1
|
Garg N, Thorat MA, Kothari AS. The SOUND Randomized Clinical Trial Results. JAMA Oncol 2024:2816791. [PMID: 38512288 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0128] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Nidhi Garg
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
- Cancer Prevention Unit, Centre for Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London
| | - Ashutosh S Kothari
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Garg N, Thorat MA. Letter to the Editor: Cost-Efficacy Analysis of Use of Frozen Section Histology for Margin Assessment During Breast Conservation Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients. World J Surg 2023; 47:3451-3452. [PMID: 37782394 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-023-07186-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/26/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Nidhi Garg
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
- Cancer Prevention Unit, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Thorat MA. Multiclonality of ER expression in DCIS - Implications for clinical practice and future research. Oncotarget 2023; 14:719-720. [PMID: 37477525 PMCID: PMC10360922 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.28450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/22/2023] Open
|
4
|
McDermott KT, Noake C, Wolff R, Bauld L, Espina C, Foucaud J, Steindorf K, Thorat MA, Weijenberg MP, Schüz J, Kleijnen J. Digital interventions to moderate physical inactivity and/or nutrition in young people: a Cancer Prevention Europe overview of systematic reviews. Front Digit Health 2023; 5:1185586. [PMID: 37534029 PMCID: PMC10393256 DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1185586] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2023] [Accepted: 05/18/2023] [Indexed: 08/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Strategies to increase physical activity (PA) and improve nutrition would contribute to substantial health benefits in the population, including reducing the risk of several types of cancers. The increasing accessibility of digital technologies mean that these tools could potentially facilitate the improvement of health behaviours among young people. Objective We conducted a review of systematic reviews to assess the available evidence on digital interventions aimed at increasing physical activity and good nutrition in sub-populations of young people (school-aged children, college/university students, young adults only (over 18 years) and both adolescent and young adults (<25 years)). Methods Searches for systematic reviews were conducted across relevant databases including KSR Evidence (www.ksrevidence.com), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; CRD). Records were independently screened by title and abstract by two reviewers and those deemed eligible were obtained for full text screening. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. We employed a narrative analysis and developed evidence gap maps. Results Twenty-four reviews were included with at least one for each sub-population and employing a range of digital interventions. The quality of evidence was limited with only one of the 24 of reviews overall judged as low RoB. Definitions of "digital intervention" greatly varied across systematic reviews with some reported interventions fitting into more than one category (i.e., an internet intervention could also be a mobile phone or computer intervention), however definitions as reported in the relevant reviews were used. No reviews reported cancer incidence or related outcomes. Available evidence was limited both by sub-population and type of intervention, but evidence was most pronounced in school-aged children. In school-aged children eHealth interventions, defined as school-based programmes delivered by the internet, computers, tablets, mobile technology, or tele-health methods, improved outcomes. Accelerometer-measured (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD] 0.33, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.61) and self-reported (SMD: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.23) PA increased, as did fruit and vegetable intake (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19) (review rated as low RoB, minimal to considerable heterogeneity across results). No difference was reported for consumption of fat post-intervention (SMD: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.03) or sugar sweetened beverages(SSB) and snack consumption combined post-intervention (SMD: -0.02, 95% CI:-0.10 to 0.06),or at the follow up (studies reported 2 weeks to 36 months follow-up) after the intervention (SMD:-0.06, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.03) (review rated low ROB, minimal to substantial heterogeneity across results). Smartphone based interventions utilising Short Messaging Service (SMS), app or combined approaches also improved PA measured using objective and subjective methods (SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.77) when compared to controls, with increases in total PA [weighted mean difference (WMD) 32.35 min per day, 95% CI: 10.36 to 54.33] and in daily steps (WMD: 1,185, 95% CI: 303 to 2,068) (review rated as high RoB, moderate to substantial heterogeneity across results). For all results, interpretation has limitations in terms of RoB and presence of unexplained heterogeneity. Conclusions This review of reviews has identified limited evidence that suggests some potential for digital interventions to increase PA and, to lesser extent, improve nutrition in school-aged children. However, effects can be small and based on less robust evidence. The body of evidence is characterised by a considerable level of heterogeneity, unclear/overlapping populations and intervention definitions, and a low methodological quality of systematic reviews. The heterogeneity across studies is further complicated when the age (older vs. more recent), interactivity (feedback/survey vs. no/less feedback/surveys), and accessibility (type of device) of the digital intervention is considered. This underscores the difficulty in synthesising evidence in a field with rapidly evolving technology and the resulting challenges in recommending the use of digital technology in public health. There is an urgent need for further research using contemporary technology and appropriate methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Caro Noake
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom
| | - Robert Wolff
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom
| | - Linda Bauld
- Usher Institute and SPECTRUM Consortium, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Carolina Espina
- Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France
| | - Jérôme Foucaud
- Institut National du Cancer (INCa), Boulogne-Billancourt, France
- Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Laboratoire Éducations et Pratiques de Santé (UR 3412), Bobigny, France
| | - Karen Steindorf
- Division of Physical Activity, Prevention and Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mangesh A. Thorat
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Matty P. Weijenberg
- Department of Epidemiology, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Joachim Schüz
- Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France
| | - Jos Kleijnen
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
McDermott KT, Noake C, Wolff R, Espina C, Foucaud J, Steindorf K, Schüz J, Thorat MA, Weijenberg M, Bauld L, Kleijnen J. Digital interventions to moderate alcohol consumption in young people: a Cancer Prevention Europe overview of systematic reviews. Front Digit Health 2023; 5:1178407. [PMID: 37288171 PMCID: PMC10243367 DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1178407] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 05/02/2023] [Indexed: 06/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Strategies to reduce alcohol consumption would contribute to substantial health benefits in the population, including reducing cancer risk. The increasing accessibility and applicability of digital technologies make these powerful tools suitable to facilitate changes in behaviour in young people which could then translate into both immediate and long-term improvements to public health. Objective We conducted a review of systematic reviews to assess the available evidence on digital interventions aimed at reducing alcohol consumption in sub-populations of young people [school-aged children, college/university students, young adults only (over 18 years) and both adolescent and young adults (<25 years)]. Methods Searches were conducted across relevant databases including KSR Evidence, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Records were independently screened by title and abstract and those that met inclusion criteria were obtained for full text screening by two reviewers. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the ROBIS checklist. We employed a narrative analysis. Results Twenty-seven systematic reviews were included that addressed relevant interventions in one or more of the sub-populations, but those reviews were mostly assessed as low quality. Definitions of "digital intervention" greatly varied across systematic reviews. Available evidence was limited both by sub-population and type of intervention. No reviews reported cancer incidence or influence on cancer related outcomes. In school-aged children eHealth multiple health behaviour change interventions delivered through a variety of digital methods were not effective in preventing or reducing alcohol consumption with no effect on the prevalence of alcohol use [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.95-1.36, review rated low RoB, minimal heterogeneity]. While in adolescents and/or young adults who were identified as risky drinkers, the use of computer or mobile device-based interventions resulted in reduced alcohol consumption when comparing the digital intervention with no/minimal intervention (-13.4 g/week, 95% CI: -19.3 to -7.6, review rated low RoB, moderate to substantial heterogeneity).In University/College students, a range of E-interventions reduced the number of drinks consumed per week compared to assessment only controls although the overall effect was small [standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.15, 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.09]. Web-based personalised feedback interventions demonstrated a small to medium effect on alcohol consumption (SMD: -0.19, 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.11) (review rated high RoB, minimal heterogeneity). In risky drinkers, stand-alone Computerized interventions reduced short (SMD: -0.17, 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.08) and long term (SMD: -0.17, 95% CI: -0.30 to -0.04) alcohol consumption compared to no intervention, while a small effect (SMD: -0.15, 95% CI: -0.25 to -0.06) in favour of computerised assessment and feedback vs. assessment only was observed. No short-term (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.30 to 0.11) or long-term effect (SMD: -0.11, 95% CI: -0.53 to 0.32) was demonstrated for computerised brief interventions when compared to counsellor based interventions (review rated low RoB, minimal to considerable heterogeneity). In young adults and adolescents, SMS-based interventions did not significantly reduce the quantity of drinks per occasion from baseline (SMD: 0.28, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.58) or the average number of standard glasses per week (SMD: -0.05, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.05) but increased the risk of binge drinking episodes (OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.32-4.53, review rated high RoB; minimal to substantial heterogeneity). For all results, interpretation has limitations in terms of risk of bias and heterogeneity. Conclusions Limited evidence suggests some potential for digital interventions, particularly those with feedback, in reducing alcohol consumption in certain sub-populations of younger people. However, this effect is often small, inconsistent or diminishes when only methodologically robust evidence is considered. There is no systematic review evidence that digital interventions reduce cancer incidence through alcohol moderation in young people. To reduce alcohol consumption, a major cancer risk factor, further methodologically robust research is warranted to explore the full potential of digital interventions and to form the basis of evidence based public health initiatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Caro Noake
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom
| | - Robert Wolff
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom
| | - Carolina Espina
- Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organisation (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France
| | - Jérôme Foucaud
- Institut National du Cancer (INCa), Boulogne-Billancourt, France
- Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Laboratoire Éducations et Pratiques de Santé (UR 3412), France
| | - Karen Steindorf
- Division of Physical Activity, Prevention and Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Joachim Schüz
- Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organisation (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France
| | - Mangesh A. Thorat
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Matty Weijenberg
- Department of Epidemiology, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Linda Bauld
- Usher Institute and SPECTRUM Consortium, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Jos Kleijnen
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Garg N, Thorat MA. HER2 expression should be routinely evaluated in DCIS to avoid under or overtreatment! Oncoscience 2023; 10:1-3. [PMID: 36733476 PMCID: PMC9890724 DOI: 10.18632/oncoscience.572] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2023] [Accepted: 01/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mangesh A. Thorat
- Correspondence to:Mangesh A. Thorat, Breast Services, Guy’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom; Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom email:
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hall LH, Thorneloe R, Rodriguez-Lopez R, Grice A, Thorat MA, Bradbury K, Kamble MW, Okoli GN, Powell D, Beeken RJ. Delivering brief physical activity interventions in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2022; 72:e209-e216. [PMID: 34782318 PMCID: PMC8597771 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2021.0312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2021] [Accepted: 09/02/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Physical activity (PA) brief interventions (BIs) involving screening and/or advice are recommended in primary care but frequency of delivery is unknown. AIM To examine the extent to which PA BIs are delivered in primary care, and explore factors associated with delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity. DESIGN AND SETTING A mixed-methods systematic review of studies conducted worldwide, with a narrative synthesis of results. METHOD CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO index databases were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies, dating from January 2012 to June 2020, that reported the level of delivery and/or receipt of PA BIs in primary care, and/or factors affecting delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Attitudes towards and barriers to delivery were coded into the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model. RESULTS After screening a total of 13 066 records, 66 articles were included in the review. The extent of PA screening and advice in primary care varied widely (2.4%-100% and 0.6%-100%, respectively). PA advice was delivered more often to patients with a higher body mass index, lower PA levels, and/or more comorbidities. Barriers - including a lack of time and training/guidelines - remain, despite recommendations from the World Health Organization and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that PA advice should be provided in primary care. Few studies explored patients' receptivity to advice. CONCLUSION PA BIs are not delivered frequently or consistently in primary care. Addressing barriers to delivery through system-level changes and training programmes could improve and increase the advice given. Understanding when patients are receptive to PA interventions could enhance health professionals' confidence in their delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise H Hall
