Search

Background: Estimating patient attrition across lines of treatment (i.e. the probability that upon treatment failure the patient will not be able to receive a subsequent treatment) may be a valuable tool for optimizing treatment sequencing. We sought to describe the first-to-second-line attrition rate and factors associated with attrition in a real-world cohort of patients with metastatic breast cancer., Methods: The Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM)14/BIO-META (NCT02284581) is an ongoing, ambispective observational multicenter study enrolling patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving first-line therapy. In patients experiencing disease progression, attrition was defined as no further anticancer treatment and death within 6 months from the end of first-line therapy. The attrition rate from the first-to-second line was studied by descriptive analyses and univariate and multivariable logistic models were used to explore potentially predictive factors., Results: From January 2000 to December 2021, 3109 patients with metastatic breast cancer were enrolled in the GIM14/BIO-META study. Among them, 2498 patients experienced first-line treatment failure. Overall, first-to-second line attrition was 9.0% (95% confidence interval 7.9% to 10.1%), with similar attrition for patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (8.5%) and HER2-positive (7.1%) breast cancer. Patients with triple-negative disease experienced the highest attrition (13.0%). Age, menopausal status, disease-free interval from primary tumor diagnosis, type of metastatic spread, and tumor subtype independently predicted first-to-second-line attrition., Conclusions: These findings could inform treatment decisions and guide clinical research on treatment sequencing. For instance, patients with the lowest risk of attrition may be the ideal candidates for trials exploring de-escalated first-line regimens, followed by more aggressive treatments upon progression., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to identify the clinico-pathological variables predictive of radiologic complete response (rCR) to first-line anti-HER2 therapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Patients were selected from the database of the GIM14 study and classified according to the best radiologic response obtained to first-line anti-HER2 therapy and upon time-to-treatment-discontinuation (TTD). A total of 545 patients were included in the analysis. Eighty patients experienced a rCR to first-line anti-HER2 therapy with a TTD > 3 months and HER2 Immunohistochemistry score 3+, presence of non-visceral metastases and 1 metastatic site were significantly associated with higher odds of obtaining a CR. Of the 80 patients achieving a rCR, 56 experienced a CR with a TTD > 18 months, with anti-HER2 therapy being the only variable significantly associated with a higher probability of achieving such sustained CR., Competing Interests: Competing interests: E.B.: grants from Gilead to institution; personal fees from Eli Lilly; C.B.: fees or honoraria from Novartis, Roche and Eli Lilly; A.F.: advisory boards: Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Gilead, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences; consulting fees: Dompé Farmaceutici S.p.A.; F.M.: consulting fees: Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichy Sankyo, SeaGen, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre; travel grants: Roche and AstraZeneca; from May 15th, 2023, F.M. is Roche employee (all the disclosed activities are outside the submitted work); M.D.L.: speaker’s honoraria, consulting honoraria, and advisory board honoraria: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sophos, Genetic, Menarini, Daiichi-Sankyo, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, GSK and Takeda; G.A.: research and medical writing: AstraZeneca; advisory boards, travel grants, activities as a speaker, consultancy: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Exact Science, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Viatris; L.D.M.: institutional grants: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Astra Zeneca, Gilead, Pierre Fabre; consulting fees: Eli Lilly, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Ipsen, GSK, Agendia, Menarini Stemline; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sakyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Agendia, GSK, Seagen, Olema, MSD, Menarini Stemline; L.G.: consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Menarini Stemline, Abbvie; research funding: Menarini Silicon Biosystems Patents, Royalties; travel expenses: Menarini Stemline; F.P.: honoraria for advisory boards, activities as a speaker, travel grants, research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Ipsen, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, Viatris; research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Roche, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflict to disclose., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Colon cancer imposes a significant burden on global healthcare systems, necessitating efforts to improve oncology care quality and patient outcomes. We studied the correlation between care quality and survival outcomes among colon cancer patients within the Ligurian Oncology Network (Italy)., Methods: We developed an Overall Quality Score (OQS) to evaluate the impact of oncology care quality on survival outcomes within the Ligurian Oncology Network. OQS indicators were selected through expert consensus, covering screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. A sample of colon cancer patients diagnosed in 2012 was randomly selected from administrative healthcare data. Analyses were performed using two models: a binary model (High and Low OQS) and a stratified model (Low, Medium, and High OQS). Statistical analysis involved survival curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models using SAS 9.4., Results: Of 175 eligible colon cancer patients, 150 were included. Following a median follow-up of 7.6 years, a correlation between High-OQS (⩾ 65%) and prolonged disease-free survival was observed (unadjusted HR 0.57, 95%CI 0.33-0.99, log-rank p=0.041). The five-year disease-free survival rate for High-OQS patients was 70% (95%CI 57-80%), compared to 53% (95%CI 41-64%) for Low-OQS patients. Similarly, the five-year overall survival rate was 78% (95%CI 65-86%) for High-OQS patients, compared to 58% (95%CI 45-68%) for Low-OQS patients (unadjusted HR 0.56, 95%CI 0.31-1.00, log-rank p=0.048)., Conclusions: Our findings highlight the potential impact of the patient journey on colon cancer survival outcomes. Optimising care pathways might improve patient outcomes in colon cancer management., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: All the disclosed activities are outside the submitted work. EB reports research funding to their institution from Gilead, speaker fee from Eli Lilly. LDM reports institutional grants from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Astrazeneca, Gilead, Pierre Fabre; consulting fees: Eli Lilly, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyio; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Ipsen, GSK, Agendia, Stemline; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Astrazeneca, Gilead; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sakyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Astrazeneca, Agendia, GSK, Seagen, Olema, MSD, Stemline Menarini. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CDK 4/6 inhibitors (CDK 4-6i) according to HER2 status (low/zero), and endocrine resistance/sensitivity, as well as the efficacy of second-line treatments, in a large real-world cohort., Methods: The GIM14/BIOMETA study (NCT02284581) is a retrospective/prospective study of the Gruppo Italiano Mammella evaluating treatment patterns and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We retrieved data on patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative MBC receiving first-line CDK 4/6i., Results: Among 3832 patients enrolled in the GIM14-BIOMETA study, 701 were eligible. At a median follow-up of 24.80 months, no significant differences were found between HER2-zero and HER2-low subgroups in terms of first-line time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) (26.16 months [IQR 12.84-NR] vs. 27.60 months [IQR 12.12-64.44], p = 0.972) or overall survival (OS) (mOS>60 months for both groups, p = 0.398). Median TTD was 33.24 months (IQR 16.32-NR) for the endocrine sensitive subgroup, 19.92 months (IQR 8.88-51.24) for the secondary endocrine resistant subgroup and 17.40 months (IQR 7.44-24.72) for the primary endocrine resistant subset, respectively (p < 0.001). Among 239 patients receiving second-line treatment, no significant difference (p = 0.188) was found in terms of second-line TTD between those treated with capecitabine (6.11 months, IQR 2.96-11.47), taxane-based chemotherapy (5.06 months, IQR 2.99-9.99), everolimus plus exemestane (5.39 months, IQR 2.53-9.03) or fulvestrant (6.44 months, IQR 3.38-NR)., Conclusions: Endocrine therapy plus CDK 4/6i represents an effective treatment, regardless of HER2 status (low/zero). Second-line agents did not differ significantly in terms of TTD. Endocrine resistant cancers exhibit poor response to CDK 4/6i., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Chiara Molinelli reports honoraria for consultancy and consulting fees from Daiichi Sankyo, travel support to attend conferences from Gilead, Menarini and fees for medical writing from Lilly and Seagen. Eva Blondeaux reports honoraria from Eli Lilly and research funding (to institution) from Gilead. Michelino De Laurentiis reports honoraria or consultation fees for speaker, consultancy or advisory roles from Eli Lilly, Seagen, Therapeutics, GSK, Roche, Novartis, Genetic, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Menarini Stemline, Sophos Biotech, Max Farma, Celltrion Healthcare, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo; institutional financial interests, financial support for clinical trials or contracted research, from: Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline Therapeutics. Alessandra Fabi reports consulting fees and honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo. Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD. Grazia Arpino reports research and medical writing from AstraZeneca; advisory boards, travel grants, activities as a speaker, consultancy from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Exact Science, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Viatris. Andrea Fontana reports advisory boards from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Gilead, Seagen, Astra Zeneca, Exact Sciences; consulting fees from Dompé Farmaceutici S.p.A. D.G. Research funding from Menarini, Seagen, Novartis, AstraZeneca; advisory boards, activities as a speaker, consultancy from Seagen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Exact Sciences. Fabio Puglisi reports advisory role for and receiving speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Ipsen, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, and Viatris. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Novartis, Roche. Research grants (to his institution) from Astrazeneca, Eisai, Roche. Claudia Bighin reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Gilead, and Daiichi. Matteo Lambertini reports advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Menarini; speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Menarini, AstraZeneca; travel Grants from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche; research funding (to the Institution) from Gilead all outside the submitted work. Lucia Del Mastro reports grants from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre; receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Ipsen, GSK, and Agendia-Stemline; receiving travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca; and having an advisory role for Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sakyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Agendia, GSK, and Seagen. All the other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Use of adjuvant chemotherapy significantly reduces the risk of recurrence and improves overall survival (OS) in patients with early-stage breast cancer. However, few data are available on the efficacy of different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens and schedules in patients with hormone receptor positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer. We aim to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy and of the dose-dense schedule in this specific patient population. Moreover, current controversies in the management of patients with early-stage HR+/HER2- breast cancer are discussed., Recent Findings: Patient-level meta-analysis evaluating the role of the addition of an anthracycline to taxane-based chemotherapy showed that recurrence rate was lower among patients receiving anthracycline-based treatment.Patient-level meta-analysis evaluating the role of different schedules of chemotherapy administration showed that the use of adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy is associated with significant reduction in breast cancer recurrences and breast cancer mortality. Less evidence is available in the neoadjuvant setting., Summary: For patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer, (neo) adjuvant anthracycline and taxane-based chemotherapy, and a dose-dense regimen should still be considered the standard of care. However, in patients with intermediate risk breast cancer candidates to chemotherapy, anthracycline-free regimens could be considered the preferred treatment option., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Young women with breast cancer (BC) have an increased chance of carrying germline BRCA pathogenic variants (PVs). Limited data exist on the prognostic impact of tumor histology (i.e. ductal versus lobular) in hereditary breast cancer., Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included women aged ≤40 years with early-stage breast cancer diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2020 and known to carry germline PVs in BRCA1/2. Histology was locally assessed in each center. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to assess disease-free survival and overall survival., Results: Of 4628 patients included from 78 centers worldwide, 3969 (86%) had pure ductal, 135 (3%) pure lobular, and 524 (11%) other histologies. Compared with ductal tumors, lobular tumors were more often grade 1/2 (57.7% versus 22.1%), stage III (29.6% versus 18.5%), and luminal A-like (42.2% versus 12.2%). Lobular tumors were more often associated with BRCA2 PVs (71.1% BRCA2), while ductal tumors were more often associated with BRCA1 PVs (65.7% BRCA1). Patients with lobular tumors more often had mastectomy (68.9% versus 58.3%), and less often received chemotherapy (83.7% versus 92.9%). With a median follow-up of 7.8 years, no significant differences were observed in disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.37) or overall survival (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.50) between patients with ductal versus lobular tumors. No significant survival differences were observed according to specific BRCA gene, breast cancer subtype, or body mass index., Conclusions: In this large global cohort of young BRCA carriers with breast cancer, the incidence of pure lobular histology was low and associated with higher disease stage at diagnosis, luminal-like disease and BRCA2 PVs. Histology did not appear to impact prognosis., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most premenopausal patients with early breast cancer (eBC) are diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive disease and therefore candidate for adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET)., Patients and Methods: The Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) 23-POSTER (GIM23) is a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted in 26 Italian institutions, aiming to evaluate ET choices for premenopausal patients affected by hormone receptor-positive eBC in a real-world setting. Here we report also the results in terms of type of ET prescribed according to the definition of high-risk patients by monarchE and NATALEE trials., Results: Between October 2019 and June 2022, 600 premenopausal patients were included, with a median age of 46 years. Almost half (271, 45.2 %) of the patients had stage I disease, while 254 (42.3 %) and 60 (10.0 %) patients had stage II and III, respectively. Overall, 149 (25.1 %) patients received tamoxifen alone, 83 (14.0 %) tamoxifen with ovarian function suppression (OFS), while 361 (60.9 %) received aromatase inhibitor (AI) with OFS. Patients treated with AI and OFS had higher number of metastatic axillary nodes, higher grade and more often received chemotherapy (all p < 0.001). According to the inclusion criteria of the monarchE and NATALEE trials, 81 patients (15.6 %) were considered high-risk for the monarchE and received AI with OFS in 88.9 % of the cases, while 231 patients (44.4 %) were considered high-risk for the NATALEE trial and received AI with OFS in 74.5 % of cases., Conclusions: AI with OFS is the most prescribed adjuvant ET among premenopausal patients, especially in the presence of high-risk features., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Eva Blondeaux: speaker fee from Eli Lilly and research support from Gilead Science (to the institution). Valentina Guarneri: personal fees from EliLilly, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, MSD, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck Serono, and Eisai outside the submitted work. Eleonora Mioranza: personal fee from Novartis e Lilly. Fabio Puglisi: advisory role for and receiving speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Ipsen, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, and Viatris. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Novartis, Roche. Research grants (to his institution) from Astrazeneca, Eisai, Roche. Antonella Ferro: support for attending meeting from Gilead, MSD and Pfizer; honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Ely Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Astra Zeneca, MSD. Vincenzo Adamo: consultancy/advisory role/speaker bureau from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sevier, Takeda. Laura Biganzoli: Personal financial interests (Honoraria, consultancy or advisory role): Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, SeaGen. Institutional financial interests: Celgene, Genomic Health, Novartis. Travel grant: AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo. Evandro de Azambuja: honoraria from or participation in advisory boards for Roche, Genentech, Novartis, SeaGen, Zodiac, Libbs, Pierre Fabre, Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca. Francesca Poggio: fees and other support from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Daichii Sankyo, and Gilead outside the submitted work. Matteo Lambertini: advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, and Exact Sciences; receiving speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Knight, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca; receiving travel grants from Gilead and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving research funding (to his institution) from Gilead. Lucia Del Mastro: grants from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre; receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Ipsen, GSK, and Agendia-Stemline; receiving travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca; and having an advisory role for Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sakyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Agendia, GSK, and Seagen. All the other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hormone receptor expression is a known positive prognostic and predictive factor in breast cancer; however, limited evidence exists on its prognostic impact on prognosis of young patients harboring a pathogenic variant (PV) in the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 genes., Patients and Methods: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included young patients (aged ≤40 years) diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and harboring germline PVs in BRCA genes. We investigated the impact of hormone receptor status on clinical behavior and outcomes of breast cancer. Outcomes of interest [disease-free survival (DFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival (OS)] were first investigated according to hormone receptor expression (positive versus negative), and then according to breast cancer subtype [luminal A-like versus luminal B-like versus triple-negative versus human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer]., Results: From 78 centers worldwide, 4709 BRCA carriers were included, of whom 2143 (45.5%) had hormone receptor-positive and 2566 (54.5%) hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. Median follow-up was 7.9 years. The rate of distant recurrences was higher in patients with hormone receptor-positive disease (13.1% versus 9.6%, P < 0.001), while the rate of second primary breast cancer was lower (9.1% versus 14.7%, P < 0.001) compared to patients with hormone receptor-negative disease. The 8-year DFS was 65.8% and 63.4% in patients with hormone receptor-positive and negative disease, respectively. The hazard ratio of hormone receptor-positive versus negative disease changed over time for DFS, BCSS, and OS (P < 0.05 for interaction of hormone receptor status and survival time). Patients with luminal A-like breast cancer had the worst long-term prognosis in terms of DFS compared to all the other subgroups (8-year DFS: 60.8% in luminal A-like versus 63.5% in triple-negative versus 65.5% in HER2-positive and 69.7% in luminal B-like subtype)., Conclusions: In young BRCA carriers, differences in recurrence pattern and second primary breast cancer among hormone receptor-positive versus negative disease warrant consideration in counseling patients on treatment, follow-up, and risk-reducing surgery., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancer (BC) in women aged ≤40 years carrying germline pathogenetic variants (PVs) in BRCA1/2 genes is infrequent but often associated with aggressive features. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low-expressing BC has recently emerged as a novel therapeutic target but has not been characterized in this rare patient subset., Methods: Women aged ≤40 years with newly diagnosed early-stage HER2-negative BC (HER2-0 and HER2-low) and germline BRCA1/2 PVs from 78 health care centers worldwide were retrospectively included. Chi-square test and Student t-test were used to describe variable distribution between HER2-0 and HER2-low. Associations with HER2-low status were assessed with logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to assess disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival. Statistical significance was considered for p ≤ .05., Results: Of 3547 included patients, 32.3% had HER2-low BC, representing 46.3% of hormone receptor-positive and 21.3% of triple-negative (TN) tumors. HER2-low vs. HER2-0 BC were more often of grade 1/2 (p < .001), hormone receptor-positive (p < .001), and node-positive (p = .003). BRCA2 PVs were more often associated with HER2-low than BRCA1 PVs (p < .001). HER2-low versus HER2-0 showed better DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) in the overall population and more favorable DFS (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95) and overall survival (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.93) in the TN subgroup. Luminal A-like tumors in HER2-low (p = .014) and TN and luminal A-like in HER2-0 (p = .019) showed the worst DFS., Conclusions: In young patients with HER2-negative BC and germline BRCA1/2 PVs, HER2-low disease was less frequent than expected and more frequently linked to BRCA2 PVs and associated with luminal-like disease. HER2-low status was associated with a modestly improved prognosis., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: The phase III GIM2 trial showed improved disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) with adjuvant dose-dense (DD) as compared with standard-interval (SI) chemotherapy in women with node-positive early-stage breast cancer (BC). This exploratory analysis aimed to investigate the benefit of different schedules according to body mass index (BMI) in this trial., Patients and Methods: This analysis explored the efficacy, in terms of DFS and OS, of different chemotherapy schedules according to BMI. Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for relevant prognostic factors, were used., Results: Out of 2091 patients enrolled, 1925 with known baseline BMI were randomized in the DD versus SI comparison and therefore included in this analysis: 31.6% were overweight and 19.3% obese. Overweight and obesity were significantly associated with postmenopausal status, pT >2, and pN >2 tumors. After a median follow-up of 15.0 years (interquartile range 8.4-16.3 years), multivariable Cox survival models demonstrated no association of different BMI categories on DFS [adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.15 and adjHR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91-1.35 for overweight and obese patients, respectively, compared to patients with normal BMI] or OS (adjHR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71-1.14 and adjHR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92-1.52 for overweight and obese patients, respectively). No significant interaction was found between BMI and treatment schedule in terms of DFS (P for interaction  = 0.56) or OS (P for interaction  = 0.19). The survival benefit of DD chemotherapy was observed irrespective of different BMI categories, with a more pronounced benefit for overweight and obese patients., Conclusion: In node-positive BC patients, DD schedule should be considered the preferred schedule irrespective of BMI., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Healthy carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) may benefit from risk-reducing measures of proven efficacy. The main approach to identify these individuals is cascade testing, and strategies to support this complex process are under investigation. In Italy, cascade testing has received little attention; therefore, we analyzed the uptake and characteristics of BRCA1/2 cascade testing in families diagnosed with HBOC between 2017 and 2019 at two Italian genetics centers. All blood relatives aged 18 years or older at September 2022 and who could be involved in the first step of cascade testing (i.e., all the living relatives closest to the proband) were included. In addition to first-degree relatives, individuals who were second-, third- or fourth-degree relatives were included if the closest relative(s) was/were deceased. Overall, 213 families were included (103, Genoa; 110, Bologna). Most probands were women affected by breast and/or ovarian cancer (86.4%, Genoa; 84.5%, Bologna), and the branch segregating the PV was known/suspected in 62% of families (62.1%, Genoa; 60.9%, Bologna). Overall, the uptake of cascade testing was 22.8% (25.8%, Genoa; 19.9%, Bologna; OR = 0.59: 95%CI 0.43-0.82). It was strongly associated with female gender (OR = 3.31, 95%CI 2.38-4.59), age ≤ 70 years (< 30 years OR = 3.48, 95%CI 1.85-6.56; 30-70 years OR = 3.08, 95%CI 2.01-4.71), first-degree relationship with the proband (OR = 16.61, 95%CI 10.50-26.28) and segregation of the PV in both the maternal (OR = 2.54, 95%CI 1.72-3.75) and the paternal branch (OR = 4.62, 95%CI 3.09-6.91). These real-world data may be important to inform the design and implementation of strategies aimed at improving the uptake of HBOC cascade testing in Italy., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Objectives: To better understand the type of care offered to Italian patients with advanced breast cancer at the End-of-Life (EoL), we conducted a retrospective observational study. EoL was defined as the period of six months before death., Methods: One hundred and twenty-one patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated at IRCCS San Martino Policlinic Hospital who died between 2017 and 2021 were included. Data about patient, disease, and treatment characteristics from breast cancer diagnosis to death, along with information about comorbidities, medications, imaging, specialist evaluations, hospitalization, palliative care and home care, hospice admissions, and site of death were collected., Results: 98.3% of the patients received at least one line of active treatment at EoL; 52.8% were hospitalized during the selected period. Palliative (13.9%), psychological (7.4%), and nutritional evaluations (8.2%) were underutilized. Palliative home care was provided to 52% of the patients. Most of the patients died at home (66.1%) and fewer than one out of five (18.2%) died at the hospital. Among the patients who died at home, 27.3% had no palliative support., Conclusions: Our findings indicate that palliative care in EoL breast cancer patients is still inadequate. Only a minority of patients had psychological and nutritional support While low nutritional support may be explained by the fact that typical symptoms of ABC do not involve the gastrointestinal tract, the lack of psychological support suggests that significant barriers still exist. Data on the site of death are encouraging, indicating that EoL management is increasingly home centered in Italy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Intermediate clinical endpoints (ICEs) are frequently used as primary endpoint in randomised trials (RCTs). We aim to assess whether changes in different ICEs can be used to predict changes in overall survival (OS) in adjuvant breast cancer trials., Methods: Individual patient level data from adjuvant phase III RCTs conducted by the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) and Mammella Intergruppo (MIG) study groups were used. ICEs were computed according to STEEP criteria. Using a two-stage meta-analytic model, we assessed the surrogacy of each ICE at both the outcome (i.e., OS and ICE are correlated irrespective of treatment) and trial (i.e., treatment effects on ICE and treatment effect on OS are correlated) levels. The following ICEs were considered as potential surrogate endpoints of OS: disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), and invasive breast cancer-free survival (IBCFS). The estimates of the degree of correlation were obtained by copula models and weighted linear regression. Kendall's τ and R 2  ≥ 0.70 were considered as indicators of a clinically relevant surrogacy., Findings: Among the 12,397 patients enrolled from November 1992 to July 2012 in six RCTs, median age at enrolment was 57 years (interquartile range (IQR) 49-65). After a median follow-up of 10.3 years (IQR 6.4-14.5), 2131 (17.2%) OS events were observed, with 1390 (65.2%) attributed to breast cancer. At the outcome-level, Kendall's τ ranged from 0.69 for BCFI to 0.84 for DRFS. For DFS, DDFS, DRFS, RFS, RFI, DRFI, BCFI, and IBCFS endpoints, over 95% of the 8-year OS variability was attributable to the variation of the 5-year ICE. At the trial-level, treatment effects for the different ICEs and OS were strongly correlated, with the highest correlation for RFS and DRFS and the lowest for BCFI., Interpretation: Our results provide evidence supporting the use of DFS, DDFS, DRFS, RFS, RFI, DRFI, and IBCFS as primary endpoint in breast cancer adjuvant trials., Funding: This analysis was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research ("Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro", AIRC; IG 2017/20760) and by Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds (years 2021-2022)., Competing Interests: Eva Blondeaux reports research support (to the Institution) from Gilead outside the submitted work. Wanling Xie served as consultant to Convergent Therapeutics, Inc outside the submitted work. Carmine De Angelis reports advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Daicii-Sankyo, Gilead, and GSK and speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, GSK, GILEAD, and Daiichi-Sankio. Travel Grants from Gilead and research support (to the Institution) from Novartis, GILEAD, and Daiichi-Sankyo outside the submitted work. Fabio Puglisi reports honoraria for advisory boards, activities as a speaker, travel grants, research grants from Amgen–Astrazeneca–Daiichi Sankyo–Celgene–Eisai–Eli Lilly-–Exact Sciences- Gilead–Ipsen—Menarini- MSD–Novartis–Pierre Fabre–Pfizer–Roche–Seagen–Takeda—Viatris and research funding from Astrazeneca—Eisai—Roche outside the submitted work. Mauro Mansutti reports honoraria for advisory boards, activities as a speaker, travel grants: Accord Healthcare, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen outside the submitted work. Alessandra Fabi reports advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Epionpharma, Gilead, Seagen, Astra Zeneca, Exact Science and consultant from Dompè Farnaceutica outside the submitted work. Matteo Lambertini reports advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD and Exact Sciences and speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Knight and Takeda, Travel Grants from Gilead and Daiichi Sankyo, and research support (to the Institution) from Gilead outside the submitted work. Lucia Del Mastro reports grants or contracts from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagan; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, and Ipsen; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, and Eisai; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Meredith M Regan reports consulting or advisory role for Ipsen (to the Institution), Tolmar, Bristol Myers Squibb, Debiopharm Group (to the Institution), TerSera, AstraZeneca and research funding from Pfizer (to the Institution), Ipsen (to the Institution), Novartis (to the Institution), Merck (to the Institution), AstraZeneca (to the Institution), Pierre Fabre (to the Institution), Bayer (to the Institution), Bristol Myers Squibb (to the Institution), Roche (to the Institution), TerSera (to the Institution), Debiopharm Group (to the Institution), BioTheranostics (to the Institution) and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Canadian Urological Association., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Importance: Young women with breast cancer who have germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 face unique challenges regarding fertility. Previous studies demonstrating the feasibility and safety of pregnancy in breast cancer survivors included limited data regarding BRCA carriers., Objective: To investigate cumulative incidence of pregnancy and disease-free survival in young women who are BRCA carriers., Design, Setting, and Participants: International, multicenter, hospital-based, retrospective cohort study conducted at 78 participating centers worldwide. The study included female participants diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 40 years or younger between January 2000 and December 2020 carrying germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2. Last delivery was October 7, 2022; last follow-up was February 20, 2023., Exposure: Pregnancy after breast cancer., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were cumulative incidence of pregnancy after breast cancer and disease-free survival. Secondary end points were breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, pregnancy, and fetal and obstetric outcomes., Results: Of 4732 BRCA carriers included, 659 had at least 1 pregnancy after breast cancer and 4073 did not. Median age at diagnosis in the overall cohort was 35 years (IQR, 31-38 years). Cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 10 years was 22% (95% CI, 21%-24%), with a median time from breast cancer diagnosis to conception of 3.5 years (IQR, 2.2-5.3 years). Among the 659 patients who had a pregnancy, 45 (6.9%) and 63 (9.7%) had an induced abortion or a miscarriage, respectively. Of the 517 patients (79.7%) with a completed pregnancy, 406 (91.0%) delivered at term (≥37 weeks) and 54 (10.4%) had twins. Among the 470 infants born with known information on pregnancy complications, 4 (0.9%) had documented congenital anomalies. Median follow-up was 7.8 years (IQR, 4.5-12.6 years). No significant difference in disease-free survival was observed between patients with or without a pregnancy after breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81-1.20). Patients who had a pregnancy had significantly better breast cancer-specific survival and overall survival., Conclusions and Relevance: In this global study, 1 in 5 young BRCA carriers conceived within 10 years after breast cancer diagnosis. Pregnancy following breast cancer in BRCA carriers was not associated with decreased disease-free survival., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03673306.

