A prospective decision-impact study incorporating Breast Cancer Index into extended endocrine therapy decision-making

Persistence to extended adjuvant endocrine therapy following Breast Cancer Index (BCI) testing in women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR +) breast cancer

PURPOSE

Extending adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) beyond the standard 5 years offers added protection against late breast cancer recurrences in women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR +) breast cancer. Little is known about treatment persistence to extended ET (EET) and the role that genomic assays may play. In this study, we evaluated persistence to EET in women who had Breast Cancer Index (BCI) testing.

METHODS

Women with stage I-III HR + breast cancer who had BCI testing after at least 3.5 years of adjuvant ET and ≥ 7 years of follow-up after diagnosis were included (n = 240). Data on medication persistence was based on prescriptions in the electronic health record.

RESULTS

BCI predicted 146 (61%) patients to have low - BCI (H/I)-low - and 94 (39%) patients to have high likelihood of benefit from EET (BCI (H/I)-high). Continuation of ET after BCI occurred in 76 (81%) (H/I)-high and 39 (27%) (H/I)-low patients. Non-persistence rates were 19% in the (H/I)-high and 38% in the (H/I)-low group. The most common reason for non-persistence was intolerable side effects. Patients on EET underwent more DXA bone density scans than those who stopped ET at 5 years (mean 2.09 versus 1.27; p < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 10 years from diagnosis, there were 6 metastatic recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who continued ET after BCI testing, the rates of persistence to EET were high, particularly in patients with predicted high likelihood of benefit from EET. Use of EET is associated with increased use of DXA scans.

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and PD-L1 Expression in Pleomorphic Lobular Breast Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The prognostic and predictive role of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) is undetermined in pleomorphic invasive lobular cancer (pILC). The same applies for the expression of PD-1/PD-L1 in this rare breast cancer subtype. Here, we aimed to investigate the expression of sTILs and analyze the PD-L1 expression levels in pILC.

METHODS

Archival tissues from sixty-six patients with pILC were collected. The sTIL density was scored as a percentage of tumor area using the following cut-offs: 0%; <5%; 5-9%; and 10-50%. The PD-L1 expression was analyzed using IHC on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections using SP142 and 22C3 antibodies.

RESULTS

A total of 82% of the sixty-six patients were hormone receptor positive and 8% of cases were triple negative (TN), while 10% showed human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplification. sTILs (≥1%) were present in 64% of the study population. Using the SP142 antibody, 36% of tumors demonstrated a positive PD-L1 score of ≥1%, and using the 22C3 antibody, 28% had a positive PD-L1 score of ≥1. There was no correlation between sTILs or PD-L1 expression and tumor size, tumor grade, nodal status, expression of estrogen receptor (ER), or amplification of HER2. Our data did not show any difference in survival between the three molecular subtypes of pILC with respect to sTILs and PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that pILCs show some degree of sTILs and PD-L1 expression; however, this was not associated with a survival improvement. Additional large trials are needed to understand immune infiltration in lobular cancer, especially in the pleomorphic subtype.

Decision impact studies, evidence of clinical utility for genomic assays in cancer: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Decision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in cancer prognostic research in recent years. These studies aim to evaluate the impact of a genomic test on decision-making and appear to be a new form of evidence of clinical utility. The objectives of this review were to identify and characterize decision impact studies in genomic medicine in cancer care and categorize the types of clinical utility outcomes reported.

METHODS

We conducted a search of four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to June 2022. Empirical studies that reported a "decision impact" assessment of a genomic assay on treatment decisions or recommendations for cancer patients were included. We followed scoping review methodology and adapted the Fryback and Thornbury Model to collect and analyze data on clinical utility. The database searches identified 1803 unique articles for title/abstract screening; 269 articles moved to full-text review.

RESULTS

87 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the last 12 years with the majority for breast cancer (72%); followed by other cancers (28%) (lung, prostate, colon). Studies reported on the impact of 19 different proprietary (18) and generic (1) assays. Across all four levels of clinical utility, outcomes were reported for 22 discrete measures, including the impact on provider/team decision-making (100%), provider confidence (31%); change in treatment received (46%); patient psychological impacts (17%); and costing or savings impacts (21%). Based on the data synthesis, we created a comprehensive table of outcomes reported for clinical utility.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review is a first step in understanding the evolution and uses of decision impact studies and their influence on the integration of emerging genomic technologies in cancer care. The results imply that DIS are positioned to provide evidence of clinical utility and impact clinical practice and reimbursement decision-making in cancer care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/hm3jr.

Is It Time to Expand Our Definition of "Clinical Utility"?

Currently, genetic tests that predict cancer risk or risk of recurrence in patients who have had their cancer treated with curative intent must have proven "clinical utility" to be recommended by the organizations responsible for publishing the standard-of-care guidelines for cancer care.Based on the current definition of clinical utility, most patients are denied testing for cancer-predisposing genes or pathogenic germline variants even though germline testing has been proven as highly accurate in identifying pathogenic germline variant carriers, there are measures recommended to prevent and diagnose early cancers associated with particular PGVs, and disparities in patient access to genetic tests are well described.Similarly, despite dozens of studies demonstrating that detected circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after curative intention therapy of different cancer types is a highly accurate biomarker that predicts recurrence, the major organizations that publish guidelines for cancer monitoring after curative intention therapy recommend against using ctDNA assays to detect minimal residual disease and thereby predict recurrence for all solid tumor malignancies.Here, the primary reasons that these genetic tests are considered to lack proven clinical utility and the primary evidence suggesting that a broader definition of clinical utility should be considered are discussed. By expanding the definition of clinical utility, many patients will benefit from the information gained from having these genetic tests.

Using Breast Cancer Gene Expression Signatures in Clinical Practice: Unsolved Issues, Ongoing Trials and Future Perspectives

The development of gene expression signatures since the early 2000's has offered standardized assays to evaluate the prognosis of early breast cancer. Five signatures are currently commercially available and recommended by several international guidelines to individualize adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in hormone receptors-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer. However, many questions remain unanswered about their predictive ability, reproducibility and external validity in specific populations. They also represent a new hope to tailor (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment, adjuvant radiation therapy, hormone therapy duration and to identify a subset of patients who might benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitor adjuvant treatment. This review will highlight these particular issues, address the remaining questions and discuss the ongoing and future trials.

Breast cancer, screening and diagnostic tools: All you need to know

Breast cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies among women worldwide. Methods for screening and diagnosis allow health care professionals to provide personalized treatments that improve the outcome and survival. Scientists and physicians are working side-by-side to develop evidence-based guidelines and equipment to detect cancer earlier. However, the lack of comprehensive interdisciplinary information and understanding between biomedical, medical, and technology professionals makes innovation of new screening and diagnosis tools difficult. This critical review gathers, for the first time, information concerning normal breast and cancer biology, established and emerging methods for screening and diagnosis, staging and grading, molecular and genetic biomarkers. Our purpose is to address key interdisciplinary information about these methods for physicians and scientists. Only the multidisciplinary interaction and communication between scientists, health care professionals, technical experts and patients will lead to the development of better detection tools and methods for an improved screening and early diagnosis.