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in-practice fellow
| | - Rachael Thorneloe
- Centre for Behavioural Science and Applied Psychology, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield
| | | | - Adam Grice
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in-practice fellow
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London
| | - Katherine Bradbury
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Wessex, Southampton
| | | | - Grace N Okoli
- Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London
| | - Daniel Powell
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Mathew G, Agha R, Albrecht J, Goel P, Mukherjee I, Pai P, D'Cruz AK, Nixon IJ, Roberto K, Enam SA, Basu S, Muensterer OJ, Giordano S, Pagano D, Machado-Aranda D, Bradley PJ, Bashashati M, Thoma A, Afifi RY, Johnston M, Challacombe B, Ngu JCY, Chalkoo M, Raveendran K, Hoffman JR, Kirshtein B, Lau WY, Thorat MA, Miguel D, Beamish AJ, Roy G, Healy D, Ather HM, Raja SG, Mei Z, Manning TG, Kasivisvanathan V, Rivas JG, Coppola R, Ekser B, Karanth VL, Kadioglu H, Valmasoni M, Noureldin A. STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery. Int J Surg 2021; 96:106165. [PMID: 34774726 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106165] [Citation(s) in RCA: 751] [Impact Index Per Article: 250.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Strengthening The Reporting Of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) guidelines were developed in 2017 in order to improve the reporting quality of observational studies in surgery and updated in 2019. In order to maintain relevance and continue upholding good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery, we aimed to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. METHODS A STROCSS 2021 steering group was formed to come up with proposals to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. An expert panel of researchers assessed these proposals and judged whether they should become part of STROCSS 2021 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise. RESULTS 42 people (89%) completed the DELPHI survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2021 guidelines. All items received a score between 7 and 9 by greater than 70% of the participants, indicating a high level of agreement among the DELPHI group members with the proposed changes to all the items. CONCLUSION We present updated STROCSS 2021 guidelines to ensure ongoing good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ginimol Mathew
- Cook County Health, United States All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health, United States Tata Memorial Hospital, India Apollo Hospitals, India NHS Lothian, United Kingdom Hospital Simplemente Evita, Argentina Aga Khan University, Pakistan All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India Dr. von Hauner Children's Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Germany Turku University Hospital, Finland IRCCS-ISMETT, Italy UPMC, United States University of Michigan, United States Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre Campus, United Kingdom Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso, United States McMaster University, Canada Cairo University, Egypt Salisbury District Hospital, United Kingdom Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom Changi General Hospital, Singapore Government Medical College, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India Fatimah Hospital, Malaysia UCLA, United States HaSharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, United Kingdom School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom Guy's Hospital, United Kingdom Cuf Descobertas Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, United Kingdom Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, India Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Ireland Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan Harefield Hospital, London, United Kingdom Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China Austin Health, Australia University College London, United Kingdom Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain Campus Bio-Medico University Hospital of Rome, Italy Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States Kasturba Medical College and Hospital, Manipal, India BHT Clinic, Turkey Yeniyuzyil University Medical Faculty, Turkey Padova University Hospital, Italy Almana Hospital, Saudi Arabia York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York, United Kingdom Harley Clinic, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Atakpa EC, Thorat MA, Cuzick J, Brentnall AR. Mammographic density, endocrine therapy and breast cancer risk: a prognostic and predictive biomarker review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 10:CD013091. [PMID: 34697802 PMCID: PMC8545623 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013091.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Endocrine therapy is effective at preventing or treating breast cancer. Some forms of endocrine therapy have been shown to reduce mammographic density. Reduced mammographic density for women receiving endocrine therapy could be used to estimate the chance of breast cancer returning or developing breast cancer in the first instance (a prognostic biomarker). In addition, changes in mammographic density might be able to predict how well a woman responds to endocrine therapy (a predictive biomarker). The role of breast density as a prognostic or predictive biomarker could help improve the management of breast cancer. OBJECTIVES To assess the evidence that a reduction in mammographic density following endocrine therapy for breast cancer prevention in women without previous breast cancer, or for treatment in women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, is a prognostic or predictive biomarker. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 3 August 2020 along with reference checking, bibliographic searching, and contact with study authors to obtain further data. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, cohort and case-control studies of adult women with or without breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy. Endocrine therapy agents included were selective oestrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors. We required breast density before start of endocrine therapy and at follow-up. We included studies published in English. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using adapted Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. We did not perform a quantitative meta-analysis due to substantial heterogeneity across studies. MAIN RESULTS Eight studies met our inclusion criteria, of which seven provided data on outcomes listed in the protocol (5786 women). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies in design, sample size (349 to 1066 women), participant characteristics, follow-up (5 to 14 years), and endocrine therapy agent. There were five breast density measures and six density change definitions. All studies had at least one domain as at moderate or high risk of bias. Common concerns were whether the study sample reflected the review target population, and likely post hoc definitions of breast density change. Most studies on prognosis for women receiving endocrine therapy reported a reduced risk associated with breast density reduction. Across endpoints, settings, and agents, risk ratio point estimates (most likely value) were between 0.1 and 1.5, but with substantial uncertainty. There was greatest consistency in the direction and magnitude of the effect for tamoxifen (across endpoints and settings, risk ratio point estimates were between 0.3 and 0.7). The findings are summarised as follows. Prognostic biomarker findings: Treatment Breast cancer mortality Two studies of 823 women on tamoxifen (172 breast cancer deaths) reported risk ratio point estimates of ~0.4 and ~0.5 associated with a density reduction. The certainty of the evidence was low. Recurrence Two studies of 1956 women on tamoxifen reported risk ratio point estimates of ~0.4 and ~0.7 associated with a density reduction. There was risk of bias in methodology for design and analysis of the studies and considerable uncertainty over the size of the effect. One study of 175 women receiving an aromatase inhibitor reported a risk ratio point estimate of ~0.1 associated with a density reduction. There was considerable uncertainty about the effect size and a moderate or high risk of bias in all domains. One study of 284 women receiving exemestane or tamoxifen as part of a randomised controlled trial reported risk ratio point estimates of ~1.5 (loco-regional recurrence) and ~1.3 (distance recurrence) associated with a density reduction. There was risk of bias in reporting and study confounding, and uncertainty over the size of the effects. The certainty of the evidence for all recurrence endpoints was very low. Incidence of a secondary primary breast cancer Two studies of 451 women on exemestane, tamoxifen, or unknown endocrine therapy reported risk ratio point estimates of ~0.5 and ~0.6 associated with a density reduction. There was risk of bias in reporting and study confounding, and uncertainty over the effect size. The certainty of the evidence was very low. We were unable to find data regarding the remaining nine outcomes prespecified in the review protocol. Prevention Incidence of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) One study of 507 women without breast cancer who were receiving preventive tamoxifen as part of a randomised controlled trial (51 subsequent breast cancers) reported a risk ratio point estimate of ~0.3 associated with a density reduction. The certainty of the evidence was low. Predictive biomarker findings: One study of a subset of 1065 women from a randomised controlled trial assessed how much the effect of endocrine therapy could be explained by breast density declines in those receiving endocrine therapy. This study evaluated the prevention of invasive breast cancer and DCIS. We found some evidence to support the hypothesis, with a risk ratio interaction point estimate ~0.5. However, the 95% confidence interval included unity, and data were based on 51 women with subsequent breast cancer in the tamoxifen group. The certainty of the evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is low-/very low-certainty evidence to support the hypothesis that breast density change following endocrine therapy is a prognostic biomarker for treatment or prevention. Studies suggested a potentially large effect size with tamoxifen, but the evidence was limited. There was less evidence that breast density change following tamoxifen preventive therapy is a predictive biomarker than prognostic biomarker. Evidence for breast density change as a prognostic treatment biomarker was stronger for tamoxifen than aromatase inhibitors. There were no studies reporting mammographic density change following endocrine therapy as a predictive biomarker in the treatment setting, nor aromatase inhibitor therapy as a prognostic or predictive biomarker in the preventive setting. Further research is warranted to assess mammographic density as a biomarker for all classes of endocrine therapy and review endpoints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma C Atakpa
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Adam R Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Thorat MA, Levey PM, Jones JL, Pinder SE, Bundred NJ, Fentiman IS, Cuzick J. Prognostic and Predictive Value of HER2 Expression in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS Randomized Trial. Clin Cancer Res 2021; 27:5317-5324. [PMID: 34380636 PMCID: PMC7612534 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-1239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2021] [Revised: 05/23/2021] [Accepted: 07/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE HER2 is overexpressed more frequently in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) than in invasive breast cancer but its prognostic significance and predictive role for radiotherapy has not been clearly established. We investigated the prognostic and predictive value of HER2 overexpression in DCIS. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN HER2 expression was evaluated by IHC using the HercepTest™ in samples from UK/ANZ DCIS trial participants (n = 755) with IHC 3+ expression categorized as HER2 positive for primary analyses. Sensitivity analyses included HER2 categorization as negative (IHC 0,1+), equivocal (IHC 2+), and positive (IHC 3+) and analyses restricted to a nested case-control component where 181 cases (with recurrence) were matched to 362 controls by treatment arm and age. RESULTS Two-hundred and forty-five (34.4%) of evaluable 713 samples [181 ipsilateral breast events (IBE)] were HER2 positive. HER2 overexpression was associated with significantly increased risk of IBE [HR = 2.29; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.64-3.14; P < 0.0001] and in situ IBE (DCIS-IBE; HR = 2.90; 95% CI, 1.91-4.40; P < 0.0001), but not of invasive IBE (I-IBE; HR = 1.40; 95% CI, 0.81-2.42; P = 0.23; Pheterogeneity = 0.04). Inclusion of HER2 significantly improved [Δχ2 (1d.f.) 12.25; P = 0.0005] a prognostic model of clinicopathological and treatment variables, HER2 being an independent predictor of IBE (multivariate HR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.33-2.76; P = 0.0004). Radiotherapy benefit in preventing DCIS-IBE was significantly greater (Pheterogeneity = 0.04) in HER2-positive DCIS (HR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07-0.41) compared with HER2-negative DCIS (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.28-1.19). CONCLUSIONS HER2 overexpression is associated with significantly increased risk of in situ recurrence and is also predictive of radiotherapy benefit, with greater reductions in in situ but not invasive recurrences in HER2-positive DCIS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mangesh A. Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Pauline M. Levey
- Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - J. Louise Jones
- Barts Cancer Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah E. Pinder
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Pathology, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nigel J. Bundred
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ian S. Fentiman