Background: Despite increasing evidence on the safety of pregnancy after anticancer treatments in breast cancer survivors, many physicians and patients remain concerned about a potential risk of pregnancy specifically in the case of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer., Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 31 March 2023 was carried out. To be included, articles had to be retrospective and prospective case-control and cohort studies as well as clinical trials comparing survival outcomes of premenopausal women with or without a pregnancy after prior diagnosis of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were the outcomes of interest. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Study protocol is registered in PROSPERO (n. CRD42023394232)., Results: Out of 7796 screened studies, 8 were eligible to be included in the final analysis. A total of 3805 patients with hormone receptor-positive invasive early breast cancer were included in these studies, of whom 1285 had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis. Median follow-up time ranged from 3.8 to 15.8 years and was similar in the pregnancy and non-pregnancy cohorts. In three studies (n = 987 patients) reporting on DFS, no difference was observed between patients with and those without a subsequent pregnancy (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75-1.24, P = 0.781). In the six studies (n = 3504 patients) reporting on OS, patients with a pregnancy after breast cancer had a statistically significant better OS than those without a pregnancy (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.77, P < 0.05)., Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies provides updated evidence that having a pregnancy in patients with prior history of hormone receptor-positive invasive early breast cancer appears safe without detrimental effect on prognosis., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The combination of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy is the standard treatment for patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. Recently, this combination has also entered the early setting as an adjuvant treatment in patients with HR+/HER2- disease at a high risk of disease recurrence following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Despite their current use in clinical practice, limited data on the potential gonadotoxicity of CDK4/6 inhibitors are available. Hence, fully informed treatment decision making by premenopausal patients concerned about the potential development of premature ovarian insufficiency and infertility with the proposed therapy remains difficult. The cell cycle progression of granulosa and cumulus cells is a critical process for ovarian function, especially for ensuring proper follicular growth and acquiring competence. Due to the pharmacological properties of CDK4/6 inhibitors, there could be a potentially negative impact on ovarian function and fertility in women of reproductive age. This review aims to summarize the role of the cyclin D-CDK4 and CDK6 complexes in the ovary and the potential impact of CDK4/6 inhibition on its physiological processes.

Background: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low expression in breast cancer has been recently identified as a new therapeutic target. However, it is unclear if HER2-low status has an independent impact on prognosis., Materials and Methods: A systematic literature research was carried out to identify studies comparing survival outcomes of patients affected by HER2-low versus HER2-zero breast cancer. Using random-effects models, pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the metastatic setting as well as disease-free survival (DFS), OS and pathological complete response (pCR) in the early setting. Subgroup analyses by hormone receptor (HoR) status were carried out. The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO (n.CRD42023390777)., Results: Among 1916 identified records, 42 studies including 1 797 175 patients were eligible. In the early setting, HER2-low status was associated with significant improved DFS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, P < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95, P < 0.001) when compared to HER2-zero status. Improved OS was observed for both HoR-positive and HoR-negative HER2-low populations, while DFS improvement was observed only in the HoR-positive subgroup. HER2-low status was significantly associated with a lower rate of pCR as compared to HER2-zero status both in the overall population (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, P = 0.001) and in the HoR-positive subgroup (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.90, P = 0.001). In the metastatic setting, patients with HER2-low breast cancers showed better OS when compared with those with HER2-zero tumours in the overall population (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98, P = 0.008), regardless of HoR status. No significant PFS differences were found., Conclusions: Compared with HER2-zero status, HER2-low status appears to be associated with a slightly increased OS both in the advanced and early settings, regardless of HoR expression. In the early setting, HER2-low tumours seem to be associated to lower pCR rates, especially if HoR-positive., Competing Interests: Disclosure CM reports support to attend medical conferences from Gilead and honoraria from Novartis and Lilly (all outside the submitted work). EA reports consultancy fees/honoraria from Eli Lilly, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, research grant to her institution from Gilead and support for attending medical conferences from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Genetic, Istituto Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca. GNM reports support to attend medical conferences from Roche and Bayer (all outside the submitted work). AP reports advisory and consulting fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Puma, Oncolytics Biotech, MSD, Guardant Health, Peptomyc and Lilly, lecture fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Nanostring Technologies and Daiichi Sankyo, institutional financial interests from Boehringer, Novartis, Roche, Nanostring, Sysmex Europe GmbH, Medica Scientia inno. Re-search, SL, Celgene, Astellas and Pfizer; and shares ownership and a leadership role in Reveal Genomics, SL. EB reports funding to her institution from Gilead Science. FS declares personal fees for educational activities from Novartis and Gilead and travel expenses from Gilead, Novartis and Daiichy Sankyo. GV received honoraria for advisory boards and consulting fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD Oncology and Pfizer. LDM reports institutional research grant from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo and Seagen, consulting fees from Eli Lilly; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisa, Exact Sciences and Ipsen and support for attending meetings from Roche, Pfizer and Eisai; and fees for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, AstraZeneca and Agendia. ML played an advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD and Exact Sciences and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs and Takeda and travel grants from Gilead outside the submitted work. EDA received honoraria and/or participated to advisory board from Roche/GNE, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Zodiac, Libbs and Pierre Fabre; received travel grants from Roche/GNE and GSK/Novartis; and received research grant to his institution from Roche/GNE, AstraZeneca, GSK/Novartis and Servier. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior exposure to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) and timing to recurrence are crucial factors for first-line treatment choices in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC) and in clinical trial eligibility, classifying metastatic HR+/HER2- BC as endocrine sensitive (ES) or primary (1ER)/secondary (2ER) resistant. However, this classification is largely based on expert opinion and no proper evidence exists to date to support its possible prognostic and clinical impact., Methods: This analysis included individual patient-level data from 4 adjuvant phase III randomized trials by the Mammella InterGruppo (MIG) and Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) study groups. The impact of endocrine resistance/sensitivity classification on overall survival (mOS, defined as time between date of distant relapse and death) was assessed in both univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models., Findings: Between November 1992 and July 2012, 9058 patients were randomized in 4 trials, of whom 6612 had HR+/HER2- BC. Median follow-up was 9.1 years (interquartile range [IQR] 5.6-15.0). In the whole cohort, disease-free survival and OS were 90.4% and 96.6% at 5 years, and 79.1% and 89.4% at 10 years, respectively. The estimated hazard of recurrence raised constantly during the first 15 years from diagnosis, being more pronounced during the first 2 years and less pronounced after year 7. Among the 493 patients with a distant relapse as first disease-free survival event and available date on ET completion, 72 (14.6%), 207 (42.0%) and 214 (43.4%) were classified as having 1ER, 2ER and ES, respectively. Median follow-up from diagnosis of a distant relapse was 3.8 years (IQR 1.6-7.5). Patients with 1ER were significantly more likely to be younger, to have N2/N3 nodal status, grade 3 tumours and to develop visceral metastases. Site of first distant relapse was significantly different between the 3 groups (p = 0.005). In patients with 1ER, 2ER and ES breast cancer, median mOS was 27.2, 38.4 and 43.2 months, respectively (p = 0.03). As compared to patients with ES disease, a higher risk of death was observed in those with 1 ER (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR] 1.54; 95% CI 1.03-2.30) and 2ER (aHR 1.17; 95% CI 0.87-1.56) (p = 0.11)., Interpretation: This large analysis with long-term follow-up provides evidence on the prognostic and clinical impact of the currently adopted endocrine resistance/sensitivity classification in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced BC. This classification may be considered a valid