Validation of a personalized risk prediction model for contralateral breast cancer

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer in Chinese female population: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Due to differences in socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, the characteristics and prognosis of Asian female patients choosing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are likely to be different from Western patients. To fill the research gap of CPM in Asian populations, this study aims to explore the application trend, survival benefits, decision-making factors, and satisfaction of CPM based on the Chinese patients undergoing CPM.

Methods

The 0-III stage unilateral breast cancer (UBC) patients who received breast surgery in the Chinese PLA General Hospital from 2005 to 2017 were selected. The surgical procedures included simple mastectomy (SM), nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), breast conserving surgery (BCS), and CPM. Cox proportional regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve were performed to compare the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates between CPM group and unilateral mastectomy (UM) group. Proportional propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio was used to match the two groups and secondary survival analysis was performed. Logistic regression models were used to test predictive factors related to patients' CPM surgical decision-making.

Results

Four thousand two hundred and seventy-six patients were included in the study, with 73 patients receiving CPM, 3,567 receiving SM, 151 receiving NSM, and 485 receiving BCS. CPM surgery was first used in 2007, with a peak application rate of 3.02% in 2016. Three thousand seven hundred and ninety-one patients were included in the survival analysis, with a median follow-up time of 66.60 months. Compared to UM patients, neither the KM survival curve nor Cox regression hazard analyses of CPM showed better OS (P=0.963; P=0.834). After PSM, CPM also did not exhibit significant survival benefits in OS (P=0.335) and DFS (P=0.409). The logistic regression analyses showed that NSM surgery and lower tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage were independent factors to promote the CPM decision-making of patients. The CPM group showed high overall satisfaction (84.9%) and relatively low appearance satisfaction (69.9%).

Conclusions

CPM was practiced for the first time since 2007 in our hospital. CPM does not provide any OS and DFS benefits compared to UM and the appearance satisfaction procedure was relatively low. Therefore, clinicians should fully communicate with patients before surgery and be more cautious in giving CPM recommendations.

EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy

After a diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer, increasing numbers of patients are requesting contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), the surgical removal of the healthy breast after diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. It is important for the community of breast cancer specialists to provide meaningful guidance to women considering CPM. This manifesto discusses the issues and challenges of CPM and provides recommendations to improve oncological, surgical, physical and psychological outcomes for women presenting with unilateral breast cancer: (1) Communicate best available risks in manageable timeframes to prioritise actions; better risk stratification and implementation of risk-assessment tools combining family history, genetic and genomic information, and treatment and prognosis of the first breast cancer are required; (2) Reserve CPM for specific situations; in women not at high risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), ipsilateral breast-conserving surgery is the recommended option; (3) Encourage patients at low or intermediate risk of CBC to delay decisions on CPM until treatment for the primary cancer is complete, to focus on treating the existing disease first; (4) Provide patients with personalised information about the risk:benefit balance of CPM in manageable timeframes; (5) Ensure patients have an informed understanding of the competing risks for CBC and that there is a realistic plan for the patient; (6) Ensure patients understand the short- and long-term physical effects of CPM; (7) In patients considering CPM, offer psychological and surgical counselling before surgery; anxiety alone is not an indication for CPM; (8) Eliminate inequality between countries in reimbursement strategies; CPM should be reimbursed if it is considered a reasonable option resulting from multidisciplinary tumour board assessment; (9) Treat breast cancer patients at specialist breast units providing the entire patient-centred pathway.

BRCA-CRisk: A Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for BRCA Carriers

PURPOSE

The absolute cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) for patients with BRCA1/2 variants is unknown. The purpose of this study was to develop a CBC risk prediction model for assessing CBC risk for BRCA1/2 carriers.

METHODS

The primary cohort of 491 patients with BRCA1/2 variants was derived from a large series of unselected patients with breast cancer. A nomogram was established on the basis of the results of a multivariate Cox regression analysis from this cohort. This model, named BRCA-CRisk, was further validated by an independent cohort of 205 patients with BRCA1/2 variants. Discrimination and calibration of the model were assessed.

