Search

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.)

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

Background: Routine testing for cancer patients not presenting COVID-19-related symptoms and fully vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 prior to cancer treatment is controversial., Methods: In this retrospective study we evaluated whether antigen-rapid-diagnostic-test (Ag-RDT) monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in a large cohort of consecutive asymptomatic (absence of SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat or nasal congestion) and fully vaccinated cancer patients enrolled in a short period during cancer treatment has an impact on the therapeutic path of cancer patients., Results: From December 27, 2021, to February 11, 2022, 2439 cancer patients were screened through Ag-RDT for SARS-CoV-2 before entering the hospital for systemic treatment. Fifty-three patients (2.17%) tested positive, of whom 7 (13.2%) subsequently developed COVID-related symptoms, generally mild. Cancer treatment was discontinued, as a precaution, in 49 patients (92.5%) due to the test positivity., Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 screening in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients during systemic treatment appeared to be not cost-effective: the low rate of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and the low percentage of overt associated infection do not seem proportional to the direct costs (nursing work for swabs, costs of materials and patient monitoring) and indirect costs (dedicated rooms, extension of waiting times for patients and oncologists in delivering therapy as well as its discontinuation in the positive ones). It can, on the other hand, be detrimental when systemic cancer treatment is suspended as a precaution. Given the small number of patients testing positive and the rapid and favorable trend of the infection, it is recommended to always consider continuing systemic oncological treatment, especially when this impacts patient survival as in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and Sars-Cov-2 infection from the Veneto Oncology Network registry across two pandemic time periods., Materials and Methods: 761 patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were included., Results: 198 patients were diagnosed during the first pandemic time period (TP1; February 2020 September 2020), 494 during TP2 before the vaccination campaign (TP2/pre-vaccination; September 2020-21 February 2021) and 69 in TP2/post-vaccination (22 February 2021-15 May 2021). TP2 vs TP1 patients were younger (p = 0.004), showed more frequently a good performance status (p < 0.001) and <2 comorbidities (p = 0.002), were more likely to be on active anticancer therapy (p = 0.006). Significantly fewer patients in TP2 (3-4%) vs TP1 (22%) had an in-hospital potential source of infection (p < 0.001). TP2 patients were more frequently asymptomatic (p = 0.003). Significantly fewer patients from TP2 were hospitalized (p < 0.001) or admitted to intensive care unit (p = 0.006). All-cause mortality decreased from 30.3% in TP1, to 8.9% and 8.7% in the two TP2 periods (p < 0.001), reflected by a significant reduction in Sars-Cov-2-related mortality (15.2%, 7.5% and 5.8% in the three consecutive time periods, p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Differences in clinical characteristics and features of Sars-Cov-2 infection between TP1 and TP2 reflect the effects of protective measures and increased testing capacity. The lower mortality in TP2 is in line with a less frail population. However, the vast majority of death events in TP2 were related to COVID-19, reinforcing the priority to protect cancer patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few data are available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in cancer patients undergoing active cancer-directed treatment., Patients and Methods: This case series analyzes outcomes in terms of adverse events in 5297 patients undergoing anti-cancer treatment who were vaccinated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at a single cancer center from March 6, 2021 to May 9, 2021. Adverse events were retrieved from the national Italian pharmacovigilance platform (http://www.vigicovid.it)., Results: Of the 5297 patients treated for either solid tumors (87%) or onco-hematologic malignancies (13%) who were vaccinated, 8 adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported. One was a severe ADR and 7 were non-severe ADRs. Non-severe ADRs resolved within 48 hours., Conclusion: BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was safely administered in the largest cohort of cancer patients reported to date., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Phyllodes tumours (PTs) are rare fibroepithelial tumours accounting for <1% of all breast tumours. We assessed clinicopathological features and their prognostic effect in a single-institution patients' cohort., Methods: Patients diagnosed with PT between 2001 and 2018 at our institution were identified. Clinical, surgical and pathological features were collected. Phyllodes-related relapse was defined as locoregional or distant recurrence (contralateral excluded), whichever first., Results: A total of 166 patients were included: 115 with benign, 30 with borderline and 21 with malignant PTs. Features associated with malignant PT were younger age, larger T size, higher mitotic count, marked cytological atypia, stromal overgrowth, stromal hypercellularity, necrosis and heterologous differentiation (all p<0.01). The majority of patients with malignant PT underwent mastectomy (63.2% vs 3% of benign/borderline, p<0.001) and had negative surgical margins (83.3%). 4-year cumulative phyllodes-related relapse incidence was 7% for benign/borderline PT and 21.3% for malignant PT (p=0.107). In the entire cohort, marked cellular atypia and heterologous differentiation were associated with worse phyllodes-related relapse-free survival (HR 14.10, p=0.036 for marked vs mild atypia; HR 4.21, p=0.031 for heterologous differentiation present vs absent). For patients with benign PT, larger tumour size was associated with worse phyllodes-related relapse-free survival (HR 9.67, p=0.013 for T>5 cm vs T≤2 cm). Higher tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were associated with borderline and malignant PT (p=0.023); TILs were not associated with phyllodes-related relapse-free survival (HR 0.58, p=0.361 for TILs>2% vs≤2%). Overall, four patients died because of PT: three patients with malignant and one with borderline PT., Conclusions: Patients with malignant PT had increased rates of phyllodes-related relapse and phyllodes-related death. Cellular atypia and heterologous differentiation were poor prognostic factors in the entire cohort; large tumour size was associated with an increased risk of phyllodes-related relapse in benign PT., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MVD declares personal fees for consulting/advisory board from Eli Lilly, Celgene and Genomic Health. APDT declares personal fees for advisory boards/speaker’s bureau from PharaMAr, Lilly, Roche, Bayer and Pfizer. PFC reports grants (Institution) from Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco AIFA, Merck KGa and BMS; personal fees for consulting/advisory board from Novartis, EliLilly, AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Roche. VG reports grants (institution) and personal fees for consulting/advisor from Roche; personal fees for consulting/advisory relationship from Novartis and Eli Lilly. All the disclosures are outside the submitted work. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest., (© 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: The integration of residual cancer burden (RCB) and post-treatment Ki67 as residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) has been proposed as a stronger predictor of long-term outcome in unselected patients with breast cancer (BC) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), as compared with RCB. However, no specific analysis in hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HER2-) BC is available so far., Materials and Methods: A cohort of 130 patients with HR+/HER2- BC who underwent NACT between 2000 and 2014 was included. Archival surgical specimens were evaluated for RCB. RPCB was calculated by combining RCB and Ki67 as previously described. Patients were categorized in four RCB and RPCB categories (pathological complete response and tertiles). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) estimates were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using the log-rank test. Overall change of χ 2 and c-indexes were used to compare the performance of the prognostic models., Results: RPCB was calculated for 85 patients. After a median follow up of 8.5 years, RCB was associated with OS (p = .048) but not with DFS (p = .152); RPCB was instead significantly associated with both DFS and OS (p = .034 and p < .001, respectively). In terms of OS, RPCB provided a significant amount of prognostic information beyond RCB (∆χ 2 5.73, p < .001). In addition, c-index for OS prediction was significantly higher for RPCB as compared with RCB (0.79 vs. 0.61, p = .03)., Conclusion: This is the first study evaluating RPCB in patients with HR+/HER2- BC treated with NACT. In this independent cohort, RPCB was a strong predictor of DFS and OS. The better performance of RPCB versus RCB was in part due to the ability of RPCB to discriminate a subgroup of patients with a particularly worse prognosis after NACT, who may be candidates for clinical trials evaluating novel adjuvant strategies., Implications for Practice: The present work validated residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) as a strong predictor of long-term outcome in patients with hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, results from the present study suggest RPCB as a promising tool to identify patients with HR+/HER2- BC who might potentially benefit from the inclusion in clinical trials evaluating novel or escalated postneoadjuvant treatment strategies because it allowed to discriminate a subgroup of patients with particularly poor prognosis despite having received subsequent endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) affects the majority of patients receiving chemotherapy (CT) for early breast cancer. It is a highly distressing side effect of CT, with psychological and social impact. Primary aim of the present analysis was to assess the efficacy of scalp cooling with DigniCap® in preventing CIA. Success rate was defined as patients' self-reported hair loss <50% according to Dean scale. In this analysis, we reported success rate at 3 weeks after the first CT course and at 3 weeks after the last CT course. Secondary endpoints included self-reported tolerability and patients' judgment on scalp cooling performance. Consecutive early breast cancer patients admitted to Istituto Oncologico Veneto who were recommended to receive neoadjuvant or adjuvant CT, were eligible to undergo scalp cooling during the CT administration within this study. 135 patients were included: 74% received adjuvant CT and 26% neoadjuvant CT (P < .001). The type of CT was: docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (26%), paclitaxel (23%), epirubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (32%), and paclitaxel followed by epirubicincyclophosphamide (19%). The rate of success in preventing alopecia was 77% (104/135) at 3 weeks from the start of CT and 60% (81/135) at 3 weeks from the end of treatment. Higher success rates were reported in non-anthracycline (71%) compared to anthracycline-containing CT regimens (54%; P < 0.001). Premature discontinuation of scalp cooling was reported in 29/135 patients (21.5%), including withdrawal for alopecia (16/29), for low scalp cooling tolerability (8/29) or both (5/29). Scalp cooling was generally well tolerated. These results overall suggest that the use of scalp cooling is effective in preventing alopecia in the majority of early breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant CT, especially for patients undergoing a taxane-based non-anthracycline regimen., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: We evaluated immunohistochemical AR expression and correlation with prognosis in a large series of homogeneously treated patients with primary TNBC. Material and Methods: Patients diagnosed with stage I-III TNBC between 2000 and 2015 at Istituto Oncologico Veneto who received treatment with surgery and neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy were included. Whole tissue slides were stained for AR. AR-positive expression was defined as >1% of positively stained tumor cells. Distant-disease-free survival (DDFS) was calculated from diagnosis to distant relapse or death. Late-DDFS was calculated from the landmark of 3 years after diagnosis until distant relapse or death. Results: We included 263 primary TNBC patients. Mean AR expression was 14% (range 0-100%), and 29.7% ( n = 78) of patients were AR+. AR+ vs. AR- cases presented more frequently older age ( p < 0.001), non-ductal histology ( p < 0.001), G1-G2 ( p = 0.003), lower Ki67 ( p < 0.001) and lower TILs ( p = 0.008). At a median follow up of 81 months, 23.6% of patients experienced a DDFS event: 33.3% of AR+ and 19.5% of AR- patients ( p = 0.015). 5 years DDFS rates were 67.2% and 80.6% for AR+ and AR- patients (HR = 1.82 95%CI 1.10-3.02, p = 0.020). AR maintained an independent prognostic role beyond stage, but when TILs were added to the model only stage and TILs were independent prognostic factors. AR was the only factor significantly associated with late-DDFS: 16.4% of AR+ and 3.4% of AR- patients experienced a DDFS after the landmark of 3 years after diagnosis ( p = 0.001). Late-DDFS rates at 5 years from the 3-year landmark were 75.8% for AR+ and 95.2% for AR- patients (log-rank p < 0.001; HR = 5.67, 95%CI 1.90-16.94, p = 0.002). Conclusions: AR expression is associated with worse outcome for patients with TNBC. In particular, AR+ TNBC patients are at increased risk of late DDFS events. These results reinforce the rationale of AR targeting in AR+ TNBC.