tool to guide clinical decision-making and to design future ET trials in the metastatic setting., Funding: AIRC., Competing Interests: ML reports advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD and Exact Sciences; speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, and Takeda; travel Grants from Gilead outside the submitted work. EB reports research grant (to the Institution) from Gilead Science. SDP reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Seagen, Daichii Sankyo, and MSD outside the submitted work. MDL reports personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Sanofi, Celtrion, Organon and Seagen, outside the submitted work. MM reports consulting fees/honoraria and participation on Advisory Board from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, Astra Zeneca, Gentili outside the submitted work. FM reports consultancy fees from Roche, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, SeaGen, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Novartis; travel Grants from Roche outside the submitted work. AFr reports advisory role for Roche, Astrazeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead outside the submitted work. AT reports honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche; travel/accommodation expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, Gentili, Pfizer outside the submitted work. ST reports consultant fee for Incyte MSD, Roche, Merck, AStrazeneca outside the submitted work. RC reports consultant fees for Novartis, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. CDA reports consulting/advisory role for Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen; speaker honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly; research funding to the Institution: Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; travel/accommodation expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer outside the submitted work. EA reports consultancy fees/honoraria from Eli Lilly, Sandoz; travel grants from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Genetic, Istituto Gentili outside the submitted work. EdA reports honoraria and/or advisory board from Roche/GNE, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Zodiac, Libbs and Pierre Fabre; Travel grants from Roche/GNE and GSK/Novartis; research grant to his institution from Roche/GNE, Astra-Zeneca, GSK/Novartis and Servier. FP reports participation on Advisory Board from AstraZeneca; consultancy fees/honoraria from Eli Lilly, and Novartis; travel grants from Daichii Sankyo, and Gilead outside the submitted work. LDM reports grants or contracts from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagan; fees/honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, and Ipsen; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, and Eisai; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Approximately 10% of breast cancers are associated with the inheritance of a pathogenic variant (PV) in one of the breast cancer susceptibility genes. Multiple breast cancer predisposing genes, including TP53, are responsible for the increased breast cancer risk. Tumor protein-53 (TP53) germline PVs are associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a rare autosomal dominant inherited cancer predisposition syndrome associated with early-onset pediatric and multiple primary cancers such as soft tissue and bone sarcomas, breast cancer, brain tumors, adrenocortical carcinomas and leukemias. Women harboring a TP53 PV carry a lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of 80-90%. The aim of the present narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the criteria for offering TP53 testing, prevalence of TP53 carriers among patients with breast cancer, and what is known about its prognostic and therapeutic implications. A summary of the current indications of secondary cancer surveillance and survivorship issues are also provided. Finally, the spectrum of TP53 alteration and testing is discussed. The optimal strategies for the treatment of breast cancer in patients harboring TP53 PVs poses certain challenges. Current guidelines favor the option of performing mastectomy rather than lumpectomy to avoid adjuvant radiotherapy and subsequent risk of radiation-induced second primary malignancies, with careful consideration of radiation when indicated post-mastectomy. Some studies suggest that patients with breast cancer and germline TP53 PV might have worse survival outcomes compared to patients with breast cancer and wild type germline TP53 status. Annual breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and whole-body MRI are recommended as secondary prevention., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ‘Eva Blondeaux reports research grant (to the Institution) from Gilead to pursue research effort in the field of TP53 pathogenic variants. Kevin Punie reports honoraria for consultancy/advisory roles from Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen; honoraria for consultancy/advisory roles paid to my institution from Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen. Research funding paid to my institution from Sanofi and MSD. Stock options: Need Inc. Travel support: Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche. Carmine De Angelis reports advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, and GSK and speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, and GSK, Travel Grants from Gilead and research support (to the Institution) from Novartis outside the submitted work. Sabine C. Linn reports an advisory role for AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH (paid to the institution), travel and accommodation expenses from Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, and research support (to the institution) from Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Tesaro (now GSK), Merck, Immunomedics (now Gilead), Eurocept Pharmaceuticals, Agendia, and Novartis. Mara Cruellas reports speaker honoraria from Roche and Astrazeneca. Shani Paluch-Shimon reports - advisory Board consultancy, speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Exact Sciences. Gilead. Travel: Roche. Research Funding: Pfizer. Matteo Lambertini reports advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD and Exact Sciences and speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo and Takeda, Travel Grants from Gilead and research support (to the Institution) from Gilead outside the submitted work. All the other authors declare no conflict of interest.’, (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Several models of genetic counseling have been proposed to tackle the increasing volume of individuals requiring access to BRCA testing. Few data are available on patient experience and retention of information with nurse-driven genetic counseling. We evaluated the experience and retention of information in women with an uninformative BRCA test result and who were not considered at high risk due to their personal/family history of cancer who underwent geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling and who received their test result by phone. Women who received an uninformative BRCA test result between May 2017 and September 2019 were administered a questionnaire exploring experience with genetic counseling and retention of information provided. Of 366 eligible women, 299 (273 breast cancer patients and 26 women without breast cancer) completed the interview. Overall, 280 women (93.6%) positively valued their experience with genetic counseling and 287 (96.0%) considered it helpful with 57.5% of them feeling reassured for themselves and their family. Information on the clinical implications of the test result was correctly retained and women acted accordingly. Overall, 252 women (87.8%) accurately reported their test result as normal/negative. Only 67 (22.4%) recognized that despite a normal BRCA test result, a low probability of a hereditary syndrome remains. Most women showed a poor ability to estimate cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers and in the general population. Geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling process for women with uninformative BRCA test result is associated with a positive patient experience and an adequate retention of information concerning the management of their personal and familial cancer risk. The design and implementation of nurse-driven genetic counseling models may contribute to efficient and timely access to BRCA genetic testing., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Genetic Counseling published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Objective: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has become the preferred treatment in HER2-positive early breast cancer. Several trials investigated the neoadjuvant efficacy of dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline-free chemotherapy, whereas few data are available on single-agent trastuzumab and anthracycline-based regimens, which represent the standard of care in the adjuvant setting. This phase II, single-arm trial assessed anthracycline-based chemotherapy and trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment for high-risk HER2-positive breast cancer., Methods: Forty-three patients with stage II-III HER2-positive breast cancer were treated with 4 courses of neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m 2 , epirubicin 90 mg/m 2 , cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m 2 (FEC ×4) every 21 days, followed by 12 courses of weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 and trastuzumab 2 mg/Kg IV (loading dose 4 mg/kg)., Results: Pathologic complete response (pCR) was observed in 22 (51%) of 43 patients. After a median follow-up of 6 years, the 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 85.8% (95% confidence interval 75.9%-97%) and 89.6% (80.4%-99.8%), respectively. A temporary decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction was observed in two patients. No cardiac death or congestive heart failure occurred. One patient died due to febrile neutropenia., Conclusions: FEC ×4 followed by paclitaxel and trastuzumab was associated with high pCR rates and favorable long-term outcomes. However, this regimen was associated with relevant hematologic toxicity.

