1
|
de Wild SR, van Roozendaal LM, de Wilt JHW, van Dalen T, van der Hage JA, van Duijnhoven FH, Simons JM, Schipper RJ, de Munck L, van Kuijk SMJ, Boersma LJ, Linn SC, Lobbes MBI, Poortmans PMP, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, van de Vijver KKBT, de Vries J, Westenberg AH, Strobbe LJA, Smidt ML. De-escalation of axillary treatment in the event of a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy: nationwide registry study (BOOG 2013-07). Br J Surg 2024; 111:znae077. [PMID: 38597154 PMCID: PMC11004788 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znae077] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 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: 10/18/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 03/01/2024] [Indexed: 04/11/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Trials have demonstrated the safety of omitting completion axillary lymph node dissection in patients with cT1-2 N0 breast cancer operated with breast-conserving surgery who have limited metastatic burden in the sentinel lymph node. The aim of this registry study was to provide insight into the oncological safety of omitting completion axillary treatment in patients operated with mastectomy who have limited-volume sentinel lymph node metastasis. METHODS Women diagnosed in 2013-2014 with unilateral cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy, with one to three sentinel lymph node metastases (pN1mi-pN1a), were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and classified by axillary treatment: no completion axillary treatment, completion axillary lymph node dissection, regional radiotherapy, or completion axillary lymph node dissection followed by regional radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was 5-year regional recurrence rate. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free interval and overall survival, among others. RESULTS In total, 1090 patients were included (no completion axillary treatment, 219 (20.1%); completion axillary lymph node dissection, 437 (40.1%); regional radiotherapy, 327 (30.0%); completion axillary lymph node dissection and regional radiotherapy, 107 (9.8%)). Patients in the group without completion axillary treatment had more favourable tumour characteristics and were older. The overall 5-year regional recurrence rate was 1.3%, and did not differ significantly between the groups. The recurrence-free interval was also comparable among groups. The group of patients who did not undergo completion axillary treatment had statistically significantly worse 5-year overall survival, owing to a higher percentage of non-cancer deaths. CONCLUSION In this registry study of patients with cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy, with low-volume sentinel lymph node metastasis, the 5-year regional recurrence rate was low and comparable between patients with and without completion axillary treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabine R de Wild
- Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Department of Surgery, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Johannes H W de Wilt
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Thijs van Dalen
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jos A van der Hage
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Frederieke H van Duijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Janine M Simons
- Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Department of Surgery, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Linda de Munck
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Sander M J van Kuijk
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marc B I Lobbes
- Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| | - Philip M P Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Netwerk, Antwerp, Belgium
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | | | - Koen K B T van de Vijver
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Hospital Ghent—Cancer Research Institute Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Jolanda de Vries
- Department of Psychology and Health, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - A Helen Westenberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapiegroep Arnhem, Arnhem, the Netherlands
| | - Luc J A Strobbe
- Department of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Marjolein L Smidt
- Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Department of Surgery, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Leon-Ferre RA, Jonas SF, Salgado R, Loi S, de Jong V, Carter JM, Nielsen TO, Leung S, Riaz N, Chia S, Jules-Clément G, Curigliano G, Criscitiello C, Cockenpot V, Lambertini M, Suman VJ, Linderholm B, Martens JWM, van Deurzen CHM, Timmermans AM, Shimoi T, Yazaki S, Yoshida M, Kim SB, Lee HJ, Dieci MV, Bataillon G, Vincent-Salomon A, André F, Kok M, Linn SC, Goetz MP, Michiels S. Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. JAMA 2024; 331:1135-1144. [PMID: 38563834 PMCID: PMC10988354 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.3056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024]
Abstract
