We determined the prognostic impact of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in a large, national, multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients with early breast cancer (BC) according to numerous factors. We collected data on 17 322 early BC patients treated in 13 French cancer centers from 1991 to 2013. Survival functions were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and multivariate survival analyses were carried out using the Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for significant variables associated with LVI or not. Two propensity score-based matching approaches were used to balance differences in known prognostic variables associated with LVI status and to assess the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in LVI-positive luminal A-like patients. LVI was present in 24.3% (4205) of patients. LVI was significantly and independently associated with all clinical and pathological characteristics analyzed in the entire population and according to endocrine receptor (ER) status except for the time period in binary logistic regression. According to multivariate analyses including ER status, AC, grade, and tumor subtypes, the presence of LVI was significantly associated with a negative prognostic impact on overall (OS), disease-free (DFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) in all patients [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.345, HR = 1.312, and HR = 1.415, respectively; P < 0.0001], which was also observed in the propensity score-based analysis in addition to the association of AC with a significant increase in both OS and DFS in LVI-positive luminal A-like patients. LVI did not have a significant impact in either patients with ER-positive grade 3 tumors or those with AC-treated luminal A-like tumors. The presence of LVI has an independent negative prognostic impact on OS, DFS, and MFS in early BC patients, except in ER-positive grade 3 tumors and in those with luminal A-like tumors treated with AC. Therefore, LVI may indicate the existence of a subset of luminal A-like patients who may still benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Half of HER2-negative breast cancers (BC) show HER2-low expression. The strong efficacy of recent anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) in HER2-low tumours has risen the interest of HER2-low as a proper BC subtype. Chemosensitivity and prognosis of this subtype are not clear when compared to HER2-0 tumours. We investigated the pathological complete response (pCR) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates in BC patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for HER2-low or HER2-0 tumours. Data were collected from the Institut Paoli-Calmettes database. HER2-low tumours were defined by HER2 IHC score of 1+ or 2+ with negative FISH, and HER2-0 by IHC score of 0. Clinicopathological characteristics, pCR (defined as [ypT0/ypTis] and [pN0sn or ypN0]) and DFS rates were compared between the two cohorts. From Jan/2005 to Jun/2021, 1111 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were evaluable. The incidence of HER2-low was 41%, including 63% of hormone receptor (HR)-positive and 37% of HR-negative tumours (p < 0.001). In the whole population, the pCR rate was lower in HER2-low (23%) versus HER2-0 (30%) tumours (p = 0.013), but this association was lost in multivariate analysis. In HR-positive patients, HER2-low negatively impacted pCR rates when compared to HER2-0 (10% vs. 16%, p = 0.046), but not in HR-negatives (46% vs. 42%), and this result was maintained in multivariate analysis. No correlation existed between DFS and HER2-status. HER2-low is associated with HR positivity. HER2 status did not impact pCR in HR-negative patients, whereas HER2-low was associated with lower pCR rate in HR-positive patients.

Few studies of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) were reported. We report feasibility of robotic NSM and determine standard surgical procedure and learning curve threefold. A cohort of patients with robotic NSM for breast cancer was analyzed. Complications and post-operative hospitalization stay were reported. The same technic was used for all patients except for skin and nipple areolar complex (NAC) dissection. Differences between three surgical procedures of NAC dissection were analyzed: group 1, dissection with robotic scissors using coagulation; group 2, dissection with robotic scissors without coagulation; and group 3, dissection with non-robotic scissors and then robotic dissection. We explored possible effect of learning curve among patients from group 1 with the same surgical procedure. Twenty-seven NSM with immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancers, 22 invasive and 5 in situ, were performed, with robotic latissimus dorsi-flap (RLDF) only in 17 cases, RLDF and breast implant in 6 cases, and implant alone in 4 cases. Repartition according to 3 surgical procedure groups was 16, 5, and 6 patients. Mean time of surgery and anesthesia decrease according to groups 1 to 3. Among 16 patients from group 1, time of surgery and anesthesia decreased with learning curve. Post-operative hospitalization decreased from group 1 to 3. We reported a total of 11 complications, with significant difference between groups (10 for group 1). Skin complications were higher for group 1 in comparison with groups 2–3 (p = 0.02). Robotic NSM can be performed with a brief learning. Standardized technique is proposed with non-robotic scissors superficial dissection and then dissection with robot.