Background: Neoplastic pericardial effusion (NPE) is a life-threatening condition that can worsen clinical outcome in cancer patients. The optimal management of NPE has yet to be defined because randomized studies are lacking. Objective: We report a retrospective monoinstitutional experience describing characteristics, management and prognostic factors in NPE patients. Design: We reviewed clinical, pathological, and echocardiographic features, therapeutic strategies, and outcome in NPE patients referred to our institute from August 2011 to December 2017. Measurements: Twenty-nine patients with NPE from solid tumors have been identified: 21 lung, 5 breast, and 3 other cancer patients. Results: Median age was 62 years. Most of the patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥2 (69%) and a symptomatic NPE (69%). In 52% of patients NPE was detected at first diagnosis of metastatic disease, and in 20% of patients pericardium was the only site of metastases. Most of the patients (62%) received systemic therapy, 28% received combined locoregional and systemic therapy, and 10% received locoregional therapy alone. Median overall survival (OS) from NPE diagnosis was 3.9 months. Patients with PS ≥2 had worse OS than patients with better PS <2 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.56, IC 95% 1.19-10.65, p 0.02). Older age, extrapericardial disease, and NPE at progression showed a trend of association with worse OS. Patients treated with locoregional therapy alone showed the shortest median OS ( p 0.05). Conclusions: NPE is related to dismal prognosis. Poor PS significantly worsens survival and influences therapeutic approaches. Randomized studies are required to investigate prognostic factors and appropriate clinical management for patients with NPE.

Brain metastases are a serious relatively common complication of breast cancer. We evaluated prognostic factors for survival after diagnosis of brain metastases from breast cancer in a contemporary cohort of patients. Patients diagnosed with breast cancer brain metastases at our institution between 1999 and March 2016 were evaluated. Overall survival was defined as time from brain metastasis diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Patients were classified according to the Breast cancer-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (BS-GPA), based on age, Karnofsky performance score and breast cancer phenotype. 181 patients were identified. Tumor phenotype distribution was as follows: triple negative (TN, 18.8%), hormone receptor (HR)-HER2+ (16.6%), HR+HER2+ (23.2%) and HR+HER2- (30.9%), not available (10.5%). Median overall survival from brain metastasis diagnosis was 7.7 mos (95% CI 5.4-10.0 mos). Although TN patients experienced the worse outcome, no significant difference was observed across tumor phenotypes (median 5.1, 7.7, 11.0 and 8.6 months in TN, HR-HER2+, HR+HER2+, HR+HER2-, p = 0.081). The BS-GPA index was significantly associated with overall survival (median 18.8, 8.8, 6.2 and 3.6 months, respectively, for BS-GPA categories 3.5-4, 2.5-3, 1.5-2 and 0-1, p = 0.014). Increased number of local treatments for brain metastasis (radiotherapy or neurosurgery) or the administration of systemic therapy after brain metastasis diagnosis were also significant predictors of better overall survival (p < 0.001) and, when evaluated in multivariate analysis with BS-GPA, both added independent prognostication beyond BS-GPA. Patient-related features, tumor phenotype and multimodal treatments all independently contribute to modulate prognosis of patients diagnosed with breast cancer brain metastases.