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Thorat MA, Levey PM, Jones JL, Pinder SE, Bundred NJ, Fentiman IS, Cuzick J. Prognostic Value of ER and PgR Expression and the Impact of Multi-clonal Expression for Recurrence in Ductal Carcinoma in situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS Trial. Clin Cancer Res 2021; 27:2861-2867. [PMID: 33727261 PMCID: PMC7611296 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-4635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2020] [Revised: 01/25/2021] [Accepted: 03/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The prognostic value of estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PgR) expression in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is unclear. We observed multi-clonality when evaluating ER/PgR expression in the UK/ANZ DCIS trial, therefore, we investigated the prognostic role of both uni-clonal and multi-clonal ER/PgR expression in DCIS. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissues were collected from UK/ANZ DCIS trial participants (n = 755), and ER/PgR expression was evaluated by IHC in 181 cases (with recurrence) matched to 362 controls by treatment arm and age. Assays were scored by the Allred method and by a newly devised clonal method-analyses categorizing multi-clonal DCIS as ER/PgR-positive as per current practice (Standard) and as ER/PgR-negative (clonal) were performed. RESULTS ER expression was multi-clonal in 11% (39/356) of ER-positive (70.6%, 356/504) patients. Ipsilateral breast event (IBE) risk was similarly higher in ER-multi-clonal and ER-negative DCIS as compared with DCIS with uni-clonal ER expression. ER-negative DCIS (clonal) had a higher risk of in situ IBE [OR 4.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.66-9.36; P < 0.0001], but the risk of invasive IBE was not significantly higher (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 0.84-3.53; P = 0.14), P heterogeneity = 0.03. ER was an independent predictor in multivariate analyses (OR 2.66; 95% CI, 1.53-4.61). PgR status did not add to the prognostic information provided by ER. CONCLUSIONS ER expression is a strong predictor of ipsilateral recurrence risk in DCIS. ER-positive DCIS with distinct ER-negative clones has a recurrence risk similar to ER-negative DCIS. ER should be routinely assessed in DCIS, and ER scoring should take clonality of expression into account.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Aged
- Biomarkers, Tumor
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/diagnosis
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/genetics
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/diagnosis
- Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/genetics
- Clinical Trials as Topic
- Female
- Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic
- Humans
- Immunohistochemistry
- Kaplan-Meier Estimate
- Middle Aged
- Neoplasm Grading
- Neoplasm Staging
- Prognosis
- Receptors, Estrogen/genetics
- Receptors, Estrogen/metabolism
- Receptors, Progesterone/genetics
- Receptors, Progesterone/metabolism
- Recurrence
- United Kingdom
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
- Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom
| | - Pauline M Levey
- Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - J Louise Jones
- Barts Cancer Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah E Pinder
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Pathology, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nigel J Bundred
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | | | - Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Espina C, Bauld L, Bonanni B, Brenner H, Brown K, Dillner J, Kampman E, Nilbert M, Vineis P, Weijenberg MP, Cox A, de Kok TM, Fecht D, Mitrou G, Muller DC, Serrano D, Steindorf K, Storm H, Thorat MA, van Duijnhoven F, Weiderpass E, Schüz J. WITHDRAWAL-Administrative Duplicate Publication: The essential role of prevention in reducing the cancer burden in Europe: a commentary from Cancer Prevention Europe. Tumori 2020; 106:NP2-NP4. [PMID: 31099306 PMCID: PMC7583442 DOI: 10.1177/0300891619851865] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2019] [Accepted: 04/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Carolina Espina
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France
| | - Linda Bauld
- Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, United Kingdom, UK
- Cancer Research UK, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD, UK
| | - Bernardo Bonanni
- European Institute of Oncology, Via Ripamonti, 435 - 20141 Milano, Italy
| | - Hermann Brenner
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Karen Brown
- UK Therapeutic Cancer Prevention Network, Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK
| | - Joakim Dillner
- Karolinska University Laboratory, Karolinska University Hospital, 14186 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ellen Kampman
- Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University, PO Box 17, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands
| | - Mef Nilbert
- Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Paolo Vineis
- MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK
| | - Matty P. Weijenberg
- GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Alison Cox
- Cancer Research UK, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD, UK
| | - Theo M. de Kok
- GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Daniela Fecht
- MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK
| | - Giota Mitrou
- World Cancer Research Fund International, London, UK
| | - David C Muller
- MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK
| | - Davide Serrano
- European Institute of Oncology, Via Ripamonti, 435 - 20141 Milano, Italy
| | - Karen Steindorf
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Hans Storm
- Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Mangesh A. Thorat
- UK Therapeutic Cancer Prevention Network, Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK
- UK Therapeutic Cancer Prevention Network, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Fränzel van Duijnhoven
- Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University, PO Box 17, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands
| | - Elisabete Weiderpass
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France
| | - Joachim Schüz
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Li H, Bera K, Gilmore H, Zhang Z, Cuzick J, Thorat MA, Madabhushi A. Abstract P5-06-15: Computer extracted features of nuclear shape, orientation disorder and texture from H&E Whole slide images are associated with disease-free survival in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Cancer Res 2020. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-p5-06-15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) of the breast comprises a diverse group of cancerous lesions confined to the breast ducts. About 25% of all breast cancers in the US are DCIS and women with DCIS have a 10 times higher lifetime risk of progressing to invasive breast cancer (IBC). While DCIS is treated routinely with breast conserving therapy which includes a lumpectomy followed by adjacent radiation therapy (RT). However, studies have shown that RT can be omitted in women with a lower risk of recurrence/progression. Gene expression methods like Oncotype Dx can be used to risk stratify patients but are expensive, tissue-destructive and time consuming. Recently, there has been substantial interest in developing computerized approaches to quantitatively extract tumor histomorphometric (QH) features from digitized images of tissue slides to predict cancer outcome. In this work, we evaluate the role of QH features related to the architecture, shape, orientation disorder and texture of cancer nuclei from lumpectomy specimens of DCIS to predict disease-free survival (DFS).
Methods: H&E whole slide images (WSI) and corresponding outcome information for 121 DCIS patients (61 with progression/recurrence and 60 without) from the no adjuvant treatment arm of the UK/ANZ DCIS trial were retrieved and collected from Queen Mary university of London. WSIs were scanned by 3DHistech scanner at 43x magnification. For each image, a deep learning based generative adversarial network model was employed to segment the cancer nuclei, following which 379 nuclear features from four feature families including architecture, shape, orientation disorder and Haralick texture features were extracted within each candidate breast duct in the WSI and averaged across the multiple cancerous breast ducts for each patient. The dataset was randomly split into training (D1, n=60) and a hold-out validation set (D2,n=61) with events split equally in the two sets. For each of the four feature families, a set of 6 top features was identified by an elastic Cox Model to predict DFS (time from diagnosis to recurrence/invasive breast cancer or death whichever is sooner) onD1. The feature sets giving significant prognostic value (assessed by log rank test between the feature derived risk groups) were combined, from which 6 top features were further identified by a Cox Model to predict DFS on D1.
Results: The top ranked QH features included features from three feature families: 2 shape features, 1 orientation disorder feature and 3 texture features. The Elastic Cox model predicted DFS on D1 with hazard ratio (HR) of 7.29 (95% CI = 2.94 ~18.05, p=1.75e-05) and on D2 with HR of 2.07 (95% CI = 1.02 ~2.94, p=0.045).
Conclusion: Computer extracted nuclear histomorphometric features pertaining to shape, orientation disorder and texture were associated with disease free survival for DCIS. Additional independent multi-site validation of the approach is planned to further confirm the preliminary findings presented here.
Citation Format: Haojia Li, Kaustav Bera, Hannah Gilmore, Zelin Zhang, Jack Cuzick, Mangesh A Thorat, Anant Madabhushi. Computer extracted features of nuclear shape, orientation disorder and texture from H&E Whole slide images are associated with disease-free survival in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-06-15.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haojia Li
- 1Case Western Reserve University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland, OH
| | - Kaustav Bera
- 1Case Western Reserve University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland, OH
| | - Hannah Gilmore
- 2University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH
| | - Zelin Zhang
- 3Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Big Data Analysis Technique, Nanjing, China
| | - Jack Cuzick
- 4Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- 5(1): Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London; (2): School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Anant Madabhushi
- 6(1): Case Western Reserve University, Department of Biomedical Engineering; (2): Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Administration Medical Center, Cleveland, OH
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Dowling RJO, Sparano JA, Goodwin PJ, Bidard FC, Cescon DW, Chandarlapaty S, Deasy JO, Dowsett M, Gray RJ, Henry NL, Meric-Bernstam F, Perlmutter J, Sledge GW, Thorat MA, Bratman SV, Carey LA, Chang MC, DeMichele A, Ennis M, Jerzak KJ, Korde LA, Lohmann AE, Mamounas EP, Parulekar WR, Regan MM, Schramek D, Stambolic V, Whelan TJ, Wolff AC, Woodgett JR, Kalinsky K, Hayes DF. Toronto Workshop on Late Recurrence in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Part 2: Approaches to Predict and Identify Late Recurrence, Research Directions. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2019; 3:pkz049. [PMID: 32337478 PMCID: PMC7050024 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkz049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2019] [Revised: 06/18/2019] [Accepted: 07/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Late disease recurrence (more than 5 years after initial diagnosis) represents a clinical challenge in the treatment and management of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (BC). An international workshop was convened in Toronto, Canada, in February 2018 to review the current understanding of late recurrence and to identify critical issues that require future study. The underlying biological causes of late recurrence are complex, with the processes governing cancer cell dormancy, including immunosurveillance, cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and cellular stemness, being integral to disease progression. These critical processes are described herein as well as their role in influencing risk of recurrence. Moreover, observational and interventional clinical trials are proposed, with a focus on methods to identify patients at risk of recurrence and possible strategies to combat this in patients with estrogen receptor-positive BC. Because the problem of late BC recurrence of great importance, recent advances in disease detection and patient monitoring should be incorporated into novel clinical trials to evaluate approaches to enhance patient management. Indeed, future research on these issues is planned and will offer new options for effective late recurrence treatment and prevention strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan J O Dowling
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Joseph A Sparano
- Departments of Medicine and Medical Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Pamela J Goodwin
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - David W Cescon
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sarat Chandarlapaty
- Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Breast Medicine Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
- Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York, NY
| | - Joseph O Deasy
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Mitch Dowsett
- Ralph Lauren Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Royal Marsden Hospital, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Breast Cancer Now Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Robert J Gray
- Department of Biostatistics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - N Lynn Henry
- University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Funda Meric-Bernstam
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - George W Sledge
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Scott V Bratman
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Lisa A Carey
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Martin C Chang
- University of Vermont Medical Center, Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
| | - Angela DeMichele
- Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | - Katarzyna J Jerzak
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Larissa A Korde
- Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Ana Elisa Lohmann
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Wendy R Parulekar
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Meredith M Regan
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Daniel Schramek
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Vuk Stambolic
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Timothy J Whelan
- McMaster University and Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Antonio C Wolff
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD
| | - Jim R Woodgett
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Kevin Kalinsky
- Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Daniel F Hayes