RESULTS

In the primary cohort of 491 patients, 66 developed contralateral breast cancer after a median follow-up of 7.0 years. Four variables were significantly associated with risk of CBC and were incorporated in the establishment of the BRCA-CRisk prediction model: younger age at first breast cancer (with continuous variable, P = .002), positive first-degree family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.16 to 3.08; P = .011), variant located near the 3' region of BRCA (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.23 to 3.30; P = .006), and endocrine therapy (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.88; P = .013). The area under the time-dependent curves for the 5- and 10-year cumulative risks of CBC were 0.775 and 0.702, respectively. The model was well validated in the independent cohort of 205 BRCA1/2 carriers, with area under the curves of 0.750 and 0.691 for 5 and 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

BRCA-CRisk model provides a useful tool for assessing the absolute cumulative risk of CBC for BRCA1/2 carriers and may help carriers and clinicians optimally select risk-reducing strategies on the basis of individual CBC risk.

Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.

Tools for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Decision Making

PURPOSE

Women with unilateral breast cancer are increasingly opting for the removal of not only the involved breast, but also for the removal of the opposite uninvolved breast (contralateral prophylactic mastectomy [CPM]), although the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) has decreased in recent years. Models to predict the absolute risk of CBC can help a woman decide whether to undergo CPM. Our objective is to illustrate that a better decision can be made if the patient and doctor also have estimates of the absolute risks of regional and distant recurrences and mortality from non-breast cancer causes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We based our analyses on two published models for CBC and published information on the hazards of regional and distant recurrences and non-breast cancer mortality. Assuming that CPM eliminates CBC but has no effect on other events, we calculated how much CPM reduces a woman's CBC risk and total risk from all these events for 10 hypothetical women with various subtypes of breast cancer and risk factors.

RESULTS

The risk of CBC and total risk vary greatly, depending on the breast cancer subtype. In some cases, a decision for or against CPM can be based on CBC risk alone, but in others, additional consideration of total risk may cause a woman to decline CPM.

CONCLUSION

There is a potential to develop more informative tools for deciding on CPM. Realizing this potential will require more and better data to validate existing models of absolute CBC risk and to characterize the hazards of regional and distant recurrences and deaths from non-breast cancer causes for women with various subtypes of breast cancers and risk factors.

PredictCBC-2.0: a contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model developed and validated in ~ 200,000 patients

BACKGROUND

Prediction of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk is challenging due to moderate performances of the known risk factors. We aimed to improve our previous risk prediction model (PredictCBC) by updated follow-up and including additional risk factors.

METHODS

We included data from 207,510 invasive breast cancer patients participating in 23 studies. In total, 8225 CBC events occurred over a median follow-up of 10.2 years. In addition to the previously included risk factors, PredictCBC-2.0 included CHEK2 c.1100delC, a 313 variant polygenic risk score (PRS-313), body mass index (BMI), and parity. Fine and Gray regression was used to fit the model. Calibration and a time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years were assessed to determine the performance of the models. Decision curve analysis was performed to evaluate the net benefit of PredictCBC-2.0 and previous PredictCBC models.

RESULTS

The discrimination of PredictCBC-2.0 at 10 years was higher than PredictCBC with an AUC of 0.65 (95% prediction intervals (PI) 0.56-0.74) versus 0.63 (95%PI 0.54-0.71). PredictCBC-2.0 was well calibrated with an observed/expected ratio at 10 years of 0.92 (95%PI 0.34-2.54). Decision curve analysis for contralateral preventive mastectomy (CPM) showed the potential clinical utility of PredictCBC-2.0 between thresholds of 4 and 12% 10-year CBC risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional genetic information beyond BRCA1/2 germline mutations improved CBC risk prediction and might help tailor clinical decision-making toward CPM or alternative preventive strategies. Identifying patients who benefit from CPM, especially in the general breast cancer population, remains challenging.

A Bayesian learning model to predict the risk for cannabis use disorder

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of cannabis use disorder (CUD) has been increasing recently and is expected to increase further due to the rising trend of cannabis legalization. To help stem this public health concern, a model is needed that predicts for an adolescent or young adult cannabis user their personalized risk of developing CUD in adulthood. However, there exists no such model that is built using nationally representative longitudinal data.

METHODS

We use a novel Bayesian learning approach and data from Add Health (n = 8712), a nationally representative longitudinal study, to build logistic regression models using four different regularization priors: lasso, ridge, horseshoe, and t. The models are compared by their prediction performance on unseen data via 5-fold-cross-validation (CV). We assess model discrimination using the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration by comparing the expected (E) and observed (O) number of CUD cases. We also externally validate the final model on independent test data from Add Health (n = 570).

RESULTS

Our final model is based on lasso prior and has seven predictors: biological sex; scores on personality traits of neuroticism, openness, and conscientiousness; and measures of adverse childhood experiences, delinquency, and peer cannabis use. It has good discrimination and calibration performance as reflected by its respective AUC and E/O of 0.69 and 0.95 based on 5-fold CV and 0.71 and 1.10 on validation data.