Importance The association of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) abundance in breast cancer tissue with cancer recurrence and death in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who are not treated with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy is unclear. Objective To study the association of TIL abundance in breast cancer tissue with survival among patients with early-stage TNBC who were treated with locoregional therapy but no chemotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective pooled analysis of individual patient-level data from 13 participating centers in North America (Rochester, Minnesota; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), Europe (Paris, Lyon, and Villejuif, France; Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Milan, Padova, and Genova, Italy; Gothenburg, Sweden), and Asia (Tokyo, Japan; Seoul, Korea), including 1966 participants diagnosed with TNBC between 1979 and 2017 (with follow-up until September 27, 2021) who received treatment with surgery with or without radiotherapy but no adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Exposure TIL abundance in breast tissue from resected primary tumors. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival [iDFS]. Secondary outcomes were recurrence-free survival [RFS], survival free of distant recurrence [distant RFS, DRFS], and overall survival. Associations were assessed using a multivariable Cox model stratified by participating center. Results This study included 1966 patients with TNBC (median age, 56 years [IQR, 39-71]; 55% had stage I TNBC). The median TIL level was 15% (IQR, 5%-40%). Four-hundred seventeen (21%) had a TIL level of 50% or more (median age, 41 years [IQR, 36-63]), and 1300 (66%) had a TIL level of less than 30% (median age, 59 years [IQR, 41-72]). Five-year DRFS for stage I TNBC was 94% (95% CI, 91%-96%) for patients with a TIL level of 50% or more, compared with 78% (95% CI, 75%-80%) for those with a TIL level of less than 30%; 5-year overall survival was 95% (95% CI, 92%-97%) for patients with a TIL level of 50% or more, compared with 82% (95% CI, 79%-84%) for those with a TIL level of less than 30%. At a median follow-up of 18 years, and after adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, histological grade, and receipt of radiotherapy, each 10% higher TIL increment was associated independently with improved iDFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [0.89-0.94]), RFS (HR, 0.90 [0.87-0.92]), DRFS (HR, 0.87 [0.84-0.90]), and overall survival (0.88 [0.85-0.91]) (likelihood ratio test, P < 10e-6). Conclusions and Relevance In patients with early-stage TNBC who did not undergo adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, breast cancer tissue with a higher abundance of TIL levels was associated with significantly better survival. These results suggest that breast tissue TIL abundance is a prognostic factor for patients with early-stage TNBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sarah Flora Jonas
- Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Gustave Roussy, Oncostat U1018, Inserm, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France
| | - Roberto Salgado
- GZA-ZNA-Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium
- Peter Mac Callum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sherene Loi
- Peter Mac Callum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Vincent de Jong
- Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Jodi M. Carter
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | | | - Samuel Leung
- University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Nazia Riaz
- University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Stephen Chia
- University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Gérôme Jules-Clément
- Bioinformatics Core Facility, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Inserm US23, CNRS UMS 3655, Villejuif, France
| | - Giuseppe Curigliano
- Division of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapy, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Carmen Criscitiello
- Division of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapy, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Matteo Lambertini
- Department of Medical Oncology, U.O. Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Vera J. Suman
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Barbro Linderholm
- Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | | | | | | | | | - Shu Yazaki
- National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Sung-Bae Kim
- Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hee Jin Lee
- Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Maria Vittoria Dieci
- Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
- Oncology 2, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV—IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | | | | | - Fabrice André
- Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Gustave Roussy, Oncostat U1018, Inserm, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France
| | - Marleen Kok
- Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C. Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Stefan Michiels
- Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Gustave Roussy, Oncostat U1018, Inserm, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schouten PC, Schmidt S, Becker K, Thiele H, Nürnberg P, Richters L, Ernst C, Treilleux I, Medioni J, Heitz F, Pisano C, Garcia Y, Petru E, Hietanen S, Colombo N, Vergote I, Nagao S, Linn SC, Pujade-Lauraine E, Ray-Coquard I, Harter P, Hahnen E, Schmutzler RK. Olaparib Addition to Maintenance Bevacizumab Therapy in Ovarian Carcinoma With BRCA-Like Genomic Aberrations. