 86% (95% CI, 80–90%) and that of the clinical cancer cases 73% (95% CI, 66–78%) after 10 years. In multivariate analysis the risk of breast cancer death was not significantly different between the prescreening and screening periods (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.59–1.12, P=0.21). Detection by screening was not an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis (HR 0.75; CI 95% 0.50–1.12; P=0.17)

Detection methods predict differences in biology and survival in breast cancer patients

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to measure the biological characteristics involved in tumorigenesis and the progression of breast cancer in symptomatic and screen-detected carcinomas to identify possible differences.MethodsFor this purpose, we evaluated clinical-pathological parameters and proliferative and apoptotic activities in a series of 130 symptomatic and 161 screen-detected tumors.ResultsAfter adjustment for the smaller size of the screen-detected carcinomas compared with symptomatic cancers, those detected in the screening program presented longer disease-free survival (RR = 0.43, CI = 0.19-0.96) and had high estrogen and progesterone receptor concentrations more often than did symptomatic cancers (OR = 3.38, CI = 1.72-6.63 and OR = 3.44, CI = 1.94-6.10, respectively). Furthermore, the expression of bcl-2, a marker of good prognosis in breast cancer, was higher and HER2/neu expression was lower in screen-detected cancers than in symptomatic cancers (OR = 1.77, CI = 1.01-3.23 and OR = 0.64, CI = 0.40-0.98, respectively). However, when comparing prevalent vs incident screen-detected carcinomas, prevalent tumors were larger (OR = 2.84, CI = 1.05-7.69), were less likely to be HER2/neu positive (OR = 0.22, CI = 0.08-0.61) and presented lower Ki67 expression (OR = 0.36, CI = 0.17-0.77). In addition, incident tumors presented a shorter survival time than did prevalent ones (RR = 4.88, CI = 1.12-21.19).ConclusionsIncident carcinomas include a variety of screen-detected carcinomas that exhibit differences in biology and prognosis relative to prevalent carcinomas. The detection method is important and should be taken into account when making therapy decisions

Comparison of 1- and 2-year screening intervals for women undergoing screening mammography

We compared the long-term impact of 1- and 2-year screening mammography intervals using prognostic, screening, and outcome information for women aged 50–74 years obtained from the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia in two time periods, prior to 1997 (policy of annual mammography) and after 1997 (biennial mammography). Survival was estimated for both periods using a prognostic model and the expected rate of interval and screen-detected cancers. The likelihood of a screen-detected cancer with annual screening was 2.32 per thousand screens and with biennial screening was 3.32 per thousand screens. The prognostic profile of screen-detected cancers was better than that of interval cancers. Among both screen-detected and interval cancers, the prognostic profiles with annual and biennial screening were similar. The estimated breast cancer-specific survival rates for women undergoing annual and biennial screening mammography were 95.2 and 94.6% at 5 years, and 90.4 and 89.2% at 10 years, respectively. Annual compared to biennial mammography was associated with a 1.2% increase in the estimated 10-year breast cancer-specific survival for women aged 50–74 years, diagnosed with invasive breast cancer after screening programme attendance