CONCLUSION

This externally validated model may help in identifying adolescent or young adult cannabis users at high risk of developing CUD in adulthood.

CBCRisk-Black: a personalized contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model for black women

PURPOSE

Black breast cancer (BC) survivors have a higher risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC) than Whites. Existing CBC risk prediction tools are developed based on mostly White women. To address this racial disparity, it is crucial to develop tools tailored for Black women to help them inform about their actual risk of CBC.

METHODS

We propose an absolute risk prediction model, CBCRisk-Black, specifically for Black BC patients. It uses data on Black women from two sources: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER). First, a matched lasso logistic regression model for estimating relative risks (RR) is developed. Then, it is combined with relevant hazard rates and attributable risks to obtain absolute risks. Six-fold cross-validation is used to internally validate CBCRisk-Black. We also compare CBCRisk-Black with CBCRisk, an existing CBC risk prediction model.

RESULTS

The RR model uses data from BCSC on 744 Black women (186 cases). CBCRisk-Black has four risk factors (RR compared to baseline): breast density (2.13 for heterogeneous/extremely dense), family history of BC (2.28 for yes), first BC tumor size (2.14 for T3/T4, 1.56 for TIS), and age at first diagnosis of BC (1.41 for < 40). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 3- and 5-year predictions are 0.72 and 0.65 for CBCRisk-Black while those are 0.65 and 0.60 for CBCRisk.

CONCLUSION

CBCRisk-Black may serve as a useful tool to clinicians in counseling Black BC patients by providing a more accurate and personalized CBC risk estimate.

CBCRisk model to determine the risk of contralateral breast cancer in sporadic breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

The great majority of breast cancer (BC) cases are diagnosed in women who have no known family history of the disease and are not carriers of any risk mutation. During the past few decades an increase in the number of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has been produced in these patients. The CBCRisk model calculates the absolute risk of suffering from contralateral breast cancer (CBC); thus, it can be used to counselling patients with sporadic breast cancer.

METHOD

An observational, retrospective study including sporadic breast cancer patients treated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy has been conducted between 2017 and 2019. A descriptive and comparative study with one variation of logistic regression has been carried out in order to identify predictive factors of occult tumors (OT) and medium/high risk damage (MHRD). Evaluation of the CBCRisk model published in 2017 and different limit values for the CPM recommendation.

RESULTS

42 patients were selected. Incidence of MHRD and OT was lower than that described in the literatura (9.52%MHRD, 2.38%OT). None of the evaluated variables reached statistical significance for predicting injuries. The average value of CBCRisk 5 years ahead found in patients with pathological findings was 2.08 (DE 0.97), higher than the average value of the whole group (1.87 ± 0.91) and the subgroup without pathological findings (1.84 ± 0.91). Only values >3 for CBCRisk were considered statistically significant (P = .04) for the prediction of histological lesions.

CONCLUSION

Patients with sporadic breast cancer should be adequately informed about the estimated risks and benefits of undergoing a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The CBCRisk may be useful for the counseling of these patients, but it requires validation in larger and prospective cohorts.

The risk of contralateral breast cancer: a SEER-based analysis

BACKGROUND

We sought to estimate the annual risk and 25-year cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer among women with stage 0-III unilateral breast cancer.

METHODS

We identified 812,851 women with unilateral breast cancer diagnosed between 1990 and 2015 in the SEER database and followed them for contralateral breast cancer for up to 25 years. Women with a known bilateral mastectomy were excluded. We calculated the annual risk of contralateral breast cancer by age at diagnosis, by time since diagnosis and by current age. We compared risks by ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus invasive disease, by race and by oestrogen receptor (ER) status of the first cancer.

RESULTS

There were 25,958 cases of contralateral invasive breast cancer diagnosed (3.2% of all patients). The annual risk of contralateral breast cancer over the 25-year follow-up period was 0.37% and the 25-year actuarial risk of contralateral invasive breast cancer was 9.9%. The annual risk varied to a small degree by age of diagnosis, by time elapsed since diagnosis and by current age. The 25-year actuarial risk was similar for DCIS and invasive breast cancer patients (10.1 versus 9.9%). The 25-year actuarial risk was higher for black women (12.7%) than for white women (9.7%) and was lower for women with ER-positive breast cancer (9.5%) than for women with ER-negative breast cancer (11.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with unilateral breast cancer experience an annual risk of contralateral breast cancer ~0.4% per year, which persists over the 25-year follow-up period.

