Search

Background: Prognostication has been used to identify patient populations that could potentially benefit from treatment de-escalation. In patients with hormone receptor-positive (HRpos), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2neg) early breast cancer (eBC), treatment de-escalation classically involved omitting chemotherapy. With recently developed specialized therapies that require hands-on side-effect management, the therapeutic landscape is changing and therapy decisions are no longer based only on prognosis, but also consider potential side-effects. Therefore, identification of patient groups based on prognostication has gained importance., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective analysis, a population of 2359 node-negative HRpos/HER2neg eBC patients was selected from all patients treated at the University Breast Center of Franconia, Germany between 2002 and 2021. The prognostic value of the IHC3 score (incorporating immunohistochemical measurements of the estrogen and progesterone receptor status and Ki-67) with clinical parameters (lymph node status, tumor stage, grading) regarding invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed., Results: IHC3 positively correlated with Ki-67 expression and inversely correlated with hormone receptor expression. IHC3 categorized into quartiles identified patients with a more unfavorable prognosis: 5-year and 10-year iDFS rates for patients in the highest versus the lowest quartile were 84% versus 95% and 70% versus 88%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis of distant disease-free survival showed similar results to those of iDFS. Five-year and 10-year OS rates for patients in the highest versus the lowest quartile were, respectively, 92% versus 97% and 81% versus 92%., Conclusions: IHC3 is able to define prognostic groups in patients with node-negative, HRpos/HER2neg eBC. Node-negative patients with a high IHC3 score had the worst prognosis, which was comparable to that of node-positive patients described in recent trials. This simple and cost-effective tool could thus potentially aid in identifying patient groups for innovative therapeutic approaches., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Mammographic density (MD) is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer (BC). However, the influence of MD on the BC prognosis is unclear. The objective of this study was therefore to investigate whether percentage MD (PMD) is associated with a difference in disease-free or overall survival in primary BC patients., Methods: A total of 2525 patients with primary, metastasis-free BC were followed up retrospectively for this analysis. For all patients, PMD was evaluated by two readers using a semi-automated method. The association between PMD and prognosis was evaluated using Cox regression models with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) as the outcome, and the following adjustments: age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, body mass index, tumor stage, grading, lymph node status, hormone receptor and HER2 status., Results: After median observation periods of 9.5 and 10.0 years, no influence of PMD on DFS (p = 0.46, likelihood ratio test (LRT)) or OS (p = 0.22, LRT), respectively, was found. In the initial unadjusted analysis higher PMD was associated with longer DFS and OS. The effect of PMD on DFS and OS disappeared after adjustment for age and was caused by the underlying age effect., Conclusions: Although MD is one of the strongest independent risk factors for BC, in our collective PMD is not associated with disease-free and overall survival in patients with BC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Peter A. Fasching reports research grants from Novartis and BioNTech and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, TEVA, AstraZeneca, Puma, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Myelo Therapeutics. Carolin C. Hack reports personal fees from Roche and Novartis. Julius Emons reports personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer and Eisai. Arndt Hartmann has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie, Jansen-Cilag, Diaceutics, Cepheid, Lilly, Agilent, and Ipsen. Ramona Erber has received honoraria from Roche, Eisai, Pfizer, and Novartis and travel grants from BioNTech. The institution of Arndt Hartmann and Ramona Erber conducts research for AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen-Cilag, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, Cepheid, and BioNTech. All the other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with breast cancer (BC) show strong interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), particularly for adverse effects of adjuvant endocrine treatment - e.g., with letrozole. Letrozole often induces myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, with potential noncompliance and treatment termination. This analysis investigated whether CAM before aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy is associated with pain development and the intensity of AI-induced musculoskeletal syndrome (AIMSS) during the first year of treatment., Patients and Methods: The multicenter phase IV PreFace study evaluated letrozole therapy in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive patients with early BC. Patients were asked about CAM use before, 6 months after, and 12 months after treatment started. They recorded pain every month for 1 year in a diary including questions about pain and numeric pain rating scales. Data were analyzed for patients who provided pain information for all time points., Results: Of 1396 patients included, 901 (64.5%) had used CAM before AI treatment. Throughout the observation period, patients with CAM before AI treatment had higher pain values, for both myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, than non-users. Pain increased significantly in both groups over time, with the largest increase during the first 6 months. No significant difference of pain increase was noted regarding CAM use., Conclusions: CAM use does not prevent or improve the development of AIMSS. Pain intensity was generally greater in the CAM group. Therefore, because of the risk of non-compliance and treatment discontinuation due to the development of higher pain levels, special attention must be paid to patient education and aftercare in these patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest S·Y.B. has received honoraria from Pfizer and Novartis. W.J. has received honoraria and research grants from Novartis. A.D.H. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, and Pfizer. R.W. has received honoraria and research funds from Novartis. S.K. has received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Amgen, and AstraZeneca and funding support from Roche. C.T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. M.P.L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, medac, and Eisai. P.G. has received honoraria from Novartis and financial support for symposia from Novartis, Roche, and PharmaMar. H.-C.K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Roche, and Genomic Health. D.S.-B. has received honoraria from Novartis. M.W.B.‘s institution has received research grants from Novartis. T.F. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Amgen. P.A.F. has received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Celgene. His institution conducts research for Novartis. N.N. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Novartis and Teva. All of the remaining authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)