Patients with only 1 positive hormone receptor have increased locoregional recurrence compared with patients with estrogen receptor-positive progesterone receptor-positive disease in very early stage breast cancer

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: Executive Summary of Clinical Topics

PURPOSE

To conduct an appropriate use criteria expert panel update on clinical topics relevant to current clinical practice regarding postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals was conducted from May 4, 2010 to May 4, 2022 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to search the PubMed database to retrieve a comprehensive set of relevant articles. A well-established methodology (modified Delphi) was used by the expert panel to rate the appropriate use of procedures.

RESULTS

Evidence for key questions in PMRT regarding benefit in special populations and technical considerations for delivery was examined and described. Risk factors for local-regional recurrence in patients with intermediate-risk disease that indicate benefit of PMRT include molecular subtype, age, clinical stage, and pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Use of hypofractionated radiation in PMRT has been examined in several recent randomized trials and is under investigation for patients with breast reconstruction. The use of bolus varies significantly by practice region and has limited evidence for routine use. Adverse effects occurred with both PMRT preimplant and postimplant exchange in 2-staged breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with even limited nodal involvement will likely benefit from PMRT with significant reduction in local-regional recurrence and potential survival. Patients with initial clinical stage III disease and/or any residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be strongly considered for PMRT. Growing evidence supports the use of hypofractionated radiation for PMRT with equivalent efficacy and decreased acute side effects, but additional evidence is needed for special populations. There is limited evidence to support routine use of bolus in all patients. Timing of PMRT regarding completion of 2-staged breast reconstruction requires a discussion of increased risks with radiation postimplant exchange compared with increased risk of failure of reconstruction or surgical complications with radiation preimplant exchange.

Prognostic and predictive biomarkers with therapeutic targets in breast cancer: A 2022 update on current developments, evidence, and recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and validate the recent and emerging data for prognostic and predictive biomarkers with therapeutic targets in breast cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search from January 2015 to March 2022 was performed using the key terms breast cancer, clinical practice guidelines, gene mutations, genomic assay, immune cancer therapy, predictive and/or prognostic biomarkers, and targeted therapies.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant clinical trials, meta-analyses, seminal articles, and published evidence- and consensus-based clinical practice guidelines in the English language were identified, reviewed and evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Breast cancer is a biologically heterogeneous disease, leading to wide variability in treatment responses and survival outcomes. Biomarkers for breast cancer are evolving from traditional biomarkers in immunohistochemistry (IHC) such as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) to genetic biomarkers with therapeutic implications (e.g. breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 [BRCA1/2], estrogen receptor α [ESR1] gene mutation, HER2 gene mutation, microsatellite instability [MSI], phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase catalytic subunit 3Cα [PIK3CA] gene mutation, neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase [NTRK] gene mutation). In addition, current data are most robust for biomarkers in immunotherapy (e.g. programmed cell death receptor ligand-1 [PD-L1], microsatellite instability-high [MSI-H] or deficient mismatch repair [dMMR]). Oncotype DX assay remains the best validated gene expression assay that is both predictive and prognostic whereas MammaPrint is prognostic for genomic risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomarker-driven therapies have the potential to confer greater therapeutic advantages than standard-of-care therapies. The purported survival benefits associated with biomarker-driven therapies should be weighed against their potential harms.

Predictive Factors of Long-Term Survival after Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy in High-Risk Breast Cancer

Simple Summary

This retrospective analysis reports on the treatment outcomes of women diagnosed with high-risk breast cancer treated with chemotherapy in combination with radiotherapy before the surgical removal of the tumor. It is well established that the lack of visible tumor cells in the pathological tumors analysis by the time of surgery (known as pathological complete response, pCR) is a factor that improves survival without the tumor reappearing in the body. However, it is unknown whether that is only true when giving systemic therapy or when pCR is achieved with the help of radiotherapy. We collected patient information and survival times to analyze the outcome in our patient group. We found that women with a pCR treated with chemotherapy in combination with radiotherapy can expect favorable long-term survival. This was true across different types of breast cancer and chemotherapy substances.

Abstract

Background: Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (naRT) in addition to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (naCT) has been used for locally advanced, inoperable breast cancer or to allow breast conserving surgery (BCS). Retrospective analyses suggest that naRT + naCT might result in an improvement in pathological complete response (pCR rate and disease-free survival). pCR is a surrogate parameter for improved event-free and overall survival (OS) and allows for the adaption of the post-neoadjuvant therapy regimens. However, it is not clear whether pCR achieved with the addition of naRT has the same prognostic value. Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective re-analysis of 356 patients (cT1-cT4/cN0-N+) treated with naRT and naCT with a long-term follow-up. Patients underwent naRT on the breast and regional lymph nodes combined with a boost to the primary tumor. Chemotherapy with different agents was given either sequentially or concomitantly to naRT. We used the Cox proportional hazard regression model to estimate the effect of pCR in our cohort in different subgroups as well as chemotherapy protocols. Clinical response markers correlating with OS were also analyzed. Results: For patients with median follow-ups of 20 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, OS rates were 69.7%, 60.6%, 53.1%, and 45.1%, respectively. pCR was achieved in 31.1% of patients and associated with a significant improvement in OS (HR = 0.58; CI-95%: 0.41–0.80; p = 0.001). The prognostic impact of pCR was evident across breast cancer subtypes and chemotherapy regimens. Multivariate analysis showed that age, clinical tumor and nodal stage, chemotherapy, and pCR were prognostic for OS. Conclusion: NaCT and naRT prior to surgical resection achieve good long-term survival in high-risk breast cancer. pCR after naRT maintains its prognostic value in breast cancer subtypes and across different subgroups. pCR driven by naRT and naCT independently influences long-term survival.