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e245552. [PMID: 38592722 PMCID: PMC11004830 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.5552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [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] [Received: 05/26/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2024] [Indexed: 04/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Testing for homologous recombination deficiency is required for the optimal treatment of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. The search for accurate biomarkers is ongoing. Objective To investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer treated with maintenance olaparib or placebo differed between patients with a tumor BRCA-like genomic profile and patients without a tumor BRCA-like profile. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was a secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial that compared olaparib plus bevacizumab with placebo plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer after a good response to first-line platinum with taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of germline or tumor BRCA1/2 mutation status. All patients with available tumor DNA were included in the analysis. The current analysis tested for an interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on survival outcomes. The original trial was conducted between July 2015 and September 2017; at the time of data extraction for analysis in March 2022, a median follow-up of 54.1 months (IQR, 28.5-62.2 months) and a total follow-up time of 21 711 months was available, with 336 PFS and 245 OS events. Exposures Tumor homologous recombination deficiency was assessed using the BRCA-like copy number aberration profile classifier. Myriad MyChoice CDx was previously measured. The trial was randomized between the olaparib and bevacizumab and placebo plus bevacizumab groups. Main Outcomes and Measures This secondary analysis assessed hazard ratios (HRs) of olaparib vs placebo among biomarker strata and tested for interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on PFS and OS, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results A total of 469 patients (median age, 60 [range 26-80] years) were included in this study. The patient cohort consisted of women with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage III (76%) high-grade serous (95%) ovarian cancer who had no evaluable disease or complete remission at initial or interval debulking surgery (76%). Thirty-one percent of the tumor samples (n = 138) harbored a pathogenic BRCA mutation, and BRCA-like classification was performed for 442 patients. Patients with a BRCA-like tumor had a longer PFS after olaparib treatment than after placebo (36.4 vs 18.6 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.65; P < .001). No association of olaparib with PFS was found in patients with a non-BRCA-like tumor (17.6 vs 16.6 months; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68-1.51; P = .93). The interaction was significant (P = .004), and HRs and P values (for interaction) were similar in the relevant subgroups, OS, and multivariable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance In this secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial, patients with a BRCA-like tumor, but not those with a non-BRCA-like tumor, had a significantly longer survival after olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment than placebo plus bevacizumab treatment. Thus, the BRCA1-like classifier could be used as a biomarker for olaparib plus bevacizumab as a maintenance treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip C. Schouten
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sandra Schmidt
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Kerstin Becker
- Cologne Center for Genomics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Holger Thiele
- Cologne Center for Genomics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Peter Nürnberg
- Cologne Center for Genomics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Cologne Excellence Cluster on Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-Associated Diseases, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne, University Hospital, Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Lisa Richters
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Corinna Ernst
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | | | - Jacques Medioni
- Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris and Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire, France
| | - Florian Heitz
- Department of Gynecology & Gynecologic Oncology, EvangKliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
- AGO Study Group, Wiesbaden, Germany
| | - Carmela Pisano
- Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale, Napoli, Italy
| | - Yolanda Garcia
- Parc Taulí University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain and GEICO, Spain
| | - Edgar Petru
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz and AGO Austria, Austria
| | - Sakari Hietanen
- Turku University Hospital, Turku, and Nordic Society of Gynaecological Oncology, Finland
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- University of Milan-Bicocca and European Institute of Oncology Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare, Milan, and MaNGO, Italy
| | - Ignace Vergote
- University Hospital Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven, Belgium, European Union and BGOG, Belgium
| | - Shoji Nagao
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hyogo Cancer Center, Hyogo, Japan a,d GOTIC, Japan
| | - Sabine C. Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Isabelle Ray-Coquard
- Centre Léon BERARD, and University Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon and GINECO, France
| | - Philipp Harter
- Department of Gynecology & Gynecologic Oncology, EvangKliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
- AGO Study Group, Wiesbaden, Germany