- University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, and Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Dowling RJO, Kalinsky K, Hayes DF, Bidard FC, Cescon DW, Chandarlapaty S, Deasy JO, Dowsett M, Gray RJ, Henry NL, Meric-Bernstam F, Perlmutter J, Sledge GW, Bratman SV, Carey LA, Chang MC, DeMichele A, Ennis M, Jerzak KJ, Korde LA, Lohmann AE, Mamounas EP, Parulekar WR, Regan MM, Schramek D, Stambolic V, Thorat MA, Whelan TJ, Wolff AC, Woodgett JR, Sparano JA, Goodwin PJ. Toronto Workshop on Late Recurrence in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Part 1: Late Recurrence: Current Understanding, Clinical Considerations. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2019; 3:pkz050. [PMID: 32337479 PMCID: PMC7049988 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkz050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2019] [Revised: 06/20/2019] [Accepted: 07/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Disease recurrence (locoregional, distant) exerts a significant clinical impact on the survival of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients. Many of these recurrences occur late, more than 5 years after original diagnosis, and represent a major obstacle to the effective treatment of this disease. Indeed, methods to identify patients at risk of late recurrence and therapeutic strategies designed to avert or treat these recurrences are lacking. Therefore, an international workshop was convened in Toronto, Canada, in February 2018 to review the current understanding of late recurrence and to identify critical issues that require future study. In this article, the major issues surrounding late recurrence are defined and current approaches that may be applicable to this challenge are discussed. Specifically, diagnostic tests with potential utility in late-recurrence prediction are described as well as a variety of patient-related factors that may influence recurrence risk. Clinical and therapeutic approaches are also reviewed, with a focus on patient surveillance and the implementation of extended endocrine therapy in the context of late-recurrence prevention. Understanding and treating late recurrence in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer is a major unmet clinical need. A concerted effort of basic and clinical research is required to confront late recurrence and improve disease management and patient survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan J O Dowling
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Kevin Kalinsky
- Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Daniel F Hayes
- University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center and the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - David W Cescon
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sarat Chandarlapaty
- Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, and Breast Medicine Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
- Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York, NY
| | - Joseph O Deasy
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Mitch Dowsett
- Ralph Lauren Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Royal Marsden Hospital, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Breast Cancer Now Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Robert J Gray
- Department of Biostatistics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | - N Lynn Henry
- University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Funda Meric-Bernstam
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - George W Sledge
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Scott V Bratman
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Lisa A Carey
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Martin C Chang
- University of Vermont Medical Center, Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
| | - Angela DeMichele
- Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | - Katarzyna J Jerzak
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Larissa A Korde
- Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Ana Elisa Lohmann
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Wendy R Parulekar
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Meredith M Regan
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Daniel Schramek
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Vuk Stambolic
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Timothy J Whelan
- McMaster University and Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Antonio C Wolff
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD
| | - Jim R Woodgett
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Joseph A Sparano
- Departments of Medicine and Medical Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Pamela J Goodwin
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Agha R, Abdall-Razak A, Crossley E, Dowlut N, Iosifidis C, Mathew G, Beamishaj, Bashashati M, Millham FH, Orgill DP, Noureldin A, Nixon IJ, Alsawadi A, Bradley PJ, Giordano S, Laskin DM, Basu S, Johnston M, Muensterer OJ, Mukherjee I, Ngu JCY, Valmasoni M, Pagano D, Vasudevan B, Rosin RD, McCaul JA, Albrecht J, Hoffman JR, Thorat MA, Massarut S, Thoma A, Kirshtein B, Afifi RY, Farooq N, Challacombe B, Pai PS, Perakath B, Kadioglu H, Aronson JK, Raveendran K, Machado-Aranda D, Klappenbach R, Healy D, Miguel D, Leles CR, Ather MH. STROCSS 2019 Guideline: Strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg 2019; 72:156-165. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 806] [Impact Index Per Article: 161.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2019] [Accepted: 11/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
|
17
|
Thorat MA, Balasubramanian R. Breast cancer prevention in high-risk women. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2019; 65:18-31. [PMID: 31862315 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2019] [Revised: 11/10/2019] [Accepted: 11/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Women at high risk of developing breast cancer are a heterogeneous group of women including those with and without high-risk germline mutation/s. Prevention in these women requires a personalised and multidisciplinary approach. Preventive therapy with selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) like tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) substantially reduces breast cancer risk well beyond the active treatment period. The importance of benign breast disease as a marker of increased breast cancer risk remains underappreciated, and although the benefit of preventive therapy may be greater in such women, preventive therapy remains underutilised in these and other high-risk women. Bilateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy (BRRM) reduces the risk of developing breast cancer by 90% in high-risk women such as carriers of BRCA mutations. It also improves breast cancer-specific survival in BRCA1 carriers. Bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy may also reduce risk in premenopausal BRCA2 carriers. Further research to improve risk models, to identify surrogate biomarkers of preventive therapy benefit and to develop newer preventive agents is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom; School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, United Kingdom; Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom.
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Li H, Whitney J, Bera K, Gilmore H, Thorat MA, Badve S, Madabhushi A. Quantitative nuclear histomorphometric features are predictive of Oncotype DX risk categories in ductal carcinoma in situ: preliminary findings. Breast Cancer Res 2019; 21:114. [PMID: 31623652 PMCID: PMC6798488 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-019-1200-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2018] [Accepted: 09/13/2019] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Oncotype DX (ODx) is a 12-gene assay assessing the recurrence risk (high, intermediate, and low) of ductal carcinoma in situ (pre-invasive breast cancer), which guides clinicians regarding prescription of radiotherapy. However, ODx is expensive, time-consuming, and tissue-destructive. In addition, the actual prognostic meaning for the intermediate ODx risk category remains unclear. Methods In this work, we evaluated the ability of quantitative nuclear histomorphometric features extracted from hematoxylin and eosin-stained slide images of 62 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients to distinguish between the corresponding ODx risk categories. The prognostic value of the identified image signature was further evaluated on an independent validation set of 30 DCIS patients in its ability to distinguish those DCIS patients who progressed to invasive carcinoma versus those who did not. Following nuclear segmentation and feature extraction, feature ranking strategies were employed to identify the most discriminating features between individual ODx risk categories. The selected features were then combined with machine learning classifiers to establish models to predict ODx risk categories. The model performance was evaluated using the average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) using cross validation. In addition, an unsupervised clustering approach was also implemented to evaluate the ability of nuclear histomorphometric features to discriminate between the ODx risk categories. Results Features relating to spatial distribution, orientation disorder, and texture of nuclei were identified as most discriminating between the high ODx and the intermediate, low ODx risk categories. Additionally, the AUC of the most discriminating set of features for the different classification tasks was as follows: (1) high vs low ODx (0.68), (2) high vs. intermediate ODx (0.67), (3) intermediate vs. low ODx (0.57), (4) high and intermediate vs. low ODx (0.63), (5) high vs. low and intermediate ODx (0.66). Additionally, the unsupervised clustering resulted in intermediate ODx risk category patients being co-clustered with low ODx patients compared to high ODx. Conclusion Our results appear to suggest that nuclear histomorphometric features can distinguish high from low and intermediate ODx risk category patients. Additionally, our findings suggest that histomorphometric features for intermediate ODx were more similar to low ODx compared to high ODx risk category.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haojia Li
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
| | - Jon Whitney
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Kaustav Bera
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Hannah Gilmore
- University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Sunil Badve
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Anant Madabhushi
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Affiliation(s)
- Mangesh A Thorat
- 1 Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,2 King's College London, London, UK.,3 Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Atakpa EC, Thorat MA, Cuzick J, Brentnall AR. Mammographic density, endocrine therapy and breast cancer risk: a prognostic and predictive biomarker review. Hippokratia 2018. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Emma C Atakpa
- Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London; Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine; Charterhouse Square London UK EC1M 6BQ
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London; Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine; Charterhouse Square London UK EC1M 6BQ
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London; Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine; Charterhouse Square London UK EC1M 6BQ
| | - Adam R Brentnall
- Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London; Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine; Charterhouse Square London UK EC1M 6BQ
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abstract
Developments in breast cancer treatment have resulted in reduction in breast cancer mortality in the developed world. However incidence continues to rise and greater use of preventive interventions including the use of therapeutic agents is needed to control this burden. High quality evidence from 9 major trials involving more than 83000 participants shows that selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) reduce breast cancer incidence by 38%. Combined results from 2 large trials with 8424 participants show that aromatase inhibitors (AIs) reduce breast cancer incidence by 53%. These benefits are restricted to prevention of ER positive breast cancers. Restricting preventive therapy to high-risk women improves the benefit-harm balance and many guidelines now encourage healthcare professionals to discuss preventive therapy in these women. Further research is needed to improve our risk-prediction models for the identification of high risk women for preventive therapy with greater accuracy and to develop surrogate biomarkers of response. Long-term follow-up of the IBIS-I trial has provided valuable insights into the durability of benefits from preventive therapy, and underscores the need for such follow up to fully evaluate other agents. Full utilisation of preventive therapy also requires greater knowledge and awareness among both doctors and patients about benefits, harms and risk factors. Healthcare professionals should routinely discuss preventive therapy with women at high-risk of breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Ussi AE, Rebolj M, Thorat MA, Bietrix F, Fauvel AC, Hajdúch M, Hill C, Walker I, van Engeland M, Cuzick J, Meijer G. Assessing opportunities for coordinated R&D in early cancer detection and management in Europe. Int J Cancer 2017; 140:1700-1701. [PMID: 27943265 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2016] [Accepted: 11/04/2016] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Anton E Ussi
- EATRIS ERIC, European Infrastructure for Translational Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matejka Rebolj
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
| | - Florence Bietrix
- EATRIS ERIC, European Infrastructure for Translational Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anne-Charlotte Fauvel
- EATRIS ERIC, European Infrastructure for Translational Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marian Hajdúch
- Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine (IMTM), Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | | | | | - Manon van Engeland
- GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
| | - Gerrit Meijer
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Thorat MA, Wagner S, Jones LJ, Levey PM, Bulka K, Hoff R, Sangale Z, Flake DD, Bundred NJ, Fentiman IS, Forbes JF, Lanchbury JS, Cuzick J. Abstract P1-09-06: Prognostic and predictive relevance of cell cycle progression (CCP) score in ductal carcinoma in situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-p1-09-06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: The prognostic abilities of most gene expression signatures in breast cancer are often due to detection of proliferative activity measured from expression of genes regulated as a function of cell cycle progression. Cell Cycle Progression (CCP) score is an important prognostic factor in prostate cancer, and has shown promising results for renal and lung cancer; its role in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has not been explored. We investigated the prognostic and predictive relevance of CCP Score in DCIS using material from UK/ANZ DCIS trial.
Methods: Formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissues were collected from patients enrolled in the UK/ANZ DCIS trial, a randomised 2X2 factorial design trial investigating role of tamoxifen, radiotherapy (RT) or both as adjuvant treatment in DCIS. mRNA expression of 25 S- and M-phase CCP genes was evaluated by reverse transcription followed by PCR on customized Taqman low-density arrays. CCP score is an un-weighted average of the expression values of CCP genes after normalisation with 14 housekeeping genes. CCP score was analysed as a continuous variable and also as an ordinal variable using tertile-based cut-offs. Exploratory analyses with subgroups defined by HER2 status by immunohistochemistry were performed.
Results: CCP scores were evaluable in 521 (134 recurrence events) of 704 available samples (DCIS absent or insufficient RNA in 51, assay failure in 132). Increase in CCP score (median 1.15; IQR 0.71-1.74) was associated with increased risk of ipsilateral breast event (IBE) [Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.28; 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) 1.08-1.51; p = 0.0049]. CCP score however was not an independent predictor in multivariate analyses [HR = 1.16; 95%CI 0.95-1.42; p = 0.14].
