Search

Background: Knowledge is growing on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in cancer survivors. No data exist, however, for the specific population of breast cancer patients harboring germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants., Patients and Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study across 30 centers worldwide including women diagnosed at ≤40 years with stage I-III breast cancer, between January 2000 and December 2012, harboring known germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Patients included in this analysis had a post-treatment pregnancy either achieved through use of ART (ART group) or naturally (non-ART group). ART procedures included ovulation induction, ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer under hormonal replacement therapy., Results: Among the 1424 patients registered in the study, 168 were eligible for inclusion in the present analysis, of whom 22 were in the ART group and 146 in the non-ART group. Survivors in the ART group conceived at an older age compared with those in the non-ART group (median age: 39.7 versus 35.4 years, respectively). Women in the ART group experienced more delivery complications compared with those in the non-ART group (22.1% versus 4.1%, respectively). No other apparent differences in obstetrical outcomes were observed between cohorts. The median follow-up from pregnancy was 3.4 years (range: 0.8-8.6 years) in the ART group and 5.0 years (range: 0.8-17.6 years) in the non-ART group. Two patients (9.1%) in the ART group experienced a disease-free survival event (specifically, a locoregional recurrence) compared with 40 patients (27.4%) in the non-ART group. In the ART group, no patients deceased compared with 10 patients (6.9%) in the non-ART group., Conclusion: This study provides encouraging safety data on the use of ART in breast cancer survivors harboring germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2, when natural conception fails or when they opt for ART in order to carry out preimplantation genetic testing., Competing Interests: Disclosure EdA has acted as a scientific advisory board member and has received honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Zodiacs, Libbs, Pierre Fabre, and Lilly; has received travel grants from Roche/GNE and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)/Novartis; and has received research grants through his institution from Roche/GNE, AstraZeneca, GSK/Novartis, and Servier, outside the submitted work. FAP has acted as consultant for Ipsen, Roche Diagnostic, and Merck outside the submitted work. CRJ has acted as a scientific advisory board member and her institution has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Theramex, and Roche; and her institution has received speaker's fees from Theramex and BMS, outside the submitted work. AS has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche; has received speaker's fees from Teva, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; has received travel grants from Neopharm, Celgene, and Medison; and has received grant support from Novartis and Roche, outside the submitted work. CVG has acted as a consultant, as a scientific advisory board member, and has received speaker's fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD); and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. OCC has acted as a scientific advisory board member for Ascires Sistemas Genómicos; and has received grant support from Roche Diagnostics, Neomedic, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. KP has acted as a scientific advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Teva, and Vifor Pharma; has acted as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; has received speaker's fees from Eli Lilly, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; has received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and Roche, outside the submitted work. FP has acted as a scientific advisory board member and has received speaker's fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Takeda; has received travel grants from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Roche, outside the submitted work. ARF has received honoraria from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Roche; and has received travel grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. JB has acted as consultant for AstraZeneca and Pfizer outside the submitted work. ID has acted as a scientific advisory board member and received grant from Roche; has received speaker's fees from Novartis; and has received travel grants from Theramex and Ferring, outside the submitted work. ML has acted as a consultant for Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, and Novartis; and has received honoraria from Sandoz, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Young women with germline BRCA mutations have unique reproductive challenges. Pregnancy after breast cancer does not increase the risk of recurrence; however, very limited data are available in patients with BRCA mutations. This study investigated the impact of pregnancy on breast cancer outcomes in patients with germline BRCA mutations., Patients and Methods: This is an international, multicenter, hospital-based, retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients were diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2012 with invasive early breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years and harbored deleterious germline BRCA mutations. Primary end points were pregnancy rate, and disease-free survival (DFS) between patients with and without a pregnancy after breast cancer. Pregnancy outcomes and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. Survival analyses were adjusted for guarantee-time bias controlling for known prognostic factors., Results: Of 1,252 patients with germline BRCA mutations ( BRCA1 , 811 patients; BRCA2 , 430 patients; BRCA1/2 , 11 patients) included, 195 had at least 1 pregnancy after breast cancer (pregnancy rate at 10 years, 19%; 95% CI, 17% to 22%). Induced abortions and miscarriages occurred in 16 (8.2%) and 20 (10.3%) patients, respectively. Among the 150 patients who gave birth (76.9%; 170 babies), pregnancy complications and congenital anomalies occurred in 13 (11.6%) and 2 (1.8%) cases, respectively. Median follow-up from breast cancer diagnosis was 8.3 years. No differences in DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.23; P = .41) or OS (adjusted HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.56; P = .66) were observed between the pregnancy and nonpregnancy cohorts., Conclusion: Pregnancy after breast cancer in patients with germline BRCA mutations is safe without apparent worsening of maternal prognosis and is associated with favorable fetal outcomes. These results provide reassurance to patients with BRCA -mutated breast cancer interested in future fertility.