Bilateral Mastectomy in Women With Unilateral Breast Cancer: A Review

Importance

Rates of bilateral mastectomy continue to increase in average-risk women with unilateral in situ and invasive breast cancer. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates increased from 5% to 12% of all operations for breast cancer in the US from 2004 to 2012. Among women having mastectomy, rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy have increased from less than 2% in 1998 to 30% in 2012.

Observations

The increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing has marginally increased the number of candidates for bilateral mastectomy. Most bilateral mastectomies are performed on women who are at no special risk for contralateral cancer. The true risk of contralateral breast cancer is not associated with the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy; rather, the clinical factors associated with the probability of distant recurrence are associated with bilateral mastectomy. Several changes in society and health care delivery appear to act concurrently and synergistically. First, the anxiety engendered by a fear of cancer recurrence is focused on the contralateral cancer because this is most easily conceptualized and provides a ready target that can be acted upon. Second, the modern woman with breast cancer is supported by the surgeon and the social community of breast cancer survivors. Surgeons want to respect patient autonomy, despite guidelines discouraging bilateral mastectomy, and most women have their expenses covered by a third-party payer. Satisfaction with the results is high, but the association with improved psychosocial well-being remains to be fully understood.

Conclusions and Relevance

Reducing the use of medically unnecessary contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with nonhereditary, unilateral breast cancer requires a social change that addresses patient-, physician-, cultural-, and systems-level enabling factors. Such a transformation begins with educating clinicians and patients. The concerns of women who want preventive contralateral mastectomy must be explored, and women need to be informed of the anticipated benefits (or lack thereof) and risks. Areas requiring further study are considered.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A narrative review of the evidence and acceptability

The uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has increased steadily over the last twenty years in women of all age groups and breast cancer stages. Since contralateral breast cancer is relatively rare and the breast cancer guidelines only recommend CPM in a small subset of patients with breast cancer, the drivers of this trend are unknown. This review aims to evaluate the evidence for and acceptability of CPM, data on patient rationales for choosing CPM, and some of the factors that might impact patient preferences. Based on the evidence, future recommendations will be provided. First, data on contralateral breast cancer risk and CPM rates and trends are addressed. After that, the evidence is structured around four main patient rationales for CPM formulated as questions that patients might ask their surgeon: Will CPM reduce mortality risk? Will CPM reduce the risk of contralateral breast cancer? Can I avoid future screening with CPM? Will I have better breast symmetry after CPM? Also, three different guidelines regarding CPM will be reviewed. Studies indicate a large gap between patient preferences for radical risk reduction with CPM and the current approaches recommended by important guidelines. We suggest a strategy including shared decision-making to enhance surgeons’ communication with patients about contralateral breast cancer and treatment options, to empower patients in order to optimize the use of CPM incorporating accurate risk assessment and individual patient preferences.

•

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates have increased over the last 20 years.

•

Patients may want CPM to reduce risk of contralateral breast cancer and mortality.

•

Patients do not always have the tools available to make a well-informed decision.

•

Patient and surgeon’s shared decision-making could optimize the use of CPM.

CBCRisk model to determine the risk of contralateral breast cancer in sporadic breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

The great majority of breast cancer (BC) cases are diagnosed in women who have no known family history of the disease and are not carriers of any risk mutation. During the past few decades an increase in the number of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has been produced in these patients. The CBCRisk model calculates the absolute risk of suffering from contralateral breast cancer (CBC); thus, it can be used to counselling patients with sporadic breast cancer.

METHOD

An observational, retrospective study including sporadic breast cancer patients treated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy has been conducted between 2017 and 2019. A descriptive and comparative study with one variation of logistic regression has been carried out in order to identify predictive factors of occult tumors (OT) and medium/high risk damage (MHRD). Evaluation of the CBCRisk model published in 2017 and different limit values for the CPM recommendation.

RESULTS

42 patients were selected. Incidence of MHRD and OT was lower than that described in the literatura (9.52% MHRD, 2.38% OT). None of the evaluated variables reached statistical significance for predicting injuries. The average value of CBCRisk 5 years ahead found in patients with pathological findings was 2.08 (SD 0.97), higher than the average value of the whole group (1.87 ± 0.91) and the subgroup without pathological findings (1.84 ± 0.91). Only values ≥ 3 for CBCRisk were considered statistically significant (p = 0.04) for the prediction of histological lesions.