CCP scores were categorised as CCP low (<0.87), CCP intermediate (>/= 0.87 to < 1.52) and CCP high (>/= 1.52) by tertiles. The benefit of RT in reducing IBE was significant when CCP score was low [HR = 0.35; 95%CI 0.14-0.87; p = 0.024] or intermediate [HR = 0.23; 95%CI 0.09-0.59; p = 0.0023], however, those with high CCP score did not derive significant RT benefit [HR = 0.59; 95%CI 0.31-1.13; p = 0.11].
In exploratory subgroup analyses, HER2 negative DCIS with high CCP score (20.9% of all DCIS cases) did not derive RT benefit and the largest RT benefit was seen for DCIS that expressed HER2 and did not have a high CCP score (23.2% of all DCIS cases).
Benefit of RT and 10-year IBE rates by CCP score (categorised) and HER2 status subgroups.SubgroupneventsHR (95%CI)p10-year IBE rates (%) - No RT10-year IBE rates (%) - RTCCP-high & HER2 neg106220.83 (0.35-1.97)0.6722.5 (14.0-35.0)20.0 (10.5-36.0)CCP-high & HER2 pos67210.43 (0.16-1.17)0.09840.6 (27.1-57.6)20.4 (8.9-42.9)CCP-non-High & HER2 neg217300.43 (0.18-0.99)0.04816.2 (10.7-24.0)8.1 (4.0-16.3)CCP- non-High & HER2 pos118330.14 (0.04-0.46)0.001239.5 (29.3-51.6)7.1 (2.3-20.4)CCP-non-High = low or intermediate CCP score
Conclusions: CCP score is not independently associated with the risk of IBE but appears to be a predictor of RT benefit. Exploratory analyses suggest that combined with HER2 status, it may help in identifying a large DCIS subgroup where RT is highly indicated and another large subgroup where mastectomy may be merited.
Citation Format: Thorat MA, Wagner S, Jones LJ, Levey PM, Bulka K, Hoff R, Sangale Z, Flake II DD, Bundred NJ, Fentiman IS, Forbes JF, Lanchbury JS, Cuzick J. Prognostic and predictive relevance of cell cycle progression (CCP) score in ductal carcinoma in situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-09-06.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- MA Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - S Wagner
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - LJ Jones
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - PM Levey
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - K Bulka
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - R Hoff
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Z Sangale
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - DD Flake
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - NJ Bundred
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - IS Fentiman
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - JF Forbes
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - JS Lanchbury
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - J Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, Sestak I, Lazzeroni M, Serrano D, Rotmensz N, Cazzaniga M, Varricchio C, Thorat MA, Pruneri G, Leonardi MC, Galimberti V, Bonanni B, DeCensi A. Abstract 1788: Benefit of low-dose tamoxifen in a large, single-institution cohort of high-risk ER-positive DCIS. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2016-1788] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Low dose tamoxifen has shown comparable antiproliferative activity to 20 mg/day in biomarker trials, but its clinical efficacy is unclear. We assessed the effect of low dose tamoxifen, 10 mg on alternate day in most, on ipsilateral recurrence in high risk DCIS patients treated in a single institution.
Methods: Following breast conserving surgery, women with DCIS received radiotherapy and/or low dose tamoxifen as per clinical judgment and patient preference. Multivariate Cox regression analyses adjusted for potential confounding variables were performed.
Results: In a cohort of 1,091 women, median age was 53 years (IQR 46-62), 544 received radiotherapy versus 547 no radiotherapy. Of these, 883 had ER-positive DCIS, 467 received low-dose tamoxifen versus 416 no tamoxifen. After 7.7 years of median follow-up (IQR, 5.1-9.7), 235 ipsilateral recurrences and 62 contralateral tumors were observed. Low dose tamoxifen decreased any breast event (HR = 0.70, 95% CI, 0.54-0.91) and ipsilateral DCIS recurrence (HR = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.49-0.88), but not ipsilateral invasive recurrence (HR = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.56-1.09) or contralateral tumors (HR = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.51-1.55). Radiotherapy decreased any breast event (HR = 0.55, 95% CI, 0.42-0.72). Low dose tamoxifen was more effective in women aged >50 years for all events (HR = 0.51, 95% CI, 0.33-0.77) and ipsilateral recurrences (HR = 0.43, 95% CI, 0.26-0.72) than in women aged 50 or younger (HR = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.60-1.18 and HR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.55-1.16, respectively, p-interaction = 0.03). Young age or premenopausal status, positive margins, high Ki67, high grade and low BMI were independent predictors of ipsilateral recurrence. No increase in endometrial cancers was observed and fewer deaths occurred in women on low dose tamoxifen.
Conclusions: In high risk ER-positive DCIS, low-dose tamoxifen seems to be safe and effective in reducing ipsilateral recurrence, and represents a valuable option in women aged >50 years. A randomized clinical trial is underway to confirm these results.
Supported by Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro i Tumori, AIRC, Italian Ministry of Health (RFPS-2006-1-339898), Gruppo bancario Credito Valtellinese.
Citation Format: Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga, Ivana Sestak, Matteo Lazzeroni, Davide Serrano, Nicole Rotmensz, Massimiliano Cazzaniga, Clara Varricchio, Mangesh A. Thorat, Giancarlo Pruneri, Maria Cristina Leonardi, Viviana Galimberti, Bernardo Bonanni, Andrea DeCensi. Benefit of low-dose tamoxifen in a large, single-institution cohort of high-risk ER-positive DCIS. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 1788.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ivana Sestak
- 2Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Mangesh A. Thorat
- 2Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Thorat MA. Individualised benefit-harm balance of aspirin as primary prevention measure - a good proof-of-concept, but could have been better…. BMC Med 2016; 14:101. [PMID: 27383519 PMCID: PMC4936221 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0648-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2016] [Accepted: 06/23/2016] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Guidelines from different organisations regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention vary despite being based on similar evidence. Translating these in practice presents a further major challenge. The benefit-harm balance tool developed by Puhan et al. (BMC Med 13:250, 2015) for aspirin can overcome some of these difficulties and is therefore an important step towards personalised medicine. Although a good proof-of-concept, this tool has some important limitations that presently preclude its use in practice or for further research. One of the major benefits of aspirin that has become apparent in the last decade or so is its effect in preventing cancer and cancer-related deaths. However, this benefit is clear and consistent in randomised as well as observational evidence only for specific cancers. Additionally, it has long lag-time and carry-over periods. These nuances of aspirin's effects demand a specific and a more sophisticated model such as a time-varying model. Further refinement of this tool with respect to these aspects is merited to make it ready for evaluation in qualitative and quantitative studies with the goal of clinical utility.Please see related article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0493-2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. .,Breast Services, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Whittington Hospital, Magdala Avenue, London, N19 5NF, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Thorat MA, Wagner S, Jones LJ, Levey PM, Bulka K, Hoff R, Sangale Z, Flake II DD, Bundred NJ, Fentiman IS, Forbes JF, Lanchbury JS, Cuzick J. Abstract P3-07-02: Prognostic and predictive relevance of HER2 status in ductal carcinoma in situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p3-07-02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background:
As compared to invasive breast cancer (IBC), HER2 is much more frequently overexpressed in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Unlike IBC, the prognostic significance of HER2 overexpression remains to be established in DCIS and large studies to investigate its predictive role are lacking. We investigated the prognostic and predictive relevance of HER2 protein and ERBB2 mRNA expression in DCIS using material from UK/ANZ DCIS trial.
Methods:
Formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissues (FFPETs) were collected from patients enrolled in the UK/ANZ DCIS trial, a randomised 2X2 factorial design trial investigating role of tamoxifen, radiotherapy or both as adjuvant treatment in DCIS. ERBB2 mRNA expression was evaluated by reverse transcription followed by PCR on customized Taqman low-density arrays. ERBB2 mRNA expression was analysed as a continuous variable and also as a binary variable using a cut-off to reproduce HER2 expression distribution similar to that observed with immunohistochemistry (IHC). HER2 protein expression was evaluated by IHC using HercepTest™ and scored as per ASCO-CAP 2013 recommendations; HER2 equivocal (IHC2+) were grouped with HER2 negative (IHC 0 or 1+) for main analyses. Additional analyses using binary ERBB2 mRNA expression as a reflex test for HER2 IHC2+ were also performed.
Results:
HER2 protein expression was evaluable in 713 (181 events) of 755 available samples (DCIS absent or lost during assay in 42). ERBB2 mRNA expression was evaluable in 521 (134 events) of 704 available samples (DCIS absent or insufficient RNA in 51, assay failure in 132). Both results were available in 508 cases (130 events). Increase in ERBB2 mRNA expression (median 0.62; range 0.07-36.76) was associated with increased risk of in situ ipsilateral breast event (DCIS-IBE) [Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.07; 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) 1.04-1.10; p < 0.0001] but not with increased risk of invasive ipsilateral breast event (I-IBE) [HR = 1.03; 95%CI 0.97-1.10; p = 0.3209]. HER2 positivity by IHC was similarly associated with increased risk of DCIS-IBE [HR = 2.90; 95%CI 1.91-4.40; p < 0.0001] but not with increased risk of I-IBE [HR = 1.40; 95%CI 0. 0.81-2.42; p = 0.2313]. Reclassification of HER2 IHC2+ cases using binary ERBB2 mRNA expression (46 as negative, 16 as positive; 18 expression data unavailable) further improved prognostic discrimination of HER2 IHC [ΔX2 (1d.f.) 5.51; p = 0.0189] for any recurrence. The effect of radiotherapy (RT) for reducing I-IBE was greater in HER2 positive (by ERBB2 mRNA expression) cases [HR = 0.24; 95%CI 0.07-0.83; p = 0.0237] as compared with HER2 negative cases [HR = 0.60; 95%CI 0.23-1.55; p = 0.2925]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 10-year I-IBE rates with and without RT were 4.5% (2.5%-1.4%) and 15.8% (9.6%-25.3%) in HER2 positive DCIS; rates in HER negative DCIS were 5.2% (2.1%-2.4%) and 7.3% (4.3%-12.2%) respectively. The differential benefit of RT by HER2 status was also seen for reduction in DCIS-IBE.
Conclusions:
HER2 overexpression is associated with increased risk of DCIS-IBE but not of I-IBE. HER2 status is predictive of radiotherapy response with larger reductions in both I-IBE and DCIS-IBE seen in HER2 positive DCIS.
