Search

Purpose: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a breast carcinoma subtype that neither expresses estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR) nor the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Patients with TNBC have been shown to have poorer outcomes mainly owing to the limited treatment options available. However, some studies have shown TNBC tumors expressing androgen receptors (AR), raising hopes of its prognostic role. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study investigated the expression of AR in TNBC and its relationship with known patient demographics, tumor and survival characteristics. From the records of 205 TNBC patients, 36 had available archived tissue samples eligible for AR staining. For statistical purposes, tumors were classified as either "positive" or "negative" for AR expression. The nuclear expression of AR was scored by measuring the percentage of stained tumor cells and its staining intensity. Results: AR was expressed by 50% of the tissue samples in our TNBC cohort. The relationship between AR status with age at the time of TNBC diagnosis was statistically significant, with all AR positive TNBC patients being greater than 50 years old (vs 72.2% in AR negative TNBC). Also, the relationship between AR status and type of surgery received was statistically significant. There were no statistically significant associations between AR status with other tumor characteristics including "TNM status", tumor grade or treatments received. There was no statistically significant difference in median survival between AR negative and AR positive TNBC patients (3.5 vs 3.1 years; p = 0.581). The relationship between OS time and AR status (p = 0.581), type of surgery (p = 0.061) and treatments (p = 0.917) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The androgen receptor may be an important prognostic marker in TNBC, with further research warranted. This research may benefit future studies investigating receptor-targeted therapies in TNBC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for approximately 15% of breast cancer cases and is associated with a poor prognosis. In this retrospective study of patients undergoing radiation therapy as part of their treatment, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of TNBC patients were examined in relation to clinical and treatment-related factors. Patients and Methods: The electronic records of 214 consecutive TNBC patients treated with surgery followed by radiotherapy at the Mid North Coast Cancer Institute between 2006 and 2016 were reviewed. Overall survival and DFS times were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method; multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression modelling was used to assess the significance of prognostic factors. Results: The majority of tumors were T1 (51.9%), followed by T2 (39.2%) and T3 (6.1%). For the whole group, mean DFS was 106.4 (SD 48.7) months; OS 109.4 (SD 52.1) months. Radiotherapy technique, fractionation protocol and laterality were not significant factors for DFS or OS (p> 0.05). However, compared to breast conservation, mastectomy was associated with poorer DFS (mean 114.2 vs 65.2 months; p< 0.0001) and poorer OS (mean 115.5 vs 80.5 months; p=0.0015). The mastectomy group had fewer patients with tumor size T1 (p=0.001) and higher proportions of T3 (p=0.001) and T4 (p=0.02). On multivariate analysis, tumor size T3/T4 and nodal status N2/N3 were significant factors for reduced DFS (p=0.023 and p=0.0003 respectively). Tumor size T3/T4 was the only significant prognostic factor for reduced OS (p=0.019). Conclusion: Advanced disease exhibited by tumor size > 5cm and positive nodal status is associated with poorer DFS in TNBC patients. Radiotherapy technique or fractionation protocol were not associated with differences in DFS or OS in our patient cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. However, there is little evidence specifically evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving ADT, particularly for EBRT doses >74 Gy. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT >74 Gy improves outcomes for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving long-term ADT. Patients and methods: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer were treated on an institutional protocol prescribing 3-6 months neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, followed by 2 years of adjuvant ADT. Between 2006 and 2012, EBRT doses were escalated from 74 Gy to 76 Gy and then to 78 Gy. We interrogated our electronic medical record to identify these patients and analyzed our results by comparing dose levels. Results: In all, 479 patients were treated with a 68-month median follow-up. The 5-year biochemical disease-free survivals for the 74 Gy, 76 Gy, and 78 Gy groups were 87.8%, 86.9%, and 91.6%, respectively. The metastasis-free survivals were 95.5%, 94.5%, and 93.9%, respectively, and the prostate cancer-specific survivals were 100%, 94.4%, and 98.1%, respectively. Dose escalation had no impact on any outcome in either univariate or multivariate analysis. Conclusion: There was no benefit of DE-EBRT .74 Gy in our cohort of high-risk prostate patients treated with long-term ADT. As dose escalation has higher risks of radiotherapy-induced toxicity, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation beyond 74 Gy in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose escalation for high-risk patients receiving ADT should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve the outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, there are only few reports evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with intermediaterisk prostate cancer receiving neoadjuvant ADT, and virtually no studies investigating dose escalation >74 Gy in this setting. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT >74 Gy improved the outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who received neoadjuvant ADT. Findings: In our institution, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, with doses sequentially increasing from 74 Gy to 76 Gy and then to 78 Gy between 2006 and 2012. We identified 435 patients treated with DE-EBRT and ADT, with a median follow-up of 70 months. For the 74 Gy, 76 Gy, and 78 Gy groups, five-year biochemical disease-free survival rates were 95.0%, 97.8%, and 95.3%, respectively; metastasis-free survival rates were 99.1%, 100.0%, and 98.6%, respectively; and prostate cancerspecific survival rate was 100% for all three dose levels. There was no significant benefit for dose escalation either on univariate or multivariate analysis for any outcome. Conclusion: There was no benefit for DE-EBRT >74 Gy in our cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant ADT. Given the higher risks of toxicity associated with dose escalation, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose de-escalation should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Dose-escalated (DE) radiotherapy in the setting of localized prostate cancer has been shown to improve biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in several studies. In the same group of patients, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been shown to confer a survival benefit when combined with radiotherapy doses of up to 70 Gy; however, there is currently little long-term data on patients who have received high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with ADT. We report the long-term outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated with the combination of DE image-guided IMRT (IG-IMRT) and ADT. Methods and materials: Patients with localized prostate cancer were identified from a centralized database across an integrated cancer center. All patients received DE IG-IMRT, combined with ADT, and had a minimum follow up of 12 months post-radiotherapy. All relapse and toxicity data were collected prospectively. Actuarial bDFS, metastasis-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and multivariate analyses were calculated using the SPSS v20.0 statistical package. Results: Seven hundred and eighty-two eligible patients were identified with a median follow up of 46 months. Overall, 4.3% of patients relapsed, 2.0% developed distant metastases, and 0.6% died from metastatic prostate cancer. At 5-years, bDFS was 88%, metastasis-free survival was 95%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%. Five-year grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was 2.1% and 3.4%, respectively. No grade 3 or 4 late toxicities were reported. Pretreatment prostate specific antigen (P=0.001) and Gleason score (P=0.03) were significant in predicting biochemical failure on multivariate analysis. Conclusion: There is a high probability of tumor control with DE IG-IMRT combined with androgen deprivation, and this is a technique with a low probability of significant late toxicity. Our long term results corroborate the safety and efficacy of treating with IG-IMRT to high doses and compares favorably with published series for the treatment of prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]