| | - Eric Hahnen
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Rita K. Schmutzler
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
de Boo LW, Jóźwiak K, Ter Hoeve ND, van Diest PJ, Opdam M, Wang Y, Schmidt MK, de Jong V, Kleiterp S, Cornelissen S, Baars D, Koornstra RHT, Kerver ED, van Dalen T, Bins AD, Beeker A, van den Heiligenberg SM, de Jong PC, Bakker SD, Rietbroek RC, Konings IR, Blankenburgh R, Bijlsma RM, Imholz ALT, Stathonikos N, Vreuls W, Sanders J, Rosenberg EH, Koop EA, Varga Z, van Deurzen CHM, Mooyaart AL, Córdoba A, Groen E, Bart J, Willems SM, Zolota V, Wesseling J, Sapino A, Chmielik E, Ryska A, Broeks A, Voogd AC, van der Wall E, Siesling S, Salgado R, Dackus GMHE, Hauptmann M, Kok M, Linn SC. Prognostic value of histopathologic traits independent of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte levels in chemotherapy-naïve patients with triple-negative breast cancer. ESMO Open 2024; 9:102923. [PMID: 38452438 PMCID: PMC10937239 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102923] [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] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2023] [Revised: 01/09/2024] [Accepted: 02/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/09/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the absence of prognostic biomarkers, most patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) are treated with combination chemotherapy. The identification of biomarkers to select patients for whom treatment de-escalation or escalation could be considered remains an unmet need. We evaluated the prognostic value of histopathologic traits in a unique cohort of young, (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy-naïve patients with early-stage (stage I or II), node-negative TNBC and long-term follow-up, in relation to stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) for which the prognostic value was recently reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS We studied all 485 patients with node-negative eTNBC from the population-based PARADIGM cohort which selected women aged <40 years diagnosed between 1989 and 2000. None of the patients had received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy according to standard practice at the time. Associations between histopathologic traits and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were analyzed with Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 20.0 years, an independent prognostic value for BCSS was observed for lymphovascular invasion (LVI) [adjusted (adj.) hazard ratio (HR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-3.69], fibrotic focus (adj. HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.09-2.37) and sTILs (per 10% increment adj. HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.82). In the sTILs <30% subgroup, the presence of LVI resulted in a higher cumulative incidence of breast cancer death (at 20 years, 58%; 95% CI 41% to 72%) compared with when LVI was absent (at 20 years, 32%; 95% CI 26% to 39%). In the ≥75% sTILs subgroup, the presence of LVI might be associated with poor survival (HR 11.45, 95% CI 0.71-182.36, two deaths). We confirm the lack of prognostic value of androgen receptor expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 -low status. CONCLUSIONS sTILs, LVI and fibrotic focus provide independent prognostic information in young women with node-negative eTNBC. Our results are of importance for the selection of patients for de-escalation and escalation trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L W de Boo
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - K Jóźwiak
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - N D Ter Hoeve
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - P J van Diest
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Opdam
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Y Wang
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M K Schmidt
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - V de Jong
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Kleiterp
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Cornelissen
- Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D Baars
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R H T Koornstra
- Department of Medical Oncology, Rijnstate Medical center, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - E D Kerver
- Department of Medical Oncology, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T van Dalen
- Department of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A D Bins
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Beeker
- Department of Medical Oncology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
| | | | - P C de Jong
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - S D Bakker
- Department of Internal Medicine, Zaans Medical Centre, Zaandam, The Netherlands
| | - R C Rietbroek
- Department of Medical Oncology, Rode Kruis Hospital, Beverwijk, The Netherlands
| | - I R Konings
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R Blankenburgh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Saxenburgh Medical Center, Hardenberg, The Netherlands
| | - R M Bijlsma
- Department of Medical Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A L T Imholz
- Department of Internal Medicine, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - N Stathonikos
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - W Vreuls
- Department of Pathology, Canisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J Sanders
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E H Rosenberg