Citation Format: Thorat MA, Wagner S, Jones LJ, Levey PM, Bulka K, Hoff R, Sangale Z, Flake II DD, Bundred NJ, Fentiman IS, Forbes JF, Lanchbury JS, Cuzick J. Prognostic and predictive relevance of HER2 status in ductal carcinoma in situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-07-02.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- MA Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - S Wagner
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - LJ Jones
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - PM Levey
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - K Bulka
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - R Hoff
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Z Sangale
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - DD Flake II
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - NJ Bundred
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - IS Fentiman
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - JF Forbes
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - JS Lanchbury
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| | - J Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Blizard Institute Core Pathology, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Australia, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Affiliation(s)
- Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London.,Breast Services, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Whittington Hospital, Magdala Avenue, London, N19 5NF
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
DeCensi A, Thorat MA, Bonanni B, Smith SG, Cuzick J. Barriers to preventive therapy for breast and other major cancers and strategies to improve uptake. Ecancermedicalscience 2015; 9:595. [PMID: 26635899 PMCID: PMC4664508 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2015.595] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2015] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
The global cancer burden continues to rise and the war on cancer can only be won if improvements in treatment go hand in hand with therapeutic cancer prevention. Despite the availability of several efficacious agents, utilisation of preventive therapy has been poor due to various barriers, such as the lack of physician and patient awareness, fear of side effects, and licensing and indemnity issues. In this review, we discuss these barriers in detail and propose strategies to overcome them. These strategies include improving physician awareness and countering prejudices by highlighting the important differences between preventive therapy and cancer treatment. The importance of the agent-biomarker-cohort (ABC) paradigm to improve effectiveness of preventive therapy cannot be overemphasised. Future research to improve therapeutic cancer prevention needs to include improvements in the prediction of benefits and harms, and improvements in the safety profile of existing agents by experimentation with dose. We also highlight the role of drug repurposing for providing new agents as well as to address the current imbalance between therapeutic and preventive research. In order to move the field of therapeutic cancer prevention forwards, engagement with policymakers to correct research imbalance as well as to remove practical obstacles to implementation is also urgently needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea DeCensi
- Division of Medical Oncology, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Mura delle Cappuccine 14, Genoa 16128, Italy
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Breast Services, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Whittington Hospital, Magdala Avenue, London N19 5NF, UK
| | - Bernardo Bonanni
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Via Ripamonti 435, Milan 20141, Italy
| | - Samuel G Smith
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Abstract
There are three main ways in which women can be identified as being at high risk of breast cancer i) family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, which includes genetic factors ii) mammographically identified high breast density, and iii) certain types of benign breast disease. The last category is the least common, but in some ways the easiest one for which treatment can be offered, because these women have already entered into the treatment system. The highest risk is seen in women with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), but this is very rare. More common is atypical hyperplasia (AH), which carries a 4-5-fold risk of breast cancer as compared to general population. Even more common is hyperplasia of the usual type and carries a roughly two-fold increased risk. Women with aspirated cysts are also at increased risk of subsequent breast cancer. Tamoxifen has been shown to be particularly effective in preventing subsequent breast cancer in women with AH, with a more than 70% reduction in the P1 trial and a 60% reduction in IBIS-I. The aromatase inhibitors (AIs) also are highly effective for AH and LCIS. There are no published data on the effectiveness of tamoxifen or the AIs for breast cancer prevention in women with hyperplasia of the usual type, or for women with aspirated cysts. Improving diagnostic consistency, breast cancer risk prediction and education of physicians and patients regarding therapeutic prevention in women with benign breast disease may strengthen breast cancer prevention efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.
| | - Ivana Sestak
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Pathmarajah P, Shah K, Taghipour K, Ramachandra S, Thorat MA, Chaudhry Z, Patkar V, Peters F, Connor T, Spurrell E, Tobias JS, Vaidya JS. Letrozole-induced necrotising leukocytoclastic small vessel vasculitis: First report of a case in the UK. Int J Surg Case Rep 2015; 16:77-80. [PMID: 26432999 PMCID: PMC4643446 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.09.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2015] [Accepted: 09/17/2015] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Letrozole is a commonly used drug in breast cancer treatment. Letrozole induced cutaneous leukocytoclastic small vessel vasculitis: first UK case. There was extensive superficial skin necrosis; needed local and systemic steroids. Interestingly, the cancer shrank without treatment during the 3-4 month episode. Breast teams should be aware of this rare side effect.
Introduction Letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, is a commonly used neo-adjuvant drug to treat hormone-sensitive breast cancer. There have been a few cases of aromatase inhibitor induced vasculitis but the first case of letrozole-induced vasculitis was reported from Switzerland in 2014 (Digklia et al.) [1]. Presentation of case We report the case of a 72-year-old woman with a small breast cancer. She was started on pre-operative letrozole (2.5 mg/d) whilst awaiting surgery. Ten days later she presented with burning pain and purpuric skin lesions which progressed to extensive ischaemic superficial necrosis of the lower limb skin, resolving over 3–4 months after local and systemic steroids. Histologically, it showed leucocytoclasis with evidence of eosinophilia consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous leukocytoclastic small vessel vasculitis. Discussion The initial clinical presentation was severe burning pain around the ankles and a spreading violaceous rash. Letrozole was stopped. Wide local excision (lumpectomy) and sentinel node biopsy were postponed because of the accompanying pneumonitis and gastrointestinal upset, and were carried out 3.5 months later. Fortunately, the tumour size did not increase, but appeared to reduce, and axillary lymph nodes remained negative, i.e., this patient’s cancer outcome does not seem to have been jeopardized. Conclusion Leukocytoclastic vasculitis is a hypersensitivity reaction that is usually self-resolving, though our case needed systemic steroid treatment. Letrozole is a commonly used drug in clinical practice and prescribers should be aware of this rare side effect, which in our case delayed treatment without any apparent harm and possibly reduced tumour size.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Karishma Shah
- University College London Medical School, Gower St, London WC1E6BT, United Kingdom
| | - Kathy Taghipour
- Department of Dermatology, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom
| | - Su Ramachandra
- Department of Histopathology, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- The Breast Unit, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom; Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, EC1M 6BQ, United Kingdom
| | - Ziaullah Chaudhry
- The Breast Unit, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom
| | - Vivek Patkar
- The Breast Unit, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom
| | - Francesca Peters
- The Breast Unit, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas Connor
- The Breast Unit, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Spurrell
- The Breast Unit, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom
| | - Jeffrey S Tobias
- The Breast Unit, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom
| | - Jayant S Vaidya
- The Breast Unit, The Whittington Hospital, London N195NF, United Kingdom; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, 132 Hampstead Road, London NW1 2PS, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Thorat MA, Cuzick J. Prophylactic use of aspirin: systematic review of harms and approaches to mitigation in the general population. Eur J Epidemiol 2015; 30:5-18. [PMID: 25421783 DOI: 10.1007/s10654-014-9971-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2014] [Accepted: 10/30/2014] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
A careful assessment of benefits and harms is required to assess suitability of aspirin as a prophylactic public health measure. However, comprehensive population-level data on harms are lacking. We collected and synthesized age and sex-specific data on harms relevant to aspirin use in average-risk individuals aged 50 years or older. We conducted systematic literature searches to identify baseline rates of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, peptic ulcer, major extra-cranial bleeding, and case-fatality rates due to GI bleeding or peptic ulcer in general population. The magnitude of aspirin-associated increase, the prevalence and attributable risk of Helicobacter pylori infection on these events in aspirin users was also assessed. Baseline rates of major extracranial bleeding events and GI complications increase with age; an almost threefold to fourfold increase is observed from age 50-54 to 70-74 years. Low or standard-dose aspirin use increases GI bleeding events by 60% leading to an annual excess of 0.45 and 0.79 GI bleeding events per 1,000 women and men aged 50-54 years respectively. 5-10% of major GI complications are fatal; a clear age dependence--higher fatality in older individuals, is seen. Eradication of H. pylori infection before aspirin use could reduce the incidence of upper GI complications by 25-30%. GI complications are increased by about 60% due to aspirin use but are fatal only in a very small proportion of individuals younger than 70 years of age. Major bleeding events that are comparable in severity to cancer or CVD, are infrequent. Screening and eradication of H. pylori infection could substantially lower aspirin-related GI harms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK,
| | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Cuzick J, Thorat MA, Bosetti C, Brown PH, Burn J, Cook NR, Ford LG, Jacobs EJ, Jankowski JA, La Vecchia C, Law M, Meyskens F, Rothwell PM, Senn HJ, Umar A. Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population. Ann Oncol 2015; 26:47-57. [PMID: 25096604 PMCID: PMC4269341 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 238] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2014] [Revised: 05/14/2014] [Accepted: 06/09/2014] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accumulating evidence supports an effect of aspirin in reducing overall cancer incidence and mortality in the general population. We reviewed current data and assessed the benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population. METHODS The effect of aspirin for site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, cardiovascular events was collated from the most recent systematic reviews. Studies identified through systematic Medline search provided data regarding harmful effects of aspirin and baseline rates of harms like gastrointestinal bleeding and peptic ulcer. RESULTS The effects of aspirin on cancer are not apparent until at least 3 years after the start of use, and some benefits are sustained for several years after cessation in long-term users. No differences between low and standard doses of aspirin are observed, but there were no direct comparisons. Higher doses do not appear to confer additional benefit but increase toxicities. Excess bleeding is the most important harm associated with aspirin use, and its risk and fatality rate increases with age. For average-risk individuals aged 50-65 years taking aspirin for 10 years, there would be a relative reduction of between 7% (women) and 9% (men) in the number of cancer, myocardial infarction or stroke events over a 15-year period and an overall 4% relative reduction in all deaths over a 20-year period. CONCLUSIONS Prophylactic aspirin use for a minimum of 5 years at doses between 75 and 325 mg/day appears to have favourable benefit-harm profile; longer use is likely to have greater benefits. Further research is needed to determine the optimum dose and duration of use, to identify individuals at increased risk of bleeding, and to test effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening-eradication before starting aspirin prophylaxis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
| | - M A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - C Bosetti
- Department of Epidemiology, IRCCS-Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche 'Mario Negri', Milan, Italy
| | - P H Brown
- Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - J Burn
- Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - N R Cook
- Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston
| | - L G Ford
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
| | - E J Jacobs
- Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, USA
| | - J A Jankowski
- Centre for Biomedical Research-Translational and Stratified Medicine, Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth University, Plymouth; Centre for Digestive Diseases, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - C La Vecchia
- Department of Epidemiology, IRCCS-Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche 'Mario Negri', Milan, Italy; Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - M Law
