Survived but feeling vulnerable and insecure: a qualitative study of the mental preparation for RTW after breast cancer treatment

BACKGROUND: Improvements in treatment have resulted in an increasing number of cancer survivors potentially being able to return to work after medical treatment. In this paper we focus on the considerations regarding return to work (RTW) of breast cancer absentees in the Belgian context and how these considerations are related to reactions from their social environment. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed to understand the RTW considerations of Belgian breast cancer absentees who had undergone breast cancer surgery in 2006. Twenty-two participants (mean age 46) were included and interviewed between May 2008 and August 2009 in their personal environment. An in-depth analysis (Grounded Theory) took place using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (Quagol). RESULTS: Before the actual RTW, breast cancer employees try to build an image of the future resumption of work based on medical grounds and their knowledge of the workplace. Four matters are considered prior to RTW: (i) women want to leave the sick role and wish to keep their job; (ii) they consider whether working is worth the effort; (iii) they reflect on their capability; and (iv) they have doubts about being accepted in the workplace after returning. These inner thoughts are both product and input for the interaction with the social environment. The whole process is coloured by uncertainty and vulnerability. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that mental preparation for RTW is not a linear process of improvement. It shows a detailed picture of four types of considerations made by breast cancer survivors before they actually resume work. Vulnerability appears to be an overarching theme during mental preparation. As the social environment plays an important role, people from that environment must become more aware of their influence on decreasing or increasing a woman’s vulnerability while preparing for RTW

Effect of manual lymph drainage in addition to guidelines and exercise therapy on arm lymphoedema related to breast cancer: randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine the preventive effect of manual lymph drainage on the development of lymphoedema related to breast cancer

Plasma MMP1 and MMP8 expression in breast cancer: Protective role of MMP8 against lymph node metastasis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Elevated levels of matrix metalloproteinases have been found to associate with poor prognosis in various carcinomas. This study aimed at evaluating plasma levels of MMP1, MMP8 and MMP13 as diagnostic and prognostic markers of breast cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 208 breast cancer patients, of which 21 with inflammatory breast cancer, and 42 healthy controls were included. Plasma MMP1, MMP8 and MMP13 levels were measured using ELISA and correlated with clinicopathological characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Median plasma MMP1 levels were higher in controls than in breast cancer patients (3.45 vs. 2.01 ng/ml), while no difference was found for MMP8 (10.74 vs. 10.49 ng/ml). ROC analysis for MMP1 revealed an AUC of 0.67, sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 24% at a cut-off value of 4.24 ng/ml. Plasma MMP13 expression could not be detected. No correlation was found between MMP1 and MMP8 levels. We found a trend of lower MMP1 levels with increasing tumour size (p = 0.07); and higher MMP8 levels with premenopausal status (p = 0.06) and NPI (p = 0.04). The median plasma MMP1 (p = 0.02) and MMP8 (p = 0.007) levels in the non-inflammatory breast cancer patients were almost twice as high as those found in the inflammatory breast cancer patients. Intriguingly, plasma MMP8 levels were positively associated with lymph node involvement but showed a negative correlation with the risk of distant metastasis. Both controls and lymph node negative patients (pN0) had lower MMP8 levels than patients with moderate lymph node involvement (pN1, pN2) (p = 0.001); and showed a trend for higher MMP8 levels compared to patients with extensive lymph node involvement (pN3) and a strong predisposition to distant metastasis (p = 0.11). Based on the hypothesis that blood and tissue protein levels are in reverse association, these results suggest that MMP8 in the tumour may have a protective effect against lymph node metastasis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In summary, we observed differences in MMP1 and MMP8 plasma levels between healthy controls and breast cancer patients as well as between breast cancer patients. Interestingly, our results suggest that MMP8 may affect the metastatic behaviour of breast cancer cells through protection against lymph node metastasis, underlining the importance of anti-target identification in drug development.</p

The Gene expression Grade Index: a potential predictor of relapse for endocrine-treated breast cancer patients in the BIG 1–98 trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We have previously shown that the Gene expression Grade Index (GGI) was able to identify two subtypes of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors that were associated with statistically distinct clinical outcomes in both untreated and tamoxifen-treated patients. Here, we aim to investigate the ability of the GGI to predict relapses in postmenopausal women who were treated with tamoxifen (T) or letrozole (L) within the BIG 1–98 trial.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We generated gene expression profiles (Affymetrix) and computed the GGI for a matched, case-control sample of patients enrolled in the BIG 1–98 trial from the two hospitals where frozen samples were available. All relapses (cases) were identified from patients randomized to receive monotherapy or from the switching treatment arms for whom relapse occurred before the switch. Each case was randomly matched with four controls based upon nodal status and treatment (T or L). The prognostic value of GGI was assessed as a continuous predictor and divided at the median. Predictive accuracy of GGI was estimated using time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curves.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Frozen samples were analyzable for 48 patients (10 cases and 38 controls). Seven of the 10 cases had been assigned to receive L. Cases and controls were comparable with respect to menopausal and nodal status, local and chemotherapy, and HER2 positivity. Cases were slightly older than controls and had a larger proportion of large, poorly differentiated ER+/PgR- tumors. The GGI was significantly and linearly related to risk of relapse: each 10-unit increase in GGI resulted in an increase of approximately 11% in the hazard rate (p = 0.02). Within the subgroups of patients with node-positive disease or who were treated with L, the hazard of relapse was significantly greater for patients with GGI at or above the median. AUC reached a maximum of 78% at 27 months.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This analysis supports the GGI as a good predictor of relapse for ER-positive patients, even among patients who receive L. Validation of these results, in a larger series from BIG 1–98, is planned using the simplified GGI represented by a smaller set of genes and tested by qRT-PCR on paraffin-embedded tissues.</p

Common non-synonymous SNPs associated with breast cancer susceptibility: findings from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium.

