Background: Oncoplastic surgery is a well-established approach that combines breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer and plastic surgery techniques. Although this approach already has been described for multicentric and multifocal tumors, no long-term oncologic follow-up evaluation and no comparison with patients undergoing mastectomy have been published. This study aimed to evaluate whether oncoplastic surgery is a safe and reliable treatment for managing invasive primary multicentric and multifocal breast cancer. Methods: The study compared a consecutive series of 100 patients with multicentric or multifocal tumors who had undergone oncoplastic surgery (study group) with 100 patients who had multicentric or multifocal tumors and had undergone mastectomy (control group) during a prolonged period. The end points evaluated were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), cumulative incidence of local recurrence (CI-L), regional recurrence (CI-R), and distant recurrence (CI-D), all measured from the date of surgery. Results: The OS and DFS were similar between the two groups. The incidence of local events was higher in the oncoplastic group, whereas the incidence of regional events was slightly higher in the mastectomy group. These differences were not statistically significant. The cumulative incidence of distant events was similar between the two groups. Conclusions: To the authors’ knowledge, the current study provides the best available evidence suggesting that the oncoplastic approach is a safe and reliable treatment for managing invasive multifocal and multicentric breast cancers.

Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer (HDGC) is a complex inherited syndrome caused by CDH1 germline mutations. DGC is the hallmark cancer of this genetic predisposition, but several other cancers are associated with these CDH1 mutations. In this review, we revised all studies reporting CDH1 mutations in non-GC patients. The selected studies included: (a) families aggregating with GC and other cancers, both, and (b) families presenting only non-gastric tumors association. Among non-gastric tumors, our results show that CDH1 mutations are most frequently identified in breast cancer. The frequency of missense mutations is higher in the non-GC group, as the age at diagnosis in this group. Moreover, the predominant CDH1 mutation affects the extracellular domain. Our data suggest that CDH1 genetic testing should be considered also in other cancers, especially breast tumors.

Background and Objectives: The Albumin-to-Alkaline Phosphatase ratio (AAPR) is an easily applicable and cost-effective marker investigated as an outcome predictor in solid cancers. Preliminary evidence in breast cancer suggests that a low AAPR correlates with a poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in primary tumors. However, data regarding the axillary response are lacking. This study aims to evaluate whether the AAPR can predict the axillary response in initially nodal-positive (cN+) breast cancer patients undergoing NAC. Materials and Methods: Clinical and biochemical variables of cN+ breast cancer patients undergoing NAC were collected. Pre-NAC albumin and alkaline phosphatase serum values were utilized in the AAPR calculation. Fisher’s exact test was performed to identify differences between the two groups of patients (high and low AAPR according to the cut-off reported in the literature). The primary outcome was the nodal pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in the two groups of patients. Results: Nodal pCR was achieved in 20/45 (44.4%) patients. A total of 36/45 (80%) patients had an AAPR > 0.583. Among patient and tumor characteristics, the only statistically significant difference between the two groups was the axillary pCR between the low and high AAPR groups (p-value = 0.03, OR = 0.129, 95% CI = 0.00–0.835). Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that the pre-treatment AAPR might be an early predictor of axillary response in cN+ breast cancer patients undergoing NAC. This result justifies further investigation in larger prospective trials to validate this finding.