- Centre for Environmental and Preventive Medicine, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - F Meyskens
- Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, USA
| | - P M Rothwell
- Stroke Prevention Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - H J Senn
- Tumor and Breast Center ZeTuP, St Gallen, Switzerland
| | - A Umar
- Gastrointestinal and Other Cancers Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Thorat MA, Cuzick J. Reply to the letter to the editor 'the harms of low-dose aspirin prophylaxis are overstated' by P. Elwood and G. Morgan. Ann Oncol 2014; 26:442-3. [PMID: 25403580 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu546] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- M A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - J Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Cuzick J, Thorat MA, Andriole G, Brawley OW, Brown PH, Culig Z, Eeles RA, Ford LG, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Ilic D, Key TJ, La Vecchia C, Lilja H, Marberger M, Meyskens FL, Minasian LM, Parker C, Parnes HL, Perner S, Rittenhouse H, Schalken J, Schmid HP, Schmitz-Dräger BJ, Schröder FH, Stenzl A, Tombal B, Wilt TJ, Wolk A. Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:e484-92. [PMID: 25281467 PMCID: PMC4203149 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70211-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 310] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Prostate cancer is a common malignancy in men and the worldwide burden of this disease is rising. Lifestyle modifications such as smoking cessation, exercise, and weight control offer opportunities to reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Early detection of prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial, but changes in the PSA threshold, frequency of screening, and the use of other biomarkers have the potential to minimise the overdiagnosis associated with PSA screening. Several new biomarkers for individuals with raised PSA concentrations or those diagnosed with prostate cancer are likely to identify individuals who can be spared aggressive treatment. Several pharmacological agents such as 5α-reductase inhibitors and aspirin could prevent development of prostate cancer. In this Review, we discuss the present evidence and research questions regarding prevention, early detection of prostate cancer, and management of men either at high risk of prostate cancer or diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Gerald Andriole
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Otis W Brawley
- Office of the Chief Medical Officer, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Hematology and Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Powel H Brown
- Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Zoran Culig
- Molecular Pathology, Department of Urology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Rosalind A Eeles
- Division of Cancer Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Academic Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Leslie G Ford
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Lars Holmberg
- Medical School, King's College London, London, UK; Regional Cancer Center Uppsala Orebro and Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Dragan Ilic
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Timothy J Key
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Carlo La Vecchia
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Hans Lilja
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Surgery (Urology), Laboratory Medicine, and Medicine (GU-Oncology), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, University Hospital UMAS, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Michael Marberger
- Department of Urology, Vienna University Medical School, Vienna, Austria
| | - Frank L Meyskens
- Biological Chemistry, Public Health, and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Lori M Minasian
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Chris Parker
- Academic Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Howard L Parnes
- Prostate and Urologic Cancer Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sven Perner
- Department of Prostate Cancer Research, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | | | - Jack Schalken
- Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Hans-Peter Schmid
- Department of Urology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland
| | | | - Fritz H Schröder
- Erasmus University and Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Arnulf Stenzl
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Bertrand Tombal
- Department of Urology, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Timothy J Wilt
- Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, and Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Alicja Wolk
- Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Vasiljević N, Ahmad AS, Thorat MA, Fisher G, Berney DM, Møller H, Foster CS, Cuzick J, Lorincz AT. DNA methylation gene-based models indicating independent poor outcome in prostate cancer. BMC Cancer 2014; 14:655. [PMID: 25193387 PMCID: PMC4162944 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2014] [Accepted: 08/30/2014] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer has a variable clinical behaviour with frequently unpredictable outcome. DNA methylation plays an important role in determining the biology of cancer but prognostic information is scanty. We assessed the potential of gene-specific DNA methylation changes to predict death from prostate cancer in a cohort of untreated men in the UK. METHODS This was a population-based study in which cases were identified from six cancer registries in Great Britain. DNA was extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin wax-embedded transurethral prostate resection tissues collected during 1990-96 from men with clinically-localised cancer who chose not to be treated for at least 6 months following diagnosis. The primary end point was death from prostate cancer. Outcomes were determined through medical records and cancer registry records. Pyrosequencing was used to quantify methylation in 13 candidate genes with established or suggested roles in cancer. Univariate and multivariate Cox models were used to identify possible predictors for prostate cancer-related death. RESULTS Of 367 men, 99 died from prostate cancer during a median of 9.5 years follow-up (max = 20). Univariately, 12 genes were significantly associated with prostate cancer mortality, hazard ratios ranged between 1.09 and 1.28 per decile increase in methylation. Stepwise Cox regression modelling suggested that the methylation of genes HSPB1, CCND2 and DPYS contributed objective prognostic information to Gleason score and PSA with respect to cancer-related death during follow-up (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION Methylation of 13 genes was analysed in 367 men with localised prostate cancer who were conservatively treated and stratified with respect to death from prostate cancer and those who survived or died of other causes. Of the 13 genes analysed, differential methylation of HSPB1, CCND2 and DPYS provided independent prognostic information. Assessment of gene-methylation may provide independent objective information that can be used to segregate prostate cancers at diagnosis into predicted behavioural groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nataša Vasiljević
- />Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ UK
| | - Amar S Ahmad
- />Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ UK
| | - Mangesh A Thorat
- />Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ UK
| | - Gabrielle Fisher
- />Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ UK
| | - Daniel M Berney
- />Molecular Oncology Centre, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ UK
| | - Henrik Møller
- />King’s College London, Cancer Epidemiology and Population Health, London, SE1 9RT UK
| | - Christopher S Foster
- />HCA International Pathology Laboratories, 2-22 Capper Street, London, WC1E 6JA UK
| | - Jack Cuzick
- />Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ UK
| | - Attila T Lorincz
- />Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Cheol Kim D, Thorat MA, Lee MR, Cho SH, Vasiljević N, Scibior-Bentkowska D, Wu K, Ahmad AS, Duffy S, Cuzick JM, Lorincz AT. Quantitative DNA methylation and recurrence of breast cancer: a study of 30 candidate genes. Cancer Biomark 2013; 11:75-88. [PMID: 23011154 DOI: 10.3233/cbm-2012-0266] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The need for new prognostic factors in breast cancer is ever increasing as breast cancer management evolves. Aberrant DNA methylation plays a pivotal role in cancer development and progression; DNA methylation-based biomarkers may provide independent prognostic information. We used pyrosequencing to investigate the prognostic potential of quantitative DNA methylation of a large set of candidate genes in a Korean single-institution series of operable breast cancer. METHODS Absolute DNA methylation in 20 candidate genes from an initial set of 30 genes was measured by pyrosequencing of bisulfite converted DNA in 121 fresh frozen breast cancer cases. Survival analyses used continuous and categorized (quintile-based) gene methylation data with time to recurrence (TTR) as an endpoint. Prognostic abilities of gene-only and risk-score models were explored. RESULTS Median follow-up was 5.1 years; 25 recurrences (21%) were observed. Nodal status, methylation of TWIST1, SLIT2 (both as continuous and categorized variables) and APC, HLA-A, NKX2-5, SERPINB5, SFN (as categorized variables) were significantly prognostic; grade showed a prognostic trend. A multivariate model containing nodal status, grade and TWIST1 was a best fit (p< 0.001) in stepwise regression; risk-score based on this model separated patients into 3 distinct risk-groups (p< 0.001). A gene-only model based on TWIST1 and SFN also classified patients into distinct risk-groups (p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS This study shows that accurate quantitative measurement of DNA methylation by pyrosequencing identifies a small set of genes with independent prognostic potential in breast cancer. These genes complement the current clinico-pathological prognostic factors and appear to be potential biomarkers that warrant further validation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dae Cheol Kim
- Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, Busan, Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
|
38
|
Duchnowska R, Jassem J, Goswami CP, Gokmen-Polar Y, Li L, Thorat MA, Flores N, Hua E, Woditschka S, Palmieri D, Steinberg SM, Biernat W, Sosinska-Mielcarek K, Szostakiewicz B, Czartoryska-Arlukowicz B, Radecka B, Tomasevic Z, Sledge GW, Steeg PS, Badve SS. 13-gene signature to predict rapid development of brain metastases in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
505 Background: Brain metastases (BM) of breast cancer constitute an important part of therapeutic failures and are associated with severe morbidity and mortality. The risk of BM is particularly high in HER2+ advanced breast cancer pts. We earlier developed in this group a 13-gene signature strongly predicting for rapid development of BM (J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 45s). Now, we validated these results in an independent group of pts and on culture model system. Methods: Discovery group included 87 samples analyzed using cDNA synthesis, annealing, selection, extension, ligation and array hybridization (DASL). Independent validation group included 75 samples analyzed using quantitative reverse-transcriptase PCR. 3D culture validation model system used immortal, non-tumorigenic human MCF10A breast epithelial cells with and without ectopic expression of HER-2 and RAD51, a DNA double strand break repair gene (one of the three genes of this group overexpressed in 13-gene signature). The number and morphology of breast acini were scored using indirect immunoflourescence and confocal microscopy. Results: Median brain metastasis-free survival (BMFS) in the discovery group for ‘high’ vs. ‘low’ expression signature tumors was 36 months and 66 months, respectively (P=0.0068), and in the validation group 54 and 86 months, respectively (P=0.032). Short BMFS was also associated with ER-negativity; BMFS in the cohort of ‘high’ 13-gene signature and ER- tumors vs. other 3 groups was 31 months and 66 months in discovery group, and 41 and 77 months in validation group (P<0.0001 and P=0.02, respectively). Overexpression of RAD51 in MCF-10A breast cells altered their three-dimensional acinar morphology and increased the percentage of invasive structures by 6.5 fold, both in the presence and absence of HER2 overexpression. Conclusions: 13-gene signature and ER-negativity predict rapid development of BM in HER+ advanced breast cancer pts. RAD51 may promote aggressiveness in breast epithelial cells. These data may be useful in the design of BM preventive trials and may prompt new treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Lang Li
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | | | | | - Emily Hua
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Zorica Tomasevic
- Institute for Oncology and Radiology, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Vasiljević N, Wu K, Brentnall AR, Kim DC, Thorat MA, Kudahetti SC, Mao X, Xue L, Yu Y, Shaw GL, Beltran L, Lu YJ, Berney DM, Cuzick J, Lorincz AT. Absolute quantitation of DNA methylation of 28 candidate genes in prostate cancer using pyrosequencing. Dis Markers 2011; 30:151-61. [PMID: 21694441 PMCID: PMC3825083 DOI: 10.3233/dma-2011-0790] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Aberrant DNA methylation plays a pivotal role in carcinogenesis and its mapping is likely to provide biomarkers for improved diagnostic and risk assessment in prostate cancer (PCa). We quantified and compared absolute methylation levels among 28 candidate genes in 48 PCa and 29 benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) samples using the pyrosequencing (PSQ) method to identify genes with diagnostic and prognostic potential. RARB, HIN1, BCL2, GSTP1, CCND2, EGFR5, APC, RASSF1A, MDR1, NKX2-5, CDH13, DPYS, PTGS2, EDNRB, MAL, PDLIM4, HLAa, ESR1 and TIG1 were highly methylated in PCa compared to BPH (p < 0.001), while SERPINB5, CDH1,
TWIST1, DAPK1, THRB, MCAM, SLIT2, CDKN2a and SFN were not. RARB methylation above 21% completely distinguished
PCa from BPH. Separation based on methylation level of SFN, SLIT2 and SERPINB5 distinguished low and high Gleason score
cancers, e.g. SFN and SERPINB5 together correctly classified 81% and 77% of high and low Gleason score cancers respectively.