Long-term prognosis of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods

Introduction Previous studies on breast cancer have shown that patients whose tumors are detected by mammography screening have a more favorable survival. However, little is known about the long-term prognostic impact of screen-detection. The purpose of the current study was to compare breast cancer-specific long-term survival between patients whose tumors were detected in mammography screening and those detected by other methods. Methods Breast cancer patients diagnosed within five specified geographical areas in Finland in 1991-92 were identified (n=2,936). Detailed clinical, treatment and outcome data as well as tissue samples were collected. Women with in situ carcinoma, distant metastases at the primary diagnosis and women who were not operated were excluded. Main analyses were made with exclusions of patients with other malignancy or contralateral breast cancer followed by to sensitivity analyses with different exclusion criterias. Median follow-up time was 15.4 years. Univariate and multivariate analysis of breast cancer-specific survival were performed. Results Of patients included in the main analyses (n=1,884) 22% (n=408) were screen-detected and 78% (n=1,476) were detected by other methods. Breast cancer-specific 15-year survival was 86% for patients with screen-detected cancer and 66% for patients diagnosed by other methods (p<0.0001, HR=2.91). Similar differences in survival were also observed in women at screening age (50-69 years) as well as in clinically important subgroups, such as patients with small tumors ([less than or equal to]1cm in diameter) and without nodal involvement (N0). Women with breast cancer diagnosed by screening mammography had a more favorable prognosis compared to those diagnosed outside of screening program following adjustments according to patient age, tumor size, axillary lymph node status, histological grade and hormone receptor status. Significant differences in the risk of having future contralateral breast cancer according to method of detection was not observed . Conclusions Breast cancer detection in mammography screening is an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer and is associated with a more favorable survival also in long-term follow-up.BioMed Central open acces

Genomic-Assisted Enhancement in Stress Tolerance for Productivity Improvement in Sorghum

Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], the fifth most important cereal crop in the world after wheat, rice, maize, and barley, is a multipurpose crop widely grown for food, feed, fodder, forage, and fuel, vital to the food security of many of the world’s poorest people living in fragile agroecological zones. Globally, sorghum is grown on ~42 million hectares area in ~100 countries of Africa, Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. Sorghum grain is used mostly as food (~55%), in the form of flat breads and porridges in Asia and Africa, and as feed (~33%) in the Americas. Stover of sorghum is an increasingly important source of dry season fodder for livestock, especially in South Asia. In India, area under sorghum cultivation has been drastically come down to less than one third in the last six decades but with a limited reduction in total production suggesting the high-yield potential of this crop. Sorghum productivity is far lower compared to its genetic potential owing to a limited exploitation of genetic and genomic resources developed in the recent past. Sorghum production is challenged by various abiotic and biotic stresses leading to a significant reduction in yield. Advances in modern genetics and genomics resources and tools could potentially help to further strengthen sorghum production by accelerating the rate of genetic gains and expediting the breeding cycle to develop cultivars with enhanced yield stability under stress. This chapter reviews the advances made in generating the genetic and genomics resources in sorghum and their interventions in improving the yield stability under abiotic and biotic stresses to improve the productivity of this climate-smart cereal

Non-affirmative Theory of Education as a Foundation for Curriculum Studies, Didaktik and Educational Leadership

This chapter presents non-affirmative theory of education as the foundation for a new research program in education, allowing us to bridge educational leadership, curriculum studies and Didaktik. We demonstrate the strengths of this framework by analyzing literature from educational leadership and curriculum theory/didaktik. In contrast to both socialization-oriented explanations locating curriculum and leadership within existing society, and transformation-oriented models viewing education as revolutionary or super-ordinate to society, non-affirmative theory explains the relation between education and politics, economy and culture, respectively, as non-hierarchical. Here critical deliberation and discursive practices mediate between politics, culture, economy and education, driven by individual agency in historically developed cultural and societal institutions. While transformative and socialization models typically result in instrumental notions of leadership and teaching, non-affirmative education theory, previously developed within German and Nordic education, instead views leadership and teaching as relational and hermeneutic, drawing on ontological core concepts of modern education: recognition; summoning to self-activity and Bildsamkeit. Understanding educational leadership, school development and teaching then requires a comparative multi-level approach informed by discursive institutionalism and organization theory, in addition to theorizing leadership and teaching as cultural-historical and critical-hermeneutic activity. Globalisation and contemporary challenges to deliberative democracy also call for rethinking modern nation-state based theorizing of education in a cosmopolitan light. Non-affirmative education theory allows us to understand and promote recognition based democratic citizenship (political, economical and cultural) that respects cultural, ethical and epistemological variations in a globopolitan era. We hope an American-European-Asian comparative dialogue is enhanced by theorizing education with a non-affirmative approach

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570