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E A Koop
- Department of Pathology, Gelre Ziekenhuizen, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
| | - Z Varga
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - C H M van Deurzen
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A L Mooyaart
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Córdoba
- Department of Pathology, Complejo Hospitalaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - E Groen
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Bart
- Department of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - S M Willems
- Department of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - V Zolota
- Department of Pathology, Rion University Hospital, Patras, Greece
| | - J Wesseling
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - A Sapino
- Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy; Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Italy
| | - E Chmielik
- Tumor Pathology Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
| | - A Ryska
- Charles University Medical Faculty and University Hospital, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
| | - A Broeks
- Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A C Voogd
- Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - E van der Wall
- Cancer Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - S Siesling
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - R Salgado
- Division of Clinical Medicine and Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Pathology, GZA-ZNA Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - G M H E Dackus
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Hauptmann
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - M Kok
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Tumorbiology & Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S C Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wintraecken VM, Boersma LJ, van Roozendaal LM, de Vries J, van Kuijk SMJ, Vane MLG, van Dalen T, van der Hage JA, Strobbe LJA, Linn SC, Lobbes MBI, Poortmans PMP, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, van de Vijver KKBT, Westenberg AH, de Wilt JHW, Smidt ML, Simons JM. Quality assurance of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery among patients in the BOOG 2013-08 trial. Radiother Oncol 2024; 191:110069. [PMID: 38141879 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.110069] [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] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2023] [Revised: 12/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/17/2023] [Indexed: 12/25/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In the BOOG 2013-08 trial (NCT02271828), cT1-2N0 breast cancer patients were randomized between breast conserving surgery with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) followed by whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT). While awaiting primary endpoint results (axillary recurrence rate), this study aims to perform a quality assurance analysis on protocol adherence and (incidental) axillary radiation therapy (RT) dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients were enrolled between 2015 and 2022. Data on prescribed RT and (in 25% of included patients) planning target volumes (PTV) parameters were recorded for axillary levels I-IV and compared between treatment arms. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine prognostic variables for incidental axillary RT dose. RESULTS 1,439/1,461 included patients (98.5%) were treated according to protocol and 87 patients (5.9%) received regional RT (SLNB 10.9%, no-SLNB 1.5 %). In 326 patients included in the subgroup analysis, the mean incidental PTV dose at axilla level I was 59.5% of the prescribed breast RT dose. In 5 patients (1.5%) the mean PTV dose at level I was ≥95% of the prescribed breast dose. No statistically or clinically significant differences regarding incidental axillary RT dose were found between treatment arms. Tumour bed boost (yes/no) was associated with a higher incidental mean dose in level I (R2 = 0.035, F(6, 263) = 1.532, p 0.168). CONCLUSION The results indicate that RT-protocol adherence was high, and that incidental axillary RT dose was low in the BOOG 2013-08 trial. Potential differences between treatmentarms regarding the primary endpoint can thus not be attributed to different axillary radiation doses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V M Wintraecken
- GROW - School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - L J Boersma
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - L M van Roozendaal
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| | - J de Vries
- Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Board member Adrz, Goes, the Netherlands
| | - S M J van Kuijk
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - M L G Vane
- GROW - School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - T van Dalen
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Diakonessenhuis Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J A van der Hage
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Leids University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - L J A Strobbe
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - S C Linn
- Division of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M B I Lobbes
- GROW - School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| | - P M P Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Network, Antwerp, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium
| | - V C G Tjan-Heijnen
