Search

Introduction: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disrupted health services worldwide. The evidence on the impact of the pandemic on cancer care provision, however, is conflicting. We aimed to audit the management of patients diagnosed with early breast cancer (EBC) during the pandemic in a large, tertiary-level cancer center in Italy., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to track the route to first treatment for patients diagnosed with EBC during 2019, 2020, and 2021. We abstracted data for all consecutive patients referred to the Veneto Institute of Oncology (Padua, Italy). We defined as point of contact (POC) the date of the first consultation with a breast cancer specialist of the breast unit. First treatment was defined as either upfront surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)., Results: We reviewed medical records for 878 patients for whom an MDT report during 2019-2021 (April through June) was available. Of these, 431 (49%) were eligible. The proportion of screen-detected tumors was larger in 2019 and 2021 than in 2020 (59%). Conversely, the proportion of screen-detected tumors was offset by the proportion of palpable tumors in 2020 (P = .004). Distribution of tumor and nodal stage was unchanged over time, but in situ tumors were slightly fewer in 2020 than in 2019 or 2021. The adjusted odds ratio for treatment delay (45 days or more) was 0.87 for 2020 versus 2019 (95% CI, 0.5-1.53) and 0.9 for 2021 versus 2019 (95% CI, 0.52-1.55)., Conclusions: There was no evidence for major changes in the management of patients with EBC during 2019-2021 and no treatment delays were observed. Our findings suggest that more women presented with palpable nodules at diagnosis, but the stage distribution did not change over time. Validation on a larger cohort of patients is warranted to robustly assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on treatment practices for patients with EBC., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: We aim to evaluate the prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte on residual disease (RD-TIL) in HER2+ patients with breast cancer who failed to achieve pathologic complete response (pCR) after anti-HER2+ chemotherapy (CT)-based neoadjuvant treatment (NAT). We assessed the feasibility of combining the prognostic information provided by residual cancer burden (RCB) and RD-TILs into a composite score (RCB+TIL)., Experimental Design: HER2+ patients with breast cancer treated with CT+anti-HER2-based NAT at three institutions were retrospectively included. RCB and TIL levels were evaluated on hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from surgical samples according to available recommendations. Overall survival (OS) was used as an outcome measure., Results: A total of 295 patients were included, of whom 195 had RD. RCB was significantly associated with OS. Higher RD-TILs were significantly associated with poorer OS as compared with lower RD-TILs (15% cutoff). In multivariate analysis, both RCB and RD-TIL maintained their independent prognostic value. A combined score, RCB+TIL, was calculated from the estimated coefficient of RD-TILs and the RCB index in a bivariate logistic model for OS. The RCB+TIL score was significantly associated with OS. The C-index for OS of the RCB+TIL score was numerically higher than that of RCB and significantly higher than that of RD-TILs., Conclusions: We have reported an independent prognostic impact of RD-TILs after anti-HER2+CT NAT, which might underlie an imbalance of the RD microenvironment towards immunosuppressive features. We provided a new composite prognostic score based on RCB+TIL, which was significantly associated with OS and proved to be more informative than the isolated evaluation of RCB and RD-TILs., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Brain metastases (BM) are common among HER2+ breast cancer (BC) and prognostic stratification is crucial for optimal management. BC-GPA score and subsequent refinements (modified-GPA, updated-GPA) recapitulate prognostic factors. Since none of these indexes includes extracranial disease control, we evaluated its prognostic value in HER2+ BCBM., Methods: Patients diagnosed with HER2+ BCBM at Istituto Oncologico Veneto-Padova (2002-2021) and Montpellier Cancer Institute (2001-2015) were included as exploratory and validation cohorts, respectively. Extracranial disease control at BM diagnosis (no disease/stable disease/response vs. progressive disease) was evaluated., Results: In the exploratory cohort of 113 patients (median OS 12.2 months), extracranial control (n = 65, 57.5%) was significantly associated with better OS at univariate (median OS 17.7 vs. 8.7 months, p = 0.005) and multivariate analysis after adjustment for BC-GPA (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.94), modified-GPA (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.98) and updated-GPA (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.98). The prognostic impact of extracranial disease control (n = 66, 56.4%) was then confirmed in the validation cohort (n = 117) at univariate (median OS 20.2 vs. 9.1 months, p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis adjusting for BC-GPA (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.61), modified-GPA (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.67) and updated-GPA (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28-0.63)., Conclusions: Extracranial disease control provides independent prognostic information in HER2+ BCBM beyond commonly used prognostic scores., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Studies testing the addition of lapatinib to neoadjuvant trastuzumab + chemotherapy reported an increase in pathologic complete response (pCR), with, nevertheless, discordant results in terms of survival, mainly due to suboptimal power. We here leverage the meta-analytic approach to resolve these inconsistencies., Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized phase II/III studies testing lapatinib + trastuzumab in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)-positive early breast cancer (BC). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were adopted as survival endpoints. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) were obtained for the effect of lapatinib + trastuzumab versus trastuzumab, pCR versus no-pCR in the whole study populations and pCR versus no-pCR according to hormone receptor status., Results: Four phase II/III randomized trials were included in the meta-analysis (CALGB 40601, Cher-LOB, NSABP-B41, NeoALTTO) for an overall population of 1410 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy in association with either trastuzumab, lapatinib or their combination. RFS was significantly improved with dual HER2 blockade as compared to trastuzumab [HR 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.85]. Dual blockade also led to significantly improved OS (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.98). For all treatments combined, patients achieving pCR had better RFS and OS than those with residual disease (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.60, and HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22-0.48, for RFS and OS, respectively). In patients with hormone receptor-negative tumors, pCR was associated with 65% and 73% relative reduction of risk of relapse and death, respectively. Patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors also experienced improved RFS if they achieved pCR; however, the benefit was smaller than that in hormone receptor-negative disease., Conclusion: Findings from this meta-analysis further validate the role of pCR as a strong predictor of outcome in patients with HER2-positive BC, especially in hormone receptor-negative disease. Moreover, we provide robust evidence that dual blockade with lapatinib + trastuzumab in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy prolongs OS, suggesting that the role of lapatinib could be reconsidered in the early setting., Competing Interests: Disclosure VG reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, GSK and Gilead, all outside the submitted work. GG reports personal fees from Novartis and Eli Lilly all outside the submitted work. MVD reports personal fees from Lilly, Genomic Health, Novartis and Celgene, all outside the submitted work. PFC reports personal fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, BMS and Roche, all outside the submitted work.All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The Cher-LOB randomised phase II study showed that the combination of lapatinib-trastuzumab plus chemotherapy increases pathologic complete response (pCR) rate compared with chemotherapy plus either trastuzumab or lapatinib. Here, we report the post hoc survival analysis as per treatment arm, pCR and biomarkers., Methods: The Cher-LOB study randomised 121 patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, stage II-IIIA breast cancer. A specific protocol to collect recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data was designed. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and PAM50-intrinsic subtyping were evaluated at baseline., Results: At 9-year median follow-up, a trend towards RFS improvement with lapatinib-trastuzumab over trastuzumab was observed (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-1.05). Combining treatment arms, pCR was significantly associated with both RFS (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.49) and OS (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.49). TILs were significantly associated with RFS (HR = 0.978 for each 1% increment). Luminal-A subtype was a significant and independent predictor of improved RFS as compared with other PAM50-based intrinsic subtypes at the multivariate analysis including the most relevant clinicopathologic variables (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.94, p = 0.040)., Conclusions: Cher-LOB trial survival analysis confirmed the prognostic role of pCR and TILs and showed a signal for a better outcome with lapatinib-trastuzumab over trastuzumab., Trial Registration: NCT00429299., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement V.G. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly and MSD outside the submitted work. D.G.G. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Pierre Fabre, all outside the submitted work. A.F. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi and Seagen, all outside the submitted work. L.G. reports honoraria for lectures and ad boards from Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work, reports travel accommodation and expenses from Novartis and Daiichi Sankyo and is an uncompensated member of the Olympia steering committee. A.M. reports grants and personal fees from Roche and Eisai; personal fees from Lilly, MacroGenics and Novartis and grants from Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. S.C. reports personal fees from Lilly Oncology outside the submitted work. A.P. reports grants and personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), PUMA Biotechnology, Novartis and Nanostring Technologies, personal fees from Seattle Genetics, Lilly, Pfizer, Guardant Health, Oncolytics Biotech and Abbvie, all outside the submitted work, and a patent (WO2018/103834A1) licensed to Nanostring Technologies, a patent (WO/2018/096191) issued. M.V.D. reports personal fees from Lilly, Genomic Health, Novartis and Celgene, all outside the submitted work. P.F.C. reports personal fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, BMS and Roche, all outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives are proven noncarriers of a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation that is carried by their relatives. The risk of developing breast cancer (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in these women is uncertain. The study aimed to estimate risks of invasive BC and EOC in a large cohort of BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives., Methods: We used cohort analysis to estimate incidences, cumulative risks, and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs)., Results: A total of 1,895 unaffected women were eligible for inclusion in the BC risk analysis and 1,736 in the EOC risk analysis. There were 23 incident invasive BCs and 2 EOCs. The cumulative risk of invasive BC was 9.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-15%) by age 85 years and the corresponding risk of EOC was 0.6% (95% CI 0.2-2.6%). The SIR for invasive BC was 0.93 (95% CI 0.62-1.40) in the overall cohort, 0.85 (95% CI 0.48-1.50) in noncarriers from BRCA1 families, and 1.03 (95% CI 0.57-1.87) in noncarriers from BRCA2 families. The SIR for EOC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.20-3.17) in the overall cohort., Conclusion: Our results did not provide evidence for elevated risks of invasive BC or EOC in BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives.

Background and Aim: The TNM classification of malignant tumours is the most commonly used system to assess the stage as well as the prognosis of cancer. However, one of the biggest challenges in treatment of breast cancer is the understanding of tumour heterogeneity typical of these carcinomas. The aim of this study was to analyse the disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with luminal A subtype of breast cancer, stratified by TNM staging system., Methods and Study Design: A total of 363 medical records from January 2001 to May 2006 were evaluated for data collection. There were 136 patients with luminal A breast cancer, selected for the cohort. The main objective was the analysis of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with luminal A breast cancer, stratified according to the TNM classification., Results: The group of 136 patients with immunohistochemically defined luminal A subtype represented 53% of the 253 patients with breast cancer. There was no significant difference in the number and type of patients as for TNM stage and histological grading among patients treated with chemotherapy and HT in comparison to patients treated with HT alone., Conclusion: Our analysis did not prove any significant difference in survival of patients treated with chemotherapy followed by hormone therapy in comparison to patients treated with HT alone. We suggest that the IHC luminal A subtype of breast cancer generally warrants a good prognosis independently on other prognostic factors such as TNM stage. We conclude that patients might not benefit of adding a chemotherapy to hormonal therapy in adjuvant settings.