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with poor prognosis, and new treatment options are urgently needed. About 34%-39% of primary TNBCs show a low expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2-low), which is a target for new anti-HER2 drugs. However, little is known about the frequency and the prognostic value of HER2-low in metastatic TNBC., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively included patients with TNBC from five European countries for this international, multicenter analysis. Triple-negativity had to be shown in a metastatic site or in the primary breast tumor diagnosed simultaneously or within 3 years before metastatic disease. HER2-low was defined as immunohistochemically (IHC) 1+ or 2+ without ERBB2 gene amplification. Survival probabilities were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by Cox regression models., Results: In total, 691 patients, diagnosed between January 2006 and February 2021, were assessable. The incidence of HER2-low was 32.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 28.5% to 35.5%], with similar proportions in metastases (n = 265; 29.8%) and primary tumors (n = 425; 33.4%; P = 0.324). The median overall survival (OS) in HER2-low and HER2-0 TNBC was 18.6 and 16.1 months, respectively (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.83-1.19; P = 0.969). Similarly, in multivariable analysis, HER2-low had no significant impact on OS (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.79-1.13; P = 0.545). No difference in prognosis was observed between HER2 IHC 0/1+ and IHC 2+ tumors (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.69-1.17; P = 0.414)., Conclusions: In this large international dataset of metastatic TNBC, the frequency of HER2-low was 32.0%. Neither in univariable nor in multivariable analysis HER2-low showed any influence on OS., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous analyses of the GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) 2 study showed that addition of fluorouracil to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel in patients with node-positive early breast cancer does not improve outcome, whereas dose-dense chemotherapy induces a significant improvement in both disease-free survival and overall survival as compared with a standard schedule. Here, we present long-term results of the study., Methods: In this 2 × 2 factorial, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-70 years with operable, node-positive, breast cancer with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 from 81 hospitals in Italy. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) to one of the four following study groups: four cycles of standard-interval intravenous EC (epirubicin 90 mg/m 2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m 2 ) on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 ) on day 1 every 3 weeks (q3EC-P group); four cycles of intravenous FEC (fluorouracil 600 mg/m 2 , epirubicin 90 mg/m 2 , and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m 2 ) on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 ) on day 1 every 3 weeks (q3FEC-P group); dose-dense EC-P regimen, with the same doses and drugs as the q3EC-P group but administered every 2 weeks (q2EC-P group); and the dose-dense FEC-P regimen, with the same doses and drugs as the q3FEC-P group but given every 2 weeks (q2FEC-P). Randomisation, with stratification by centre, with permuted blocks of size 12, was done with a centralised, interactive, internet-based system that randomly generated the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, comparing different chemotherapy schedule (dose-dense vs standard-dose intervals) and regimen (FEC-P vs EC-P). Safety population included all patients that received at least one dose of any study drug according to the treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00433420, and is now closed., Findings: Between April 24, 2003, and July 3, 2006, 2091 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 545 to q3EC-P, 544 to q3FEC-P, 502 to q2EC-P, and 500 to q2FEC-P. 88 patients were enrolled in centres providing only standard interval schedule and were assigned only to q3FEC-P and q3EC-P; thus, 2091 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for the comparison of EC-P (1047 patients) versus FEC-P (1044 patients) and 2003 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for the comparison of dose-dense (1002 patients) versus standard interval analysis (1001 patients). After a median follow-up of 15·1 years (IQR 8·4-16·3), median disease-free survival was not significantly different between FEC-P and EC-P groups (17·09 years [95% CI 15·51-not reached] vs not reached [17·54-not reached]; unadjusted hazard ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·98-1·29]; log-rank p=0·11). Median disease-free survival was significantly higher in the dose-dense interval group than the standard-interval group (not reached [95% CI 17·45-not reached] vs 16·52 [14·24-17·54]; 0·77 [95% CI 0·67-0·89]; p=0·0004). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (200 [37%] of 536 patients in the q3EC-P group vs 257 [48%] of 533 in the q3FEC-P group vs 50 [10%] of 496 q2EC-P vs 97 [20%] of 492) and alopecia (238 [44%] vs 249 [47%] vs 228 [46%] vs 235 [48%]). During extended follow-up, no further grade 3-4 adverse events or deaths related to toxic-effects were reported. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in nine (2%) patients in the q3EC-P group, seven (1%) in the q3FEC-P group, nine (2%) in the q2EC-P group, and nine (2%) in the q2FEC-P group. No treatment-related deaths occurred., Interpretation: Updated results from the GIM2 study support that optimal adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk early breast cancer should not include fluorouracil and should use a dose-dense schedule., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmacia, Dompè Biotec Italy, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, and Alliance Against Cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests LDM reports grants or contracts from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; fees or honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, and Ipsen; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, and Eisai; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. FPo reports support for attending meeting from Daichii Sankyo and Gilead; participation on advisory board from AstraZeneca; and fees or honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novartis outside the submitted work. SDP reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Seagen, Daichii Sankyo, and MSD outside the submitted work. MG reports fees or honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, MSD, and Genomic Health outside the submitted work. MDL reports personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Genomic Health, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, and Seagen outside the submitted work. FC reports consulting fees or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Astrazeneca, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Seagen, and Dompè outside the submitted work. AF reports consulting fees or honoraria and participation on an advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Dompè, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Sophos, Epionpharma, Gilead, Seagen, AstraZeneca, and Exact Science outside the submitted work. OG reports consulting fees or honoraria and participation on an advisory board from Daiichi Sanko, AstraZeneca, Seagen, Gilead, Eli-Lilly, and Novartis. MM reports consulting fees or honoraria and participation on an advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, AstraZeneca, and Gentili outside the submitted work. CB reports fees or honoraria from Novartis, Roche, and Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. FPu reports consulting fees or honoraria and participation on an advisory board from Amgen, Astrazeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, MSD–Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, and Viatris outside the submitted work; and research grants and support from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Roche outside the submitted work. FM reports fees or honoraria and participation on an advisory board from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, Pfizer, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. ML reports consulting fees or honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sandoz, and Takeda outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Study Question: Is it safe to perform controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation before starting anticancer therapies or ART after treatments in young breast cancer patients?, Summary Answer: Performing COS before, or ART following anticancer treatment in young women with breast cancer does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in terms of breast cancer recurrence, mortality or event-free survival (EFS)., What Is Known Already: COS for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before starting chemotherapy is standard of care for young women with breast cancer wishing to preserve fertility. However, some oncologists remain concerned on the safety of COS, particularly in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, even when associated with aromatase inhibitors. Moreover, limited evidence exists on the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors for achieving pregnancy after the completion of anticancer treatments., Study Design, Size, Duration: The present systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by three blinded investigators using the keywords 'breast cancer' and 'fertility preservation'; keywords were combined with Boolean operators. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 30 June 2021., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: To be included in this meta-analysis, eligible studies had to be case-control or cohort studies comparing survival outcomes of women who underwent COS or ART before or after breast cancer treatments compared to breast cancer patients not exposed to these strategies. Survival outcomes of interest were cancer recurrence rate, relapse rate, overall survival and number of deaths. Adjusted relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI were extracted. When the number of events for each group were available but the above measures were not reported, HRs were estimated using the Watkins and Bennett method. We excluded case reports or case series with <10 patients and studies without a control group of breast cancer patients who did not pursue COS or ART. Quality of data and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale., Main Results and the Role of Chance: A total of 1835 records were retrieved. After excluding ineligible publications, 15 studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis (n = 4643). Among them, 11 reported the outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent COS for fertility preservation before starting chemotherapy, and 4 the safety of ART following anticancer treatment completion. Compared to women who did not receive fertility preservation at diagnosis (n = 2386), those who underwent COS (n = 1594) had reduced risk of recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73) and mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76). No detrimental effect of COS on EFS was observed (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.06). A similar trend of better outcomes in terms of EFS was observed in women with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent COS (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20-0.65). A reduced risk of recurrence was also observed in patients undergoing COS before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.80). Compared to women not exposed to ART following completion of anticancer treatments (n = 540), those exposed to ART (n = 123) showed a tendency for better outcomes in terms of recurrence ratio (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) and EFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-1.11)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: This meta-analysis is based on abstracted data and most of the studies included are retrospective cohort studies. Not all studies had matching criteria between the study population and the controls, and these criteria often differed between the studies. Moreover, rate of recurrence is reported as a punctual event and it is not possible to establish when recurrences occurred and whether follow-up, which was shorter than 5 years in some of the included studies, is adequate to capture late recurrences., Wider Implications of the Findings: Our results demonstrate that performing COS at diagnosis or ART following treatment completion does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in young women with breast cancer, including among patients with hormone receptor-positive disease and those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Partially supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; grant number MFAG 2020 ID 24698) and the Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds 2017 (no grant number). M.L. acted as consultant for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Ipsen, Takeda, Libbs, Knight, Sandoz outside the submitted work. F.S. acted as consultant for Novartis, MSD, Sun Pharma, Philogen and Pierre Fabre and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for Roche, has received research grants from Roche and Ferring, has received