Candidate variant association studies have been largely unsuccessful in identifying common breast cancer susceptibility variants, although most studies have been underpowered to detect associations of a realistic magnitude. We assessed 41 common non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) for which evidence of association with breast cancer risk had been previously reported. Case-control data were combined from 38 studies of white European women (46 450 cases and 42 600 controls) and analyzed using unconditional logistic regression. Strong evidence of association was observed for three nsSNPs: ATXN7-K264R at 3p21 [rs1053338, per allele OR = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.10, P = 2.9 × 10(-6)], AKAP9-M463I at 7q21 (rs6964587, OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.03-1.07, P = 1.7 × 10(-6)) and NEK10-L513S at 3p24 (rs10510592, OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.07-1.12, P = 5.1 × 10(-17)). The first two associations reached genome-wide statistical significance in a combined analysis of available data, including independent data from nine genome-wide association studies (GWASs): for ATXN7-K264R, OR = 1.07 (95% CI = 1.05-1.10, P = 1.0 × 10(-8)); for AKAP9-M463I, OR = 1.05 (95% CI = 1.04-1.07, P = 2.0 × 10(-10)). Further analysis of other common variants in these two regions suggested that intronic SNPs nearby are more strongly associated with disease risk. We have thus identified a novel susceptibility locus at 3p21, and confirmed previous suggestive evidence that rs6964587 at 7q21 is associated with risk. The third locus, rs10510592, is located in an established breast cancer susceptibility region; the association was substantially attenuated after adjustment for the known GWAS hit. Thus, each of the associated nsSNPs is likely to be a marker for another, non-coding, variant causally related to breast cancer risk. Further fine-mapping and functional studies are required to identify the underlying risk-modifying variants and the genes through which they act.BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A12014) and by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n8 223175 (HEALTH-F2–2009-223175) (COGS). Meetings of the BCAC have been funded by the European Union COST programme (BM0606). Genotyping of the iCOGS array was funded by the European Union (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10710), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the ‘CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer’ program and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade of Quebec (PSR-SIIRI-701). Additional support for the iCOGS infrastructure was provided by the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112—the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The ABCFS and OFBCR work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endorsement t by the US Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia) and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow and M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The OFBCR work was also supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research ‘CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer’ program. The ABCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society Grant no. NKI2007-3839 and NKI2009-4363. The ACP study is funded by the Breast Cancer Research Trust, UK. The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Programme of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breakthrough Breast Cancer and acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). E.S. is supported by NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London, UK. Core funding to the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics was provided by the Wellcome Trust (090532/Z/09/Z). I.T. is supported by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The BSUCH study was supported by the Dietmar-Hopp Foundation, the Helmholtz Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The CECILE study was funded by the Fondation de France, the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa), The National League against Cancer, the National Agency for Environmental l and Occupational Health and Food Safety (ANSES), the National Agency for Research (ANR), and the Association for Research against Cancer (ARC). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council and Herlev Hospital.The CNIO-BCS was supported by the Genome Spain Foundation the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer and grants from the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and the Fondo de Investigación Sanitario PI11/00923 and PI081120). The Human Genotyping-CEGEN Unit, CNIO is supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. D.A. was supported by a Fellowship from the Michael Manzella Foundation (MMF) and was a participant in the CNIO Summer Training Program. The CTS was initially supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993 and the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500) and is currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA77398). Collection of cancer incidence e data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. HAC receives support from the Lon V Smith Foundation (LVS39420). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0 and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), as well as the Department of Internal Medicine , Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus Bonn, Germany. The HEBCS was supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (132473), the Finnish Cancer Society, The Nordic Cancer Union and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HERPACC was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan, by a Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year strategy for Cancer Control from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by a research grant from Takeda Science Foundation , by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Applying Health Technology from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan and by National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund. The HMBCS was supported by short-term fellowships from the German Academic Exchange Program (to N.B), and the Friends of Hannover Medical School (to N.B.). Financial support for KARBAC was provided through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, the Stockholm Cancer Foundation and the Swedish Cancer Society. The KBCP was financially supported by the special Government Funding (EVO) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, the Academy of Finland and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. kConFab is supported by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation , the NHMRC, the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. The kConFab Clinical Follow Up Study was funded by the NHMRC (145684, 288704, 454508). Financial support for the AOCS was provided by the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (DAMD17-01-1-0729), the Cancer Council of Tasmania and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia and the NHMRC (199600). G.C.T. and P.W. are supported by the NHMRC. LAABC is supported by grants (1RB-0287, 3PB-0102, 5PB-0018 and 10PB-0098) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program. Incident breast cancer cases were collected by the USC Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) which is supported under subcontract by the California Department of Health. The CSP is also part of the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, under contract number N01CN25403. LMBC is supported by the ‘Stichting tegen Kanker’ (232-2008 and 196-2010). The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. (70-2892-BR I), the Federal Ministry of Education Research (BMBF) Germany (01KH0402), the Hamburg Cancer Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). MBCSG is supported by grants from the Italian Association ciation for Cancer Research (AIRC) and by funds from the Italian citizens who allocated a 5/1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5 × 1000’). The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants (CA122340, CA128978) and a Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057, 251553 and 504711 and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. The MEC was supported by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758 and CA132839. The work of MTLGEBCS was supported by the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CRN-87521) and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (grant PSR-SIIRI-701). MYBRCA is funded by research grants from the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation (CARIF). Additional controls were recruited by the Singapore Eye Research Institute, which was supported by a grant from the Biomedical Research Council (BMRC08/1/35/19,tel:08/1/35/19./550), Singapore and the National medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/CG/SERI/2010). The NBCS was supported by grants from the Norwegian Research council (155218/V40, 175240/S10 to A.L.B.D., FUGE-NFR 181600/ V11 to V.N.K. and a Swizz Bridge Award to A.L.B.D.). The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The OBCS was supported by research grants from the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the Academy of Finland, the University of Oulu, and the Oulu University Hospital. The ORIGO study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (RUL 1997-1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NLCP16). The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. pKARMA is a combination of the KARMA and LIBRO-1 studies. KARMA was supported by Ma¨rit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. KARMA and LIBRO-1 were supported the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linnaeus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). SASBAC was supported by funding from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A∗STAR), the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation KC was financed by the Swedish Cancer Society (5128-B07-01PAF). The SBCGS was supported primarily by NIH grants R01CA64277, R01CA148667, and R37CA70867. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The SBCS was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research S305PA, S299 and S295. Funding for the SCCS was provided by NIH grant R01 CA092447. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SEARCH is funded by a programme grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The SEBCS was supported by the BRL (Basic Research Laboratory) program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012-0000347). SGBCC is funded by the National Medical Research Council Start-up Grant and Centre Grant (NMRC/CG/NCIS /2010). The recruitment of controls by the Singapore Consortium of Cohort Studies-Multi-ethnic cohort (SCCS-MEC) was funded by the Biomedical Research Council (grant number: 05/1/21/19/425). SKKDKFZS is supported by the DKFZ. The SZBCS was supported by Grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. K. J. is a fellow of International PhD program, Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine, Warsaw Medical University, supported by the Polish Foundation of Science. The TNBCC was supported by the NIH grant (CA128978), the Breast Cancer Research Foundation , Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Stefanie Spielman Fund for Breast Cancer Research and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. Part of the TNBCC (DEMOKRITOS) has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek National Funds through the Operational Program ‘Education and Life-long Learning’ of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: ARISTEIA. The TWBCS is supported by the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica and the National Science Council, Taiwan. The UKBGS is funded by Breakthrough Breast Cancer and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by the Wellcome Trust.This is the advanced access published version distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0, which can also be viewed on the publisher's webstie at: http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/04/hmg.ddu311.full.pdf+htm