Several genes including CDH1 previously reported as methylation markers in PCa were not confirmed in our study. Increasing
age was positively associated with gene methylation (p < 0.0001). Accurate quantitative measurement of gene methylation in PCa appears promising and further validation of genes like RARB, HIN1, BCL2, APC and GSTP1 is warranted for diagnostic potential and SFN, SLIT2 and SERPINB5 for prognostic potential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nataša Vasiljević
- Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & the London School of Dentistry and Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Vaidya JS, Baldassarre G, Thorat MA, Massarut S. Role of glucocorticoids in breast cancer. Curr Pharm Des 2011; 16:3593-600. [PMID: 20977423 DOI: 10.2174/138161210793797906] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2010] [Accepted: 09/24/2010] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Glucocorticoids play an essential role in embryonic development and tissue homeostasis and possess important anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties. Due to their very wide spectrum of activity, Glucocorticoids are one of the most commonly used drugs-used in the treatment of asthma, arthritis, autoimmune diseases and shock/SIRS. glucocorticoids are a main component of treatment regimens in hematological malignancies due to their pro-apoptotic properties and are also used as co-treatment several other cancers and chemotherapy regimens including those in breast cancer treatment. In breast cancer, however, glucocorticoids may have diverse effects and could inhibit chemosensitivity. Additionally, glucocorticoids through their receptor may interact with ER in a feedback loop regulating each other's activities. The normal variation of glucocorticoid levels with time of the day, menstrual cycle or year could have a interesting chronobiological interaction with the well recorded variation in breast cancer proliferation and metastatic potential. Glucocorticoids could play a very complex role in breast cancer epidemiology, biology and treatment; this review aims to present a comprehensive discussion as well as speculate future directions for research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jayant S Vaidya
- Research Department of Surgery, University College London, UK.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Ademuyiwa FO, Miller A, O'Connor T, Edge SB, Thorat MA, Sledge GW, Levine E, Badve S. The effects of oncotype DX recurrence scores on chemotherapy utilization in a multi-institutional breast cancer cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 126:797-802. [PMID: 21197567 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1329-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 89] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2010] [Accepted: 12/22/2010] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
The use of clinicopathologic features in decision-making in early stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (BC) may lead to over or under treatment. We investigated the effect of the Oncotype Dx (ODX) on chemotherapy (CTX) utilization in two cancer centers. 276 cases of node-negative ER-positive BC had ODX between 2005 and 2009. Age at diagnosis, tumor size, grade, and progesterone receptor (PR) status were abstracted from records and provided to two medical oncologists blinded to the ODX score. A recommendation for or against CTX was made based on clinicopathologic characteristics. Median age was 55 years. Mean tumor size was 1.6 cm. The median 10-year Adjuvant! Online (AO) mortality risk was 8. The median Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) was 3.3. The median ODX recurrence score was 17. Without knowledge of the ODX, oncologists were more likely to recommend CTX to younger women (P < 0.0001), women with negative PR status (P < 0.0001), higher NPI (P < 0.012), and tumors > 1 cm (P = 0.033). On average, CTX recommended patients had larger tumors (2.0 vs. 1.2 cm) and higher AO 10-year mortality (11.4 vs. 4.4%). ODX resulted in a change in management for 38% of women. Of 188 total patients who did not receive CTX, 71 had a recommendation favoring CTX by an oncologist blinded to the ODX score. In our multi-institutional cohort, the ODX score had a significant impact on the receipt of adjuvant CTX and altered management for 38% of women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Foluso O Ademuyiwa
- Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Ademuyiwa FO, Thorat MA, Jain RK, Nakshatri H, Badve S. Expression of Forkhead-box protein A1, a marker of luminal A type breast cancer, parallels low Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence scores. Mod Pathol 2010; 23:270-5. [PMID: 19946260 DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2009.172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
The Oncotype DX assay is one of the molecular tests that provide predictive and prognostic information to breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and node-negative disease. This study evaluates the association of Forkhead-box protein A1 (FOXA1) and GATA-binding protein 3 (GATA3) expressions with Oncotype DX recurrences scores in 77 cases of patients with ER-positive node-negative breast carcinomas diagnosed at Indiana University. The data were correlated with patient age, tumor size, histologic type, Scarff-Bloom-Richardson score, histologic grade, and progesterone receptor status. The median FOXA1 and GATA3 scores were 240 and 200, respectively. The Oncotype DX recurrence scores were low in 57%, intermediate in 30%, and high in 13% of cases. FOXA1 expression correlated negatively with Oncotype DX recurrence scores (P=0.004), and histologic type (P=0.0004). Oncotype DX recurrences score also correlated negatively with progesterone receptor (P=0.035) with 100% of progesterone receptor-negative cases having high or intermediate Oncotype DX scores. FOXA1 and GATA3 expressions correlated positively (P=0.014). The correlation between FOXA1 expression and Oncotype DX recurrence scores remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons and controlling for confounders such as histological type, grade, and progesterone receptor. A statistically significant correlation between the Oncotype DX recurrence scores and FOXA1 expression in our diverse cohort of ER-positive breast cancer patients was observed. We propose that this may represent a more cost-effective strategy to further risk stratify patients with good prognosis in whom chemotherapy may be omitted. To confirm these findings, further studies in a larger cohort of patients are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Foluso O Ademuyiwa
- Department of Medicine, Indiana University, School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Gökmen-Polar Y, Mehta R, Tuzmen S, Mousses S, Thorat MA, Sanders KL, Turbin D, Leung S, Huntsman DG, Sledge GW, Badve S. Differential subcellular expression of protein kinase C betaII in breast cancer: correlation with breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 124:327-35. [PMID: 20099025 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-0733-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2009] [Accepted: 01/06/2010] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Protein kinase C betaII (PKCβII) represents a novel potential target for anticancer therapies in breast cancer. In order to identify patient subgroups which might benefit from PKC-targeting therapies, we investigated the expression of PKCβII in human breast cancer cell lines and in a tissue microarray (TMA). We first screened breast cancer cell line representatives of breast cancer subtypes for PKCβII expression at the mRNA and at the protein levels. We analyzed a TMA comprising of tumors from 438 patients with a median followup of 15.4 years for PKCβII expression by immunohistochemistry along with other prognostic factors in breast cancer. Among a panel of human breast cancer cell lines, only MDA-MB-436, a triple negative basal cell line, showed overexpression for PKCβII both at the mRNA and at the protein levels. In breast cancer patients, cytoplasmic expression of PKCβII correlated positively with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2; P = 0.01) and Ki-67 (P = 0.016), while nuclear PKCβII correlated positively with estrogen receptor (ER; P = 0.016). The positive correlation of CK5/6 with cytoplasmic PKCβII (P = 0.033) lost statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons (P = 0.198). Cytoplasmic PKCβII did not correlate with cyclooxygenase (COX-2; P = 0.925) and vascular endothelial growth factor (P = 1). There was no significant association between PKCβII staining and overall survival. Cytoplasmic PKCβII correlates with HER-2 and Ki-67, while nuclear PKCβII correlates with ER in breast cancer. Our study suggests the necessity for assessing the subcellular localization of PKCβII in breast cancer subtypes when evaluating the possible effectiveness of PKCβII-targeting agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yesim Gökmen-Polar
- Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Walther Hall, 980 W Walnut Street, C230, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
McCune K, Bhat-Nakshatri P, Thorat MA, Nephew KP, Badve S, Nakshatri H. Prognosis of hormone-dependent breast cancers: implications of the presence of dysfunctional transcriptional networks activated by insulin via the immune transcription factor T-bet. Cancer Res 2010; 70:685-96. [PMID: 20068169 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-1530] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha)-positive breast cancers that co-express transcription factors GATA-3 and FOXA1 have a favorable prognosis. These transcription factors form an autoregulatory hormonal network that influences estrogen responsiveness and sensitivity to hormonal therapy. Disruption of this network may be a mechanism whereby ERalpha-positive breast cancers become resistant to therapy. The transcription factor T-bet is a negative regulator of GATA-3 in the immune system. In this study, we report that insulin increases the expression of T-bet in breast cancer cells, which correlates with reduced expression of GATA-3, FOXA1, and the ERalpha:FOXA1:GATA-3 target gene GREB-1. The effects of insulin on GATA-3 and FOXA1 could be recapitulated through overexpression of T-bet in MCF-7 cells (MCF-7-T-bet). Chromatin immunoprecipitation assays revealed reduced ERalpha binding to GREB-1 enhancer regions in MCF-7-T-bet cells and in insulin-treated MCF-7 cells. MCF-7-T-bet cells were resistant to tamoxifen in the presence of insulin and displayed prolonged extracellular signal-regulated kinase and AKT activation in response to epidermal growth factor treatment. ERalpha-positive cells with intrinsic tamoxifen resistance as well as MCF-7 cells with acquired tamoxifen and fulvestrant resistance expressed elevated levels of T-bet and/or reduced levels of FOXA1 and GATA-3. Analysis of publicly available databases revealed ERalpha-positive/T-bet-positive breast cancers expressing lower levels of FOXA1 (P = 0.0137) and GATA-3 (P = 0.0063) compared with ERalpha-positive/T-bet-negative breast cancers. Thus, T-bet expression in primary tumors and circulating insulin levels may serve as surrogate biomarkers to identify ERalpha-positive breast cancers with a dysfunctional hormonal network, enhanced growth factor signaling, and resistance to hormonal therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kasi McCune
- Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Resetkova E, Reis-Filho JS, Jain RK, Mehta R, Thorat MA, Nakshatri H, Badve S. Prognostic impact of ALDH1 in breast cancer: a story of stem cells and tumor microenvironment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 123:97-108. [PMID: 19911270 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-009-0619-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 133] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2009] [Accepted: 10/07/2009] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The concept of cancer cells being hierarchically organized and arising from their own progenitor stem cells will have important implications on cancer therapy. If this hypothesis were to be true then the paucity of estrogen receptors in stem cells as well as their inherent drug resistance mechanisms pose a challenge to current targeted therapies. In this study, we sought to examine the prognostic relevance of ALDH1, a putative cancer stem cell marker, by immunohistochemistry. The four cohorts analyzed included an adjuvantly treated series of 245 invasive cancers, a neoadjuvantly treated series of 34 cases, and two series of 58 and 40 triple negative cases, respectively. Both tumor cell and stromal expression for ALDH1 was evaluated, where possible. Tumor cell ALDH1 expression significantly correlated only with basal-like and HER2 tumor types in the adjuvant series and tumor grade in the neoadjuvant cohort. No significant enrichment for ALDH1 positive cells was observed in the postneoadjuvant therapy specimens compared to pretreatment samples. On the other hand, high degree of stromal expression was significantly associated with best disease-free survival as well as a trend for overall survival. The association of stromal expression was confirmed in an independent cohort of triple negative cases. The novel finding is that tumor microenvironment may play a significant role in determining the prognostic impact of stem/progenitor cells in human breast tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erika Resetkova
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 46202, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Al-Azzawi HH, Pitt HA, Swartz-Basile DA, Wang S, Dalbec KM, Thorat MA, Zyromski NJ. Obesity downregulates innate and adaptive immunity genes in the pancreatic cancer microenvironment. J Am Coll Surg 2009. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.06.294] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
|
47
|
Thorat MA, Mehrotra S, Morimiya A, Badve S. COX-2 Expression Does Not Correlate with Microvessel Density in Breast Cancer. Pathobiology 2009; 76:39-44. [DOI: 10.1159/000178154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2008] [Accepted: 08/25/2008] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
48
|
Thorat MA. Comment on "Dynamic response to heat - a novel physical characteristic of breast cancer". Int J Surg 2009; 7:173. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2008.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2008] [Revised: 10/31/2008] [Accepted: 12/01/2008] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
49
|
Thorat MA, Turbin D, Morimiya A, Leung S, Zhang Q, Jeng MH, Huntsman DG, Nakshatri H, Badve S. Amplified in breast cancer 1 expression in breast cancer. Histopathology 2008; 53:634-41. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2008.03155.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|
50
|
|