reagents for academic clinical trial from Roche diagnostics, speaker's fees from Novartis, and support for congresses from Theramex and Ferring outside the submitted work. L.D.M. reported honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis and had an advisory role for Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for publication., Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Abstract: Survivorship has become a crucial component in breast cancer care. For women who have not completed their family planning, conceiving at the end of anticancer treatments should not be discouraged but might be challenging. Oncofertility counseling should be offered at the time of diagnosis to all patients, in order to inform them about the potential treatment-induced gonadotoxicity as well as the available strategies for fertility preservation, thus allowing to increase the chances of a future pregnancy. This article reports an updated overview on the current state of the art on pregnancy in women with prior breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, with a main focus on the issues faced by patients with history of hormone receptor-positive disease and BRCA carriers., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: F.P. received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. M.L. had advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Astrazeneca, MSD, Exact Sciences, Seagen, Gilead, and Pfizer and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Knight, and Takeda outside the submitted work. M.L. acknowledges the Italian Association for Cancer Research (“Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro,” AIRC; MFAG 2020 ID 24698) and the Italian Ministry of Health (5 × 1000 funds 2017) for supporting his research in the field of breast cancer in young women and oncofertility. For the remaining authors, none were declared., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) during chemotherapy is an established strategy to protect ovarian function in premenopausal breast cancer patients, no long-term safety data are available, raising some concerns in women with hormone receptor-positive disease. There are controversial data on its fertility preservation potential., Methods: The Prevention of Menopause Induced by Chemotherapy: a Study in Early Breast Cancer Patients-Gruppo Italiano Mammella 6 (PROMISE-GIM6) trial is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III superiority trial conducted at 16 Italian centers from October 2003 to January 2008. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy alone (control arm) or combined with the GnRHa triptorelin (GnRHa arm). The primary planned endpoint was incidence of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency. Post hoc endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and post-treatment pregnancies. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated., Results: Of 281 randomly assigned patients, 80.4% had hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Median follow-up was 12.4 years (interquartile range = 11.3-13.2 years). No differences in 12-year DFS (65.7% [95% CI = 57.0% to 73.1%] in the GnRHa arm vs 69.2% [95% CI = 60.3% to 76.5%] in the control arm; HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.77) or in 12-year OS (81.2% [95% CI = 73.6% to 86.8%] in the GnRHa arm vs 81.3% [95% CI = 73.1% to 87.2%] in the control arm; HR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.67 to 2.03) were observed. In patients with hormone receptor-positive disease, the hazard ratio was 1.02 (95% CI = 0.63 to 1.63) for DFS and 1.12 (95% CI = 0.59 to 2.11) for OS. In the GnRHa and control arms, 9 and 4 patients had a posttreatment pregnancy, respectively (HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 0.66 to 6.92)., Conclusions: Final analysis of the PROMISE-GIM6 trial provides reassuring results on the safety of GnRHa use during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer, including those with hormone receptor-positive disease., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background/aim: Clinicopathological features of patients undergoing margin enlargement after lumpectomy for early breast cancer with positive/close excision margins were analyzed in order to define whether a re-operative procedure could have been avoided. Furthermore, a standardized protocol of specimen orientation was adopted in order to optimize both the widening procedure as well as the oncologic outcome., Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed including pre-, peri-, and post-operative parameters, and a predictive score by means of a multivariate model was developed using all clinically and statistically significant variables associated with residual disease (RD)., Results: RD was significantly related to positive tumor margins, hormone receptor negative, HER2-positive, and tumors with high Ki67 proliferation index (p<0.001); the corresponding contribution to the prognostic score was as follows: close margins, 3 points; hormone receptor positive disease, 2 points; low Ki67, 2 points; HER2 negativity, 1 point. In 102 patients with a score >3, only 2 patients (2.0%) had RD, while in 81 patients with a score ≤3, 55 patients (67.9%) had RD (p<0.001)., Conclusion: This predictive model might aid in clinical-decision making of patients with positive margins who actually require a widening procedure after intraoperative and/or definitive histology., (Copyright© 2022, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

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: Many patients and physicians remain concerned about the potential detrimental effects of pregnancy after breast cancer (BC) in terms of reproductive outcomes and maternal safety. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at providing updated evidence on these topics., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies including patients with a pregnancy after BC (PROSPERO number CRD42020158324). Likelihood of pregnancy after BC, their reproductive outcomes, and maternal safety were assessed. Pooled relative risks, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using random effects models., Results: Of 6,462 identified records, 39 were included involving 8,093,401 women from the general population and 112,840 patients with BC of whom 7,505 had a pregnancy after diagnosis. BC survivors were significantly less likely to have a subsequent pregnancy compared with the general population (relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.49). Risks of caesarean section (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.25), low birth weight (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.73), preterm birth (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.88), and small for gestational age (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33) were significantly higher in BC survivors, particularly in those with previous chemotherapy exposure, compared with the general population. No significantly increased risk of congenital abnormalities or other reproductive complications were observed. Compared to patients with BC without subsequent pregnancy, those with a pregnancy had better disease-free survival (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.89) and overall survival (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68). Similar results were observed after correcting for potential confounders and irrespective of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, pregnancy outcome, and timing of pregnancy., Conclusion: These results provide reassuring evidence on the safety of conceiving in BC survivors. Patients' pregnancy desire should be considered a crucial component of their survivorship care plan., Competing Interests: Matteo LambertiniConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Theramex, Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz Richard A. AndersonHonoraria: Merck, IBSAConsulting or Advisory Role: NeRRe Therapeutics, Roche Diagnostics, SojournixResearch Funding: Roche Diagnostics Evandro de AzambujaHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, SeaGen, Zodiac PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Libbs, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Servier/Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline/NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline Philip D. PoorvuOther Relationship: Medscape Cynthia Villarreal-GarzaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, LillySpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Myriad Genetics, NovartisResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Oncology, Pfizer Barbara PistilliConsulting or Advisory Role: Puma Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Myriad Genetics, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Merus, Daiichi-SankyoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Novartis Ines Vaz-LuisHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Pfizer Cristina SauraConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Roche, Exeter Pharmaceuticals, MediTech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Philips, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi/Aventis, SeaGen, ZymeworksResearch Funding: Genentech, AstraZeneca, Roche, Macrogenics, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Synthon, PiqurTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Puma Biotechnology Kathryn J. RuddyResearch Funding: MedtronicPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Spouse and Mayo Clinic have filed patents related to the application of artificial intelligence to the electrocardiogram for diagnosis and risk stratification, and Spouse and Mayo Clinic are involved in a potential equity or royalty relationship with AliveCor Hatem A. Azim JrEmployment: Innate PharmaStock and Other Ownership Interests: Innate PharmaHonoraria: NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: DiaacurateSpeakers' Bureau: GlaxoSmithKlineTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Frederic AmantConsulting or Advisory Role: Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Samsung Bioepis Isabelle DemeestereConsulting or Advisory Role: RocheResearch Funding: Roche DiagnosticTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ferring Lucia Del MastroHonoraria: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, MSD OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi SankyoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Celgene Ann H. PartridgePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I receive small royalty payments for coauthoring the breast cancer survivorship section of UpToDateTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Olivia PaganiConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Lilly, Debiopharm Group Fedro A. PeccatoriConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Molecular Diagnostics, IpsenNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Offering ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies in premenopausal women with newly diagnosed breast cancer candidates to undergo chemotherapy is standard of care. However, few data are available on uptake and main reasons for refusing these options., Methods: The PREFER study (NCT02895165) is an observational, prospective study enrolling premenopausal women with early breast cancer, aged between 18 and 45 years, candidates to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Primary objective is to collect information on acceptance rates and reasons for refusal of the proposed strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation available in Italy., Results: At the study coordinating center, 223 patients were recruited between November 2012 and December 2020. Median age was 38 years (range 24 - 45 years) with 159 patients (71.3%) diagnosed at ≤40 years. Temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) was accepted by 58 out of 64 (90.6%) patients aged 41-45 years and by 151 out of 159 (95.0%) of those aged ≤40 years. Among patients aged ≤40 years, 57 (35.8%) accepted to access the fertility unit to receive a complete oncofertility counseling and 29 (18.2%) accepted to undergo a cryopreservation technique. Main reasons for refusal were fear of delaying the initiation of antineoplastic treatments and contraindications to the procedure or lack of interest in future childbearing. Patients with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer had a tendency for a higher acceptance rates of ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies than those with hormone-receptor negative disease., Conclusions: More than 90% of premenopausal women with early breast cancer, and particularly those with hormone receptor-positive disease, were concerned about the potential risk of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency and/or infertility and accepted GnRHa administration. Less than 1 out of 5 women aged ≤40 years accepted to undergo cryopreservation strategies., Competing Interests: FP reports consulting or advisory role from Merck Sharp and Dohme; speakers’ bureau from Eli Lilly, Novartis; travel, accommodations, expenses from Eli Lilly, Takeda. CB reports advisory board, clinical trials and lecture fee from Novartis, Roche, Lilly and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. ML acted as a consultant for Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Lilly, and received honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Takeda outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Blondeaux, Massarotti, Fontana, Poggio, Arecco, Fregatti, Bighin, Giannubilo, Ruelle, Razeti, Boni, Anserini, Del Mastro and Lambertini.)