CONCLUSION

Patients with sporadic breast cancer should be adequately informed about the estimated risks and benefits of undergoing a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The CBCRisk may be useful for the counseling of these patients, but it requires validation in larger and prospective cohorts.

Contralateral breast cancer risk in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer

We aimed to assess contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared with invasive breast cancer (BC). Women diagnosed with DCIS (N = 28,003) or stage I-III BC (N = 275,836) between 1989 and 2017 were identified from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cumulative incidences were estimated, accounting for competing risks, and hazard ratios (HRs) for metachronous invasive CBC. To evaluate effects of adjuvant systemic therapy and screening, separate analyses were performed for stage I BC without adjuvant systemic therapy and by mode of first BC detection. Multivariable models including clinico-pathological and treatment data were created to assess CBC risk prediction performance in DCIS patients. The 10-year cumulative incidence of invasive CBC was 4.8% for DCIS patients (CBC = 1334). Invasive CBC risk was higher in DCIS patients compared with invasive BC overall (HR = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.17), and lower compared with stage I BC without adjuvant systemic therapy (HR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.82-0.92). In patients diagnosed ≥2011, the HR for invasive CBC was 1.38 (95% CI = 1.35-1.68) after screen-detected DCIS compared with screen-detected invasive BC, and was 2.14 (95% CI = 1.46-3.13) when not screen-detected. The C-index was 0.52 (95% CI = 0.50-0.54) for invasive CBC prediction in DCIS patients. In conclusion, CBC risks are low overall. DCIS patients had a slightly higher risk of invasive CBC compared with invasive BC, likely explained by the risk-reducing effect of (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy among BC patients. For support of clinical decision making more information is needed to differentiate CBC risks among DCIS patients.

A preliminary risk prediction model for cannabis use disorder

•

Substance use disorders are currently a major public health crisis in the US.

•

The prevalence of cannabis use disorder is rising due to legalization of cannabis.

•

This study built models to predict the risk of cannabis use disorder for a user.

•

Risk factors include personality traits, impulsivity and initial smoking enjoyment.

The ongoing trend toward legalization of cannabis for medicinal/recreational purposes is expected to increase the prevalence of cannabis use disorder (CUD). Thus, it is imperative to be able to predict the quantitative risk of developing CUD for a cannabis user based on their personal risk factors. Yet no such model currently exists. In this study, we perform preliminary analysis toward building such a model. The data come from n = 94 regular cannabis users recruited from Albuquerque, New Mexico during 2007–2010. As the data are cross-sectional, we only consider risk factors that remain relatively stable over time. We apply statistical and machine learning classification techniques that allow n to be small relative to the number of predictors. We use predictive accuracy estimated using leave-one-out-cross-validation to evaluate model performance. The final model is a LASSO logistic regression model consisting of the following seven risk factors: age; level of enjoyment from initial cigarette smoking; total score on Impulsive Sensation-Seeking Scale questionnaire; score on cognitive instability factor of Barratt Impulsivity Scale questionnaire; and scores on neuroticism, openness, and conscientiousness personality traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness inventory. This model has an overall accuracy of 0.66 and the area under its receiver operating characteristic curve is 0.65. In summary, a preliminary relative risk model for predicting the quantitative risk of CUD is developed. It can be employed to identify users at high risk of CUD who may be provided with early intervention.

Toxicity of internal mammary irradiation in breast cancer. Are concerns still justified in times of modern treatment techniques?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to estimate the additional risk of side effects attributed to internal mammary node irradiation (IMNI) as part of regional lymph node irradiation (RNI) in breast cancer patients and to compare it with estimated overall survival (OS) benefit from IMNI.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Treatment plans (n = 80) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were calculated for 20 patients (4 plans per patient) with left-sided breast cancer from the prospective GATTUM trial in free breathing (FB) and in deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH). We assessed doses to organs at risk ((OARs) lung, contralateral breast and heart) during RNI with and without additional IMNI. Based on the OAR doses, the additional absolute risks of 10-year cardiac mortality, pneumonitis, and secondary lung and breast cancer were estimated using normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and risk models assuming different age and risk levels.