Different physical treatment modalities for lymphoedema developing after axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer: A review

The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic review of Combined Physical Therapy, Intermittent Pneumatic Compression and arm elevation for the treatment of lymphoedema secondary to an axillary dissection for breast cancer. Combined Physical Therapy starts with an intensive phase consisting of skin care, Manual Lymphatic Drainage, exercises and bandaging and continues with a maintenance phase consisting of skin care, exercises, wearing a compression sleeve and Manual Lymphatic Drainage if needed. We have searched the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and Cochrane. Only (pseudo-) randomised controlled trials and non-randomised experimental trials investigating the effectiveness of Combined Physical Therapy and its different parts, of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression and of arm elevation were included. These physical treatments had to be applied to patients with arm lymphoedema which developed after axillary dissection for breast cancer. Ten randomised controlled trials, one pseudo-randomised controlled trial and four non-randomised experimental trials were found and analysed. Combined Physical Therapy can be considered as an effective treatment modality for lymphoedema. Bandaging the arm is effective, whether its effectiveness is investigated on a heterogeneous group consisting of patients with upper and lower limb lymphoedema from different causes. There is no consensus on the effectiveness of Manual Lymphatic Drainage. The effectiveness of skin care, exercises, wearing a compression sleeve and arm elevation is not investigated by a controlled trial. Intermittent Pneumatic Compression is effective, but once the treatment is interrupted, the lymphoedema volume increases. In conclusion, Combined Physical Therapy is an effective therapy for lymphoedema. However, the effectiveness of its different components remains uncertain. Furthermore, high-quality studies are warranted. The long-term effect of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression and the effect of elevation on lymphoedema are not yet proven.status: publishe