Background: Luminal A-like and luminal B-like subtypes have different sensitivity to (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, but their role in predicting dose-dense (DD) efficacy in the high-risk setting is unknown. In this exploratory analysis of the Gruppo Italiano Mammella 2 (GIM2) trial, we investigated DD efficacy according to luminal-like subtypes., Methods: Patients with node-positive early breast cancer were randomised to receive either DD or standard-interval (SI) anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by paclitaxel. In our analysis, luminal A-like cohort was identified as having a Ki67 < 20% and a progesterone receptor (PgR) ≥ 20%; luminal B-like cohort as having a Ki67 ≥ 20% and/or a PgR < 20%., Results: Out of 2003 patients enrolled in the GIM2 trial, 412 had luminal A-like and 638 luminal B-like breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 7.9 years, disease-free survival (DFS) was 80.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76.4-84.5) and 70.5% (66.5-74.2) in luminal A-like and luminal B-like cohorts; overall survival (OS) was 91.6% (88.2-94.1) and 85.1% (81.7-87.9), respectively. We found no significant interaction between treatment and luminal subtype (interaction p = 0.603 and 0.535 for DFS and OS, respectively). When DD efficacy was investigated separately in each cohort, luminal-B like cohort appeared to benefit more from the DD schedule both in terms of DFS (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.72 [95% CI 0.54-0.96]) and OS (unadjusted HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.40-0.94]), compared with the luminal A-like cohort (unadjusted HR for DFS 0.89 [95% CI 0.59-1.33]; unadjusted HR for OS 0.83 [95% CI 0.45-1.54])., Conclusions: No significant interaction between luminal-like subtype and treatment was observed. Patients in the luminal B-like cohort seemed to benefit more from DD schedule., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement L.D.M. declares honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, Takeda and MSD and Seattle Genetics; a consulting and advisory role for Roche and Eli Lilly and fees for travel, accommodation and expenses from Roche, Pfizer and Celgene outside the submitted work. M.L. served as a consultant for Teva and received speaker honoraria from Theramex outside the submitted work. O.G. received personal fees from Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Novartis; travel and accommodation expenses from Celgene, Roche and Pfizer and research funding from Eisai outside the submitted work. F.P. received honoraria for advisory boards, activities as a speaker, travel grants, research grants from Agmen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer and Takeda and received research funding from Astrazeneca, Eisai and Roche outside the submitted work. M.D.L. declares consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Eisai and Celgene outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the prepertuzumab era, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer who underwent first-line trastuzumab-based or lapatinib-based therapy according to prior exposure to (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab., Materials and Methods: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study conducted in 14 Italian centres of the Gruppo Italiano Mammella, consecutive patients undergoing first-line trastuzumab or lapatinib-based therapy were included. Analyses were performed according to the type of first-line therapy for metastatic disease (trastuzumab or lapatinib). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were analysed using logistic regression and time-to-event outcomes using Cox proportional hazard models controlling for relevant demographic, clinicopathological and therapy characteristics., Results: Out of 450 patients included in the study, 416 (92%) received trastuzumab and 34 (7.5%) lapatinib. As compared with the trastuzumab cohort, more patients in the lapatinib cohort had a trastuzumab-free interval <1 month (37% vs 13.9%; p=0.017) and brain metastasis as first site of relapse (38.2% vs 9.4%; p<0.001). Among the 128 patients who relapsed after prior (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab, 101 (78.9%) received first-line trastuzumab and 27 (21.1%) first-line lapatinib. The following outcomes were observed with first-line lapatinib or trastuzumab, respectively: overall response rate 45.5% vs 61.3% (p=0.184), clinical benefit rate 68.2% vs 72.5% (p=0.691), median progression-free survival (PFS) 11.4 vs 12.0 months (p=0.814) and median overall survival (OS) 34.7 vs 48.2 months (p=0.722). In patients with brain metastasis as first site of relapse, median PFS was 12.2 vs 9.9 months (p=0.093) and median OS 33.7 vs 28.5 months (p=0.280), respectively., Conclusions: In patients with HER2-positive breast cancer relapsing after prior (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab, first-line treatment with trastuzumab or lapatinib was not associated with a significant difference in the clinical outcomes. A non-significant trend favouring the use of lapatinib was observed in patients with brain metastasis as the first site of relapse., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ARF received travel grant directed to his institution to participate in scientific meeting from Roche and Novartis outside of the submitted work. FP served as a consultant and received honoraria, outside the submitted work, from Amgen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche; received research funding from Astrazeneca, Eisai, Roche outside the submitted work and received travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Servier outside the submitted work. FM served as a consultant and/or received speaker’s honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Daiichi Sankyo. ML served as a consultant for Teva and received honoraria from Theramex and Takeda outside the submitted work. LDM served as a consultant and received honoraria, outside the submitted work, from Roche, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Eisai, Eli lilly, MSD, Genomic health, Takeda, Ipsen, Pfeizer, Seattle Genetics., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background and Objectives: The increasing use of arm totally implantable vascular access devices for breast cancer patients who require chemotherapy has led to a greater risk of complications and failures and, in particular, to upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of the arm peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique in breast cancer patients., Methods: The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique is an evolution of the standard arm-totally implantable vascular access device implant based on guided ultrasound venous access in the proximal third of the upper limb with subsequent placement of the reservoir at the middle third of the arm. A prospective study was conducted on 418 adult female breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. The primary study outcome was peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT failure., Results: Median follow-up was 215 days. Complications occurred in 29 patients (6.9%) and failure resulting in removal of the device in 11 patients (2.6%). The main complication we observed was upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, 10 (2.4%); all patients were rescued by anticoagulant treatment without peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT removal. The main reason for removal was reservoir pocket infection: 4 (0.9%) with an infection rate of 0.012 per 1000 catheter days. Cumulative 1-year risk of failure was 3.6% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-7.1%). With regard to the patients' characteristics, body mass index <22.5 was the only significant risk for failure ( p = 0.027)., Conclusion: The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT is a safe vascular device for chemotherapy delivery that achieves similar clinical results as traditional long-term vascular access devices (peripherally inserted central catheter and arm totally implantable vascular access device, in particular) in breast cancer patients.

Breast cancer is the most frequent malignancy diagnosed in premenopausal women. In this age group, breast tumors tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages and to harbor more aggressive biological features. In addition, specific age-related issues including genetic counseling, fertility preservation, impact on social and couple relationships, working life, and management of long-term side effects should be considered highly relevant when managing early breast cancer in premenopausal women. Therefore, the care of these patients is particularly complex and a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory. The present review summarizes the current state of art in the adjuvant systemic treatment of premenopausal women with early breast cancer focusing on the optimal chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy approaches in this specific patient population., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests:M.T. received travel grants from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Honoraria as medical writer from Novartis outside the submitted work. M.L. served as consultant for Roche and Novartis, and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Takeda, Lilly, Novartis and Theramex outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflicts of interests., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background/aim: A retrospective study was performed in 246 breast cancer patients to define whether tumor-to-nipple distance (TND) assessment by breast MRI may select patients eligible to nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) as compared to permanent section assessment of retroareolar margin., Patients and Methods: Pre- and post-operative parameters including imaging data, histology of the primary tumor, biologic prognostic factors, and adjuvant regimens were retrieved; patients with close/positive retroareolar margins underwent nipple or NAC excision. The primary endpoint was loco-regional recurrence (LRR)., Results: Patients with TND ≤2 cm had a significantly higher rate of invasive ductal carcinoma (p<0.003) and excision margins less than 2 mm (p<0.000). Eleven retroareolar specimens were positive at definitive pathology; final re-excision specimen examination showed residual disease in seven patients (63.6%). At a median follow-up of 31 to 33 months, no NAC recurrence did occur; disease-free survival was more than 96%, and LRR was homogeneously distributed among TND subgroups., Conclusion: Therapeutic NSM is a safe procedure independently of TND assessed at preoperative breast MRI. Permanent section assessment of retroareolar tissue is more accurate and cost-effective than frozen section. Furthermore, delayed nipple and/or NAC excision did not impair local disease control., (Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care in high-risk early breast cancer patients. Dose-dense should be the preferred schedule of administration. However, its long-term benefit is unknown., Methods: In the Italian multicentre Phase 3 randomised MIG-1 trial, node-positive and high-risk node- negative breast cancer patients were randomised to receive six cycles of adjuvant fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide regimen administered every 3 (FEC21) or 2 (FEC14) weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS)., Results: From 1992 to 1997, 1214 patients were included. Median follow-up was 15.8 years. In all, 15-year OS was 71% and 68% in the FEC14 and FEC21 groups, respectively (HR = 0.89; p = 0.25). In all, 15-year EFS was 47% and 43% in the FEC14 and FEC21 groups, respectively (HR = 0.87; p = 0.18). In a pre-planned subgroup analysis, among patients with hormone receptor-negative tumours, 15-year OS was 70% and 65% in the FEC14 and FEC21 groups, respectively (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.51-1.06); 15-year EFS was 58% and 43% in the FEC14 and FEC21 groups, respectively (HR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96)., Conclusions: Updated results from the MIG-1 study are numerically in favour of dose-dense chemotherapy, and suggest a long-term benefit of this approach in high-risk early breast cancer patients.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.

Background: T-DM1 improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2 + ) breast cancer progressing on prior trastuzumab plus a taxane. A paucity of data is available on T-DM1 efficacy after dual anti-HER2 blockade with pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus a taxane, which represents the current first-line standard of care. The present study is a retrospective/prospective evaluation of the efficacy and activity of second-line T-DM1 after front-line pertuzumab-based therapy., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were identified within the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) 14/BIOMETA study, a retrospective/prospective multicenter study on treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with metastatic breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02284581). We searched for patients who received second-line T-DM1 after taxane plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab between November 15, 2013 and May 31, 2018. We calculated median PFS, median time to treatment failure (TTF), prolonged duration of therapy (PDT), objective response rate (ORR), and 1-year OS., Results: Of 445 patients with HER2 + metastatic breast cancer, 77 were eligible for the analysis. At a median follow-up of 7 months, median PFS was 6.3 months (95% confidence intervals [CI], 4.8-7.7 months), and median TTF was 6.2 months (95% CI, 4-8.6 months). More than one-third of patients (37.6%; n = 29) experienced PDT with an ORR of 27.1%. At data cutoff, the median OS was not reached, and the 1-year OS was 82%., Conclusions: Our results show meaningful activity of T-DM1 after front-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and a taxane, with about 27% of patients having an objective response and 40% of patients achieving durable disease control., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)