RESULTS

IMNI notably increased the mean OAR doses. The mean heart dose increased upon IMNI by 0.2-3.4 Gy (median: 1.9 Gy) in FB and 0.0-1.5 Gy (median 0.4 Gy) in DIBH. However, the estimated absolute additional 10-year cardiac mortality caused by IMNI was <0.5% for all patients studied except 70-year-old high risk patients (0.2-2.4% in FB and 0.0-1.1% in DIBH). In comparison to this, the published oncological benefit of IMNI ranges between 3.3% and 4.7%. The estimated additional 10-year risk of secondary cancer of the lung or contralateral breast ranged from 0-1.5% and 0-2.8%, respectively, depending on age and risk levels. IMNI increased the pneumonitis risk in all groups (0-2.2%).

CONCLUSION

According to our analyses, the published oncological benefit of IMNI outweighs the estimated risk of cardiac mortality even in case of (e.g., cardiac) risk factors during VMAT. The estimated risk of secondary cancer or pneumonitis attributed to IMNI is low. DIBH reduces the estimated additional risk of IMNI even further and should be strongly considered especially in patients with a high baseline risk.

Prediction of contralateral breast cancer: external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts

BACKGROUND

Three tools are currently available to predict the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). We aimed to compare the performance of the Manchester formula, CBCrisk, and PredictCBC in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC).

METHODS

We analyzed data of 132,756 patients (4682 CBC) from 20 international studies with a median follow-up of 8.8 years. Prediction performance included discrimination, quantified as a time-dependent Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary BC, and calibration, quantified as the expected-observed (E/O) ratio at 5 and 10 years and the calibration slope.

RESULTS

The AUC at 10 years was: 0.58 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.57-0.59) for CBCrisk; 0.60 (95% CI 0.59-0.61) for the Manchester formula; 0.63 (95% CI 0.59-0.66) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.56-0.62) for PredictCBC-1A (for settings where BRCA1/2 mutation status is available) and PredictCBC-1B (for the general population), respectively. The E/O at 10 years: 0.82 (95% CI 0.51-1.32) for CBCrisk; 1.53 (95% CI 0.63-3.73) for the Manchester formula; 1.28 (95% CI 0.63-2.58) for PredictCBC-1A and 1.35 (95% CI 0.65-2.77) for PredictCBC-1B. The calibration slope was 1.26 (95% CI 1.01-1.50) for CBCrisk; 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-1.02) for PredictCBC-1A; 0.81 (95% CI 0.63-0.99) for PredictCBC-1B, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.34-0.43) for the Manchester formula.

CONCLUSIONS

Current CBC risk prediction tools provide only moderate discrimination and the Manchester formula was poorly calibrated. Better predictors and re-calibration are needed to improve CBC prediction and to identify low- and high-CBC risk patients for clinical decision-making.

Prediction and clinical utility of a contralateral breast cancer risk model

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for contralateral breast cancer (CBC), with the consequent burden of further treatment and potentially less favorable prognosis. We aimed to develop and validate a CBC risk prediction model and evaluate its applicability for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

We included data of 132,756 invasive non-metastatic breast cancer patients from 20 studies with 4682 CBC events and a median follow-up of 8.8 years. We developed a multivariable Fine and Gray prediction model (PredictCBC-1A) including patient, primary tumor, and treatment characteristics and BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, accounting for the competing risks of death and distant metastasis. We also developed a model without BRCA1/2 mutation status (PredictCBC-1B) since this information was available for only 6% of patients and is routinely unavailable in the general breast cancer population. Prediction performance was evaluated using calibration and discrimination, calculated by a time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary breast cancer, and an internal-external cross-validation procedure. Decision curve analysis was performed to evaluate the net benefit of the model to quantify clinical utility.

RESULTS

In the multivariable model, BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, family history, and systemic adjuvant treatment showed the strongest associations with CBC risk. The AUC of PredictCBC-1A was 0.63 (95% prediction interval (PI) at 5 years, 0.52-0.74; at 10 years, 0.53-0.72). Calibration-in-the-large was -0.13 (95% PI: -1.62-1.37), and the calibration slope was 0.90 (95% PI: 0.73-1.08). The AUC of Predict-1B at 10 years was 0.59 (95% PI: 0.52-0.66); calibration was slightly lower. Decision curve analysis for preventive contralateral mastectomy showed potential clinical utility of PredictCBC-1A between thresholds of 4-10% 10-year CBC risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a reasonably calibrated model to predict the risk of CBC in women of European-descent; however, prediction accuracy was moderate. Our model shows potential for improved risk counseling, but decision-making regarding contralateral preventive mastectomy, especially in the general breast cancer population where limited information of the mutation status in BRCA1/2 is available, remains challenging.