Search

Purpose.—: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline., Methods.—: A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature., Recommendations.—: The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Breast cancers detected after a negative breast screening examination and prior to the next screening are referred to as interval cancers. These cancers generally have poor clinical characteristics compared with screen-detected cancers, but associations between interval cancer and genomic cancer characteristics are not well understood. Mammographically screened women diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer from 1993 to 2013 ( n = 370) were identified by linking the Carolina Breast Cancer Study and the Carolina Mammography Registry. Among women with a registry-identified screening mammogram 0 to 24 months before diagnosis, cancers were classified as screen-detected ( N = 165) or interval-detected ( N = 205). Using logistic regression, we examined the association of mode of detection with cancer characteristics (clinical, IHC, and genomic), overall, and in analyses stratified on mammographic density and race. Interval cancer was associated with large tumors [>2 cm; OR, 2.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5-3.7], positive nodal status (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8), and triple-negative subtype (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.5). Interval cancers were more likely to have non-Luminal A subtype (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.7), whereas screen-detected cancers tended to be more indolent (96% had low risk of recurrence genomic scores; 71% were PAM50 Luminal A). When stratifying by mammographic density and race, associations between interval detection and poor prognostic features were similar by race and density status. Strong associations between interval cancers and poor-prognosis genomic features (non-Luminal A subtype and high risk of recurrence score) suggest that aggressive tumor biology is an important contributor to interval cancer rates. Cancer Prev Res; 11(6); 327-36. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Importance: African Americans have the highest breast cancer mortality rate. Although racial difference in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer is known, it is unclear if there are other inherent genomic differences that contribute to the survival disparities., Objectives: To investigate racial differences in breast cancer molecular features and survival and to estimate the heritability of breast cancer subtypes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Among a convenience cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer, breast tumor and matched normal tissue sample data (as of September 18, 2015) were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas., Main Outcomes and Measures: Breast cancer–free interval, tumor molecular features, and genetic variants., Results: Participants were 930 patients with breast cancer, including 154 black patients of African ancestry (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 55.66 [13.01] years; 98.1% [n = 151] female) and 776 white patients of European ancestry (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 59.51 [13.11] years; 99.0% [n = 768] female). Compared with white patients, black patients had a worse breast cancer-free interval (hazard ratio, HR=1.67; 95% CI, 1.02-2.74; P = .043). They had a higher likelihood of basal-like (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% CI, 2.46-5.87; P < .001) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2 [formerly HER2])–enriched (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.10-4.47; P = .027) breast cancer subtypes, with the Luminal A subtype as the reference. Blacks had more TP53 mutations and fewer PIK3CA mutations than whites. While most molecular differences were eliminated after adjusting for intrinsic subtype, the study found 16 DNA methylation probes, 4 DNA copy number segments, 1 protein, and 142 genes that were differentially expressed, with the gene-based signature having an excellent capacity for distinguishing breast tumors from black vs white patients (cross-validation C index, 0.878). Using germline genotypes, the heritability of breast cancer subtypes (basal vs nonbasal) was estimated to be 0.436 (P = 1.5 × 10−14). The estrogen receptor–positive polygenic risk score built from 89 known susceptibility variants was higher in blacks than in whites (difference, 0.24; P = 2.3 × 10−5), while the estrogen receptor–negative polygenic risk score was much higher in blacks than in whites (difference, 0.48; P = 2.8 × 10−11)., Conclusions and Relevance: On the molecular level, after adjusting for intrinsic subtype frequency differences, this study found a modest number of genomic differences but a significant clinical survival outcome difference between blacks and whites in The Cancer Genome Atlas data set. Moreover, more than 40% of breast cancer subtype frequency differences could be explained by genetic variants. These data could form the basis for the development of molecular targeted therapies to improve clinical outcomes for the specific subtypes of breast cancers that disproportionately affect black women. Findings also indicate that personalized risk assessment and optimal treatment could reduce deaths from aggressive breast cancers for black women.

Gene-expression profiling has had a considerable impact on our understanding of breast cancer biology, and more recently on clinical care. Two statistical approaches underlie these advancements. Supervised analyses have led to the development of gene-expression signatures designed to predict survival and/or treatment response, which has resulted in the development of new clinical assays. Unsupervised analyses have identified numerous biological signatures including signatures of cell type of origin, signaling pathways, and of cellular proliferation. Included within these biological signatures are the molecular subtypes known as the 'intrinsic' subtypes of breast cancer. This classification has expanded our appreciation of the heterogeneity of breast cancer and has provided a way to sub-classify the disease in a manner that might have clinical utility. In this Review, we discuss the clinical utility of gene-expression-based assays and their technical potential as clinical tools vis-a-vis the performance of breast cancer biomarkers that are the current standard of care.