A subgroup of T1N0M0 breast cancer (BC) carries a high potential of relapse, and thus may require adjuvant systemic therapy (AST). Retrospective analysis of all patients with T1 BC, who underwent surgery from January 1999 to December 2009 at 13 French sites. AST was not standardized. Among 8100 women operated, 5423 had T1 tumors (708 T1a, 2208 T1b and 2508 T1c 11–15 mm). T1a differed significantly from T1b tumors with respect to several parameters (lower age, more frequent negative hormonal status and positive HER2 status, less frequent lymphovascular invasion), exhibiting a mix of favorable and poor prognosis factors. Overall survival was not different between T1a, b or c tumors but recurrence-free survival was significantly higher in T1b than in T1a tumors (P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, tumor grade, hormone therapy and lymphovascular invasion were independent prognostic factors. Relatively poor outcome of patients with T1a tumors might be explained by a high frequency of risk factors in this subgroup (frequent negative hormone receptors and HER2 overexpression) and by a less frequent administration of AST (endocrine treatment and chemotherapy). Tumor size might not be the main determinant of prognosis in T1 BC.

To define the prognostic value of isolated tumor cells (ITC), micrometastases (pN1mi) and macrometastases in early stage breast cancer (ESBC). We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study at 13 French sites. All the eligible patients who underwent SLNB from January 1999 to December 2008 were identified, and appropriate data were extracted from medical records and analyzed. Among 8001 patients, including 70% node-negative (n = 5588), 4% ITC (n = 305), 10% pN1mi (n = 794) and 16% macrometastases (n = 1314) with a median follow-up of 61.3 months, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates at 84 months were not statistically different in ITC or pN1mi compared to tumor-free nodes. Axillary recurrence (AR) was significantly more frequent in ITC (1.7%) and pN1mi (1.5%) compared to negative nodes (0.6%). Survival and AR rates of single macrometastases were not different from those of ITC or pN1mi. In case of 2 macrometastases or more, survival rates decreased and recurrence rates increased significantly. Micrometastases and ITC do not have a negative prognostic value. Single macrometastases might have an intermediate prognostic value while 2 macrometastases or more are associated with poorer prognosis.

Background: Several studies reported the feasibility and safety of robotic-NSM (R-NSM). The aim of our prospective study was to compare R-NSM and conventional-NSM (C-NSM). Methods: We analyzed patients who were operated on with and without robotic assistance (R-NSM or C-NSM) and who received immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with implant or latissimus dorsi-flap (LDF). The main objective was complication rate and secondary aims were post-operative length of hospitalization (POLH), duration of surgery, and cost. Results: We analyzed 87 R-NSM and 142 C-NSM with implant-IBR in 50 and 135 patients, with LDF-IBR in 37 and 7 patients, respectively. Higher durations of surgery and costs were observed for R-NSM, without a difference in POLH and interval time to adjuvant therapy between R-NSM and C-NSM. In the multivariate analysis, R-NSM was not associated with a higher breast complication rate (OR=0.608) and significant factors were breast cup-size, LDF combined with implant-IBR, tobacco and inversed-T incision. Grade 2-3 breast complications rate were 13% for R-NSM and 17.3% for C-NSM, significantly higher for LDF combined with implant-IBR, areolar/radial incisions and BMI>=30. A predictive score was calculated (AUC=0.754). In logistic regression, patient’s satisfaction between C-NSM and R-NSM were not significantly different, with unfavorable results for BMI >=25 (OR=2.139), NSM for recurrence (OR=5.371) and primary breast cancer with radiotherapy (OR=4.533). A predictive score was calculated. In conclusion, our study confirms the comparable clinical outcome between C- NSM and R-NSM, in the price of longer surgery and higher cost for R-NSM. Predictive scores of breast complications and satisfaction were significantly associated with factors known in the pre-operative period.