PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gaëtan MacGrogan

Publications and source records attributed to Gaëtan MacGrogan.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

When will more useful predictive factors be ready for use?

Adjuvant chemotherapy is widely used, but its performance is not optimal. Two subgroups of patients do not get any benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy: the first one comprises patients who are already cured by locoregional treatment alone and the second one patients who do not profit from adjuvant chemotherapy because of resistance to the regimens employed. To improve the cost/benefit of this treatment strategy, we have two means: one is to improve the sensitivity of prognostic factors to be able to select a specific group with a good signature that does not need adjuvant treatment; the second is to identify predictive factors that may help us to select the optimal therapeutic strategy or the optimal regimen or drug for individual patients. New technologies of microarray revealed several genetic profiles. A large randomized trial (Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy, MINDACT) will compare the information obtained with the genomic profiling and the classical clinico-pathologic index (St Gallen); the objective is to allow women not to be treated with adjuvant chemotherapy if their genomic signature is good. Another trial (EORTC 10994) is conducted in order to show that in cases of p53 mutated tumors, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel is more efficient than an anthracycline-containing regimen. A supplementary study will evaluate gene profile predicting for p53 status. So, new genomic prognostic factors are still in development and seem very promising for optimizing the indications for adjuvant chemotherapy.

Breast Neoplasms↗

[Strategies for management of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Point of view of the Institut Bergonié. ].

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer has changed pathology management of axillary lymph nodes by pathologists, but there is still no consensus either for serial sectioning nor for immunohistochemistry. We analyze: 1) data in the literature about the prognostic significance of micrometastases (pNlmi) and immunohistochemically detected infiltrating tumor cells (pN0(i+) in axillary lymph nodes. 2) management strategies at the Bergonié Institute and by other teams for axillary lymph nodes and sentinel lymph nodes. 3) questions and controversies on sentinel lymph node management and recommendations of the five main reference groups.

Academies and Institutes↗

Breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: a definition supported by a long-term study of 1248 serially sectioned ductal carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: The significance of microinvasion is still debated and clinical management is controversial. The authors defined ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCIS-MI) as DCIS with infiltration of the periductal stroma by a few tumor cells, singly (type 1) or in clusters (type 2). With this definition, the authors attempted to evaluate the clinical significance of microinvasion. METHODS: The authors compared the clinical, pathologic features, and survival (median follow-up, 7.3 years) of 1248 patients with, respectively, DCIS (722 patients), DCIS-MI with microinvasion type 1 and type 2 (243 patients), and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ with a predominant DCIS component greater than or equal to 80% of the tumor (IDC-DCIS, 283 patients). RESULTS: Microinvasion was associated with DCIS histologic type, grade, and extent (respectively, P < 10(-8), P < 10(-3), P < 10(-4)). Axillary lymph node metastases were observed in a few patients with DCIS and DCIS-MI type 1 (respectively, 1.4% and none), in 10.1% with DCIS-MI type 2 and in 27.6% with IDC-DCIS. Metastasis free and overall survival probabilities were significantly different between three groups in the following order from best to worst prognosis: 1) the group comprising DCIS and DCIS-MI type 1, 2) the DCIS-MI type 2 group, and 3) the IDC-DCIS group. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results suggest there are two types of DCIS-MI: 1) type 1 that behaves like DCIS and should be managed as such; 2) type 2 that is less pejorative than IDC-DCIS but is more so than type 1.

Adult↗