Background: Recent studies have indicated the prognostic value of tumour subtype and pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). However these results were reported after a short follow-up and using a standard Cox model which could be unsatisfactory for time-dependent factors. In the present study, we identified the prognostic factors for long-term outcome after NAC, considering that they could have an inconstant impact over time., Methods: Prognostic factors from 956 consecutive breast cancer patients treated with NAC were identified and associated with long-term outcomes. We estimated survival by a time function multivariate Cox model regression and stratified by follow-up length., Results: The prognostic value of tumour histological grade and hormone receptors status varied as distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) increased. The multivariate analysis identified the following significant prognostic factors: tumour size, N stage, clinical and pathological response to NAC, hormone receptors (HR) status and histological tumour grade. The 'prognostic benefit' of low-grade and positive-HR status decreased over the years. Thus, in the early years after cancer diagnosis, the hazard ratio of distant recurrences in patients with positive-HR status increased from 0.26 (95% CI 0.1-0.4) at 6 months to 2.2 (95% CI 1.3-3.7) at 120 months. The histological tumour grade followed a similar trend. The hazard ratio of grade III patients compared with grade I was 1.83 (95% CI 1.1-2.8) at 36 months and diminished over time to 0.70 (95% CI 0.4-1.3) at 120 months. This indicates that the risk of recurrence for positive-HR patients was 74% lower at 6 months compared with the negative-hormone receptor group, but 30% higher at 5 years and more than double at 10 years. High-grade tumours presented a risk of 83% in the earlier years decreasing to 30% at 10 years versus the low-grade group., Conclusion: From the present study, we conclude the importance of identifying time-dependent prognostic factors. Distant recurrence-free interval within women who receive NAC are influenced by achieving pCR and breast cancer subtype. Tumours with more aggressive biology have poorer survival during the first 5 years, but if they exceed this point their prognostic impact is no longer significant. Conversely, positive-HR patients remain at risk for distant recurrence for many years.

Introduction: To decipher the interaction between the molecular subtype classification and the probability of a non-sentinel node metastasis in breast cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel lymph-node, we applied two validated predictors (Tenon Score and MSKCC Nomogram) on two large independent datasets., Materials and Methods: Our datasets consisted of 656 and 574 early-stage breast cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel lymph-node biopsy treated at first by surgery. We applied both predictors on the whole dataset and on each molecular immune-phenotype subgroups. The performances of the two predictors were analyzed in terms of discrimination and calibration. Probability of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis was detailed for each molecular subtype., Results: Similar results were obtained with both predictors. We showed that the performance in terms of discrimination was as expected in ER Positive HER2 negative subgroup in both datasets (MSKCC AUC Dataset 1 = 0.73 [0.69-0.78], MSKCC AUC Dataset 2 = 0.71 (0.65-0.76), Tenon Score AUC Dataset 1 = 0.7 (0.65-0.75), Tenon Score AUC Dataset 2 = 0.72 (0.66-0.76)). Probability of non-sentinel node metastatic involvement was slightly under-estimated. Contradictory results were obtained in other subgroups (ER negative HER2 negative, HER2 positive subgroups) in both datasets probably due to a small sample size issue. We showed that merging the two datasets shifted the performance close to the ER positive HER2 negative subgroup., Discussion: We showed that validated predictors like the Tenon Score or the MSKCC nomogram built on heterogeneous population of breast cancer performed equally on the different subgroups analyzed. Our present study re-enforce the idea that performing subgroup analysis of such predictors within less than 200 samples subgroup is at major risk of misleading conclusions.

Background: Adjuvant! Online is a web-based application designed to provide 10 years survival probability of patients with breast cancer. Several predictors have not been assessed in the original Adjuvant! Online study. We provide the validation of Adjuvant! Online algorithm on two breast cancer datasets, and we determined whether the accuracy of Adjuvant! Online is improved with other well-known prognostic factors., Patients and Methods: The French data set is composed of 456 women with early breast cancer. The Dutch data set is composed of 295 women less than 52 years of age. Agreement between observation and Adjuvant! Online prediction was checked, and logistic models were performed to estimate the prognostic information added by risk factors to Adjuvant! Online prediction., Results: Adjuvant! Online prediction was overall well-calibrated in the French data set but failed in some subgroups of such high grade and HER2 positive patients. HER2 status, Mitotic Index and Ki67 added significant information to Adjuvant! Online prediction. In the Dutch data set, the overall 10-year survival was overestimated by Adjuvant! Online, particularly in patients less than 40 years old., Conclusion: Adjuvant! Online needs to be updated to adjust overoptimistic results in young and high grade patients, and should consider new predictors such as Ki67, HER2 and Mitotic Index.