Prognostic Relevance of Progesterone Receptor Levels in Early Luminal-Like HER2 Negative Breast Cancer Subtypes: A Retrospective Analysis

Introduction

In luminal-like early breast cancer (BC), the lack of Progesterone Receptor (PR) expression generally correlates with more aggressive behavior but the clinical validity of low PR levels remains a debated issue.

Methods

The main aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess the survival outcome (Breast cancer specific survival, BCSS) in a cohort of 687 luminal-like HER2 negative early BC patients treated at our Institutions from January 2000 to December 2018, using a sub-classification of tumors in subgroup 1 (PR high/Ki67 low), subgroup 2 (PR high/Ki67 high), subgroup 3 (PR low/Ki67 low), subgroup 4 (PR low/Ki67 high) according to PR and Ki67 values.

Results

At a median follow-up of 7 years, BCSS rates were 96.3%, 89%, 86.8% and 85% in the subgroup 1, 2, 3, 4 respectively. Overall, a statistically significant difference in BCSS rates was observed among the 4 subgroups (p=0.0036). On univariate analysis, post-menopause, older age (≥ 50 years), low PR and high Ki67 expression, poorly differentiated grade and size ≥ 2 cm as well as luminal B-like tumors (subgroups 2, 3, 4) were significantly associated with a worse BCSS. Multivariate analysis identified grade, size and subgroup classification of BC as independent prognostic markers of poorer outcome. In particular, subgroups 4, 3 and 2 displayed a significantly higher risk of BC-related death (HR=4.11; p=0.008; HR=3.43; p=0-007; HR=2.57; p=0.020, respectively) when compared to subgroup 1.

Conclusions

Our results support the usefulness of PR and Ki67 levels as prognostic markers, corroborating their crucial role in the decision-making process of patients with luminal-like HER2 negative early BC. Clinical application of these parameters should be assessed prospectively.

Prognostic and predictive parameters in breast pathology: a pathologist's primer

The pathologist's role in the breast cancer treatment team has evolved from rendering a diagnosis of breast cancer, to providing a growing list of prognostic and predictive parameters such that individualized treatment decisions can be made based on likelihood of benefit from additional treatments and potential benefit from specific therapies. In all stages, ER and HER2 status help segregate breast cancers into treatment groups with similar outcomes and treatment response rates, however, traditional pathologic parameters such as favorable histologic subtype, size, lymph node status, and Nottingham grade also have remained clinically relevant in early stage disease decision-making. This is especially true for the most common subtype of breast cancer; ER positive, HER2 negative disease. For this same group of breast cancers, an ever-expanding list of gene-expression panels also can provide prediction and prognostication about potential chemotherapy benefit beyond standard endocrine therapies, with the 21-gene Recurrence Score, currently the only prospectively validated predictive test for this purpose. In the more aggressive ER-negative cancer subtypes, response to neoadjuvant therapy and` the extent of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are more recently recognized powerful prognostic parameters, and clinical guidelines now offer additional treatment options for those high-risk patients with residual cancer after standard neoadjuvant therapy. In stage four disease, predictive tests like germline BRCA status, tumor PIK3CA mutation status (in ER+ metastatic disease) and PDL-1 status (in triple negative metastatic disease) are now used to determine additional new treatment options. The objective of this review is to describe the latest in prognostic and predictive parameters in breast cancer as they are relevant to standard pathology reporting and how they are used in breast cancer clinical treatment decisions.

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Update

PURPOSE.—

To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.

METHODS.—

A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.

RECOMMENDATIONS.—

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

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

The role of progesterone and the progesterone receptor in human reproduction and cancer

Insufficient progesterone, effect possibly more on immune factors rather than adequate endometrial development, can be an easy remedial cause of infertility by simply supplementing the luteal phase with either vaginal or intramuscular or oral (dydrogesterone) progesterone. Progesterone will also help to reduce miscarriage rates when follicle maturing drugs are used for those with regular menses but follicular maturation defects, or women with recurrent miscarriages. One mechanism of action seems to be related to production of an immunomodulatory protein, the progesterone-induced blocking factor either in the cytoplasm or in the circulation. PIBF inhibits cytotoxicity of natural killer cells. Cancer cells may 'borrow' the same mechanism to escape NK cell immunosurveillance.