- GROW - School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Division of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - K K B T van de Vijver
- Department of Pathology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Cancer Research Institute Ghent (CRIG), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Department of Gynecology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - A H Westenberg
- Radiation Oncology, Radiotherapiegroep location Arnhem, Arnhem, the Netherlands
| | - J H W de Wilt
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - M L Smidt
- GROW - School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - J M Simons
- GROW - School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Wang Y, Dackus GMHE, Rosenberg EH, Cornelissen S, de Boo LW, Broeks A, Brugman W, Chan TWS, van Diest PJ, Hauptmann M, Ter Hoeve ND, Isaeva OI, de Jong VMT, Jóźwiak K, Kluin RJC, Kok M, Koop E, Nederlof PM, Opdam M, Schouten PC, Siesling S, van Steenis C, Voogd AC, Vreuls W, Salgado RF, Linn SC, Schmidt MK. Long-term outcomes of young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve, triple-negative breast cancer patients according to BRCA1 status. BMC Med 2024; 22:9. [PMID: 38191387 PMCID: PMC10775514 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-03233-7] [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] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 12/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/10/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Due to the abundant usage of chemotherapy in young triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, the unbiased prognostic value of BRCA1-related biomarkers in this population remains unclear. In addition, whether BRCA1-related biomarkers modify the well-established prognostic value of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) is unknown. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients according to BRCA1 status, taking sTILs into account. METHODS We included 485 Dutch women diagnosed with node-negative TNBC under age 40 between 1989 and 2000. During this period, these women were considered low-risk and did not receive chemotherapy. BRCA1 status, including pathogenic germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCA1m), somatic BRCA1 mutation (sBRCA1m), and tumor BRCA1 promoter methylation (BRCA1-PM), was assessed using DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. sTILs were assessed according to the international guideline. Patients' outcomes were compared using Cox regression and competing risk models. RESULTS Among the 399 patients with BRCA1 status, 26.3% had a gBRCA1m, 5.3% had a sBRCA1m, 36.6% had tumor BRCA1-PM, and 31.8% had BRCA1-non-altered tumors. Compared to BRCA1-non-alteration, gBRCA1m was associated with worse overall survival (OS) from the fourth year after diagnosis (adjusted HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.18-3.75), and this association attenuated after adjustment for second primary tumors. Every 10% sTIL increment was associated with 16% higher OS (adjusted HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) in gBRCA1m, sBRCA1m, or BRCA1-non-altered patients and 31% higher OS in tumor BRCA1-PM patients. Among the 66 patients with tumor BRCA1-PM and ≥ 50% sTILs, we observed excellent 15-year OS (97.0%; 95% CI, 92.9-100%). Conversely, among the 61 patients with gBRCA1m and < 50% sTILs, we observed poor 15-year OS (50.8%; 95% CI, 39.7-65.0%). Furthermore, gBRCA1m was associated with higher (adjusted subdistribution HR, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.29-7.13) and tumor BRCA1-PM with lower (adjusted subdistribution HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.95) incidence of second primary tumors, compared to BRCA1-non-alteration. CONCLUSIONS Although both gBRCA1m and tumor BRCA1-PM alter BRCA1 gene transcription, they are associated with different outcomes in young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients. By combining sTILs and BRCA1 status for risk classification, we were able to identify potential subgroups in this population to intensify and optimize adjuvant treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuwei Wang
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gwen M H E Dackus
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Efraim H Rosenberg
- Division of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sten Cornelissen
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Leonora W de Boo
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Annegien Broeks
- Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wim Brugman
- Genomics Core Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Terry W S Chan
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul J van Diest
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Natalie D Ter Hoeve
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Olga I Isaeva
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Vincent M T de Jong
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Katarzyna Jóźwiak
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Roelof J C Kluin
- Genomics Core Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marleen Kok
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Esther Koop
- Department of Pathology, Gelre Ziekenhuizen, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
| | - Petra M Nederlof
- Division of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark Opdam
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Philip C Schouten
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | | | - Adri C Voogd
- Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Willem Vreuls
- Department of Pathology, Canisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Roberto F Salgado
- Department of Pathology, GZA-ZNA Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium
- Division of Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wang Y, Broeks A, Giardiello D, Hauptmann M, Jóźwiak K, Koop EA, Opdam M, Siesling S, Sonke GS, Stathonikos N, Ter Hoeve ND, van der Wall E, van Deurzen CHM, van Diest PJ, Voogd AC, Vreuls W, Linn SC, Dackus GMHE, Schmidt MK. External validation and clinical utility assessment of PREDICT breast cancer prognostic model in young, systemic treatment-naïve women with node-negative breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2023; 195:113401. [PMID: 37925965 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113401] [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] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2023] [Revised: 10/19/2023] [Accepted: 10/19/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The validity of the PREDICT breast cancer prognostic model is unclear for young patients without adjuvant systemic treatment. This study aimed to validate PREDICT and assess its clinical utility in young women with node-negative breast cancer who did not receive systemic treatment. METHODS We selected all women from the Netherlands Cancer Registry who were diagnosed with node-negative breast cancer under age 40 between 1989 and 2000, a period when adjuvant systemic treatment was not standard practice for women with node-negative disease. We evaluated the calibration and discrimination of PREDICT using the observed/expected (O/E) mortality ratio, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), respectively. Additionally, we compared the potential clinical utility of PREDICT for selectively administering chemotherapy to the chemotherapy-to-all strategy using decision curve analysis at predefined thresholds. RESULTS A total of 2264 women with a median age at diagnosis of 36 years were included. Of them, 71.2% had estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors and 44.0% had grade 3 tumors. Median tumor size was 16 mm. PREDICT v2.2 underestimated 10-year all-cause mortality by 33% in all women (O/E ratio:1.33, 95%CI:1.22-1.43). Model discrimination was moderate overall (AUC10-year:0.65, 95%CI:0.62-0.68), and poor for women with ER-negative tumors (AUC10-year:0.56, 95%CI:0.51-0.62). Compared to the chemotherapy-to-all strategy, PREDICT only showed a slightly higher net benefit in women with ER-positive tumors, but not in women with ER-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS PREDICT yields unreliable predictions for young women with node-negative breast cancer. Further model updates are needed before PREDICT can be routinely used in this patient subset.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuwei Wang
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Annegien Broeks
- Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Daniele Giardiello
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Eurac Research, Institute of Biomedicine, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Bolzano, Italy
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Katarzyna Jóźwiak
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Esther A Koop
- Department of Pathology, Gelre Ziekenhuizen, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands
| | - Mark Opdam
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nikolas Stathonikos
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Natalie D Ter Hoeve
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Elsken van der Wall
- Division of Internal Medicine and Dermatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Paul J van Diest
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Adri C Voogd
- Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Willem Vreuls
- Department of Pathology, Canisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Gwen M H E Dackus
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Department of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bhin J, Yemelyanenko J, Chao X, Klarenbeek S, Opdam M, Malka Y, Hoekman L, Kruger D, Bleijerveld O, Brambillasca CS, Sprengers J, Siteur B, Annunziato S, van Haren MJ, Martin NI, van de Ven M, Peters D, Agami R, Linn SC, Boven E, Altelaar M, Jonkers J, Zingg D, Wessels LF. MYC is a clinically significant driver of mTOR inhibitor resistance in breast cancer. J Exp Med 2023; 220:e20211743. [PMID: 37642941 PMCID: PMC10465700 DOI: 10.1084/jem.20211743] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 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: 08/17/2021] [Revised: 05/18/2023] [Accepted: 07/24/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Targeting the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway is a promising therapeutic strategy for breast cancer treatment. However, low response rates and development of resistance to PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors remain major clinical challenges. Here, we show that MYC activation drives resistance to mTOR inhibitors (mTORi) in breast cancer. Multiomic profiling of mouse invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) tumors revealed recurrent Myc amplifications in tumors that acquired resistance to the mTORi AZD8055. MYC activation was associated with biological processes linked to mTORi response and counteracted mTORi-induced translation inhibition by promoting translation of ribosomal proteins. In vitro and in vivo induction of MYC conferred mTORi resistance in mouse and human breast cancer models. Conversely, AZD8055-resistant ILC cells depended on MYC, as demonstrated by the synergistic effects of mTORi and MYCi combination treatment. Notably, MYC status was significantly associated with poor response to everolimus therapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. Thus, MYC is a clinically relevant driver of mTORi resistance that may stratify breast cancer patients for mTOR-targeted therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinhyuk Bhin
- Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical System Informatics, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Julia Yemelyanenko
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Xue Chao
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd Klarenbeek
- Experimental Animal Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mark Opdam
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Yuval Malka
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Division of Oncogenomics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Liesbeth Hoekman
- Proteomics Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Dinja Kruger
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Onno Bleijerveld
- Proteomics Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Chiara S. Brambillasca
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Justin Sprengers
- Mouse Clinic for Cancer and Aging, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Bjørn Siteur
- Mouse Clinic for Cancer and Aging, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Stefano Annunziato
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Matthijs J. van Haren
- Biological Chemistry Group, Institute of Biology Leiden, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Nathaniel I. Martin
- Biological Chemistry Group, Institute of Biology Leiden, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Marieke van de Ven
- Mouse Clinic for Cancer and Aging, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Dennis Peters
- Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Reuven Agami
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Division of Oncogenomics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sabine C. Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Epie Boven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Maarten Altelaar
- Proteomics Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Netherlands Proteomics Centre, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Jos Jonkers
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Daniel Zingg
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Lodewyk F.A. Wessels
- Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Joosten SE, Gregoricchio S, Stelloo S, Yapıcı E, Huang CCF, Collier MD, Morova T, Altintas B, Kim Y, Canisius S, Korkmaz G, Lack N, Vermeulen M, Linn SC, Zwart W. Breast cancer risk SNPs converge on estrogen receptor binding sites commonly shared between breast tumors to locally alter estrogen signalling output. bioRxiv 2023:2023.10.30.564691. [PMID: 37961147 PMCID: PMC10634999 DOI: 10.1101/2023.10.30.564691] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2023]
Abstract
Estrogen Receptor alpha (ERα) is the main driver and prime drug target in luminal breast. ERα chromatin binding is extensively studied in cell lines and a limited number of human tumors, using consensi of peaks shared among samples. However, little is known about inter-tumor heterogeneity of ERα chromatin action, along with its biological implications. Here, we use a large set of ERα ChIP-seq data from 70 ERα+ breast cancers to explore inter-patient heterogeneity in ERα DNA binding, to reveal a striking inter-tumor heterogeneity of ERα action. Interestingly, commonly-shared ERα sites showed the highest estrogen-driven enhancer activity and were most-engaged in long-range chromatin interactions. In addition, the most-commonly shared ERα-occupied enhancers were enriched for breast cancer risk SNP loci. We experimentally confirm SNVs to impact chromatin binding potential for ERα and its pioneer factor FOXA1. Finally, in the TCGA breast cancer cohort, we could confirm these variations to associate with differences in expression for the target gene. Cumulatively, we reveal a natural hierarchy of ERα-chromatin interactions in breast cancers within a highly heterogeneous inter-tumor ERα landscape, with the most-common shared regions being most active and affected by germline functional risk SNPs for breast cancer development.
Collapse
|
10
|
Lammers SWM, Geurts SME, van Hellemond IEG, Swinkels ACP, Smorenburg CH, van der Sangen MJC, Kroep JR, de Graaf H, Honkoop AH, Erdkamp FLG, de Roos WK, Linn SC, Imholz ALT, Smidt ML, Vriens IJH, Tjan-Heijnen VCG. The prognostic and predictive effect of body mass index in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2023; 7:pkad092. [PMID: 37991939 PMCID: PMC10697786 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkad092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 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: 07/05/2023] [Revised: 09/27/2023] [Accepted: 10/30/2023] [Indexed: 11/24/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Obesity has been associated with an adverse prognosis and reduced efficacy of endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). This study determines the prognostic and predictive effect of body mass index (BMI) on the disease-free survival (DFS) of postmenopausal HR+ BC patients. METHODS Patients were identified from the DATA study (NCT00301457), a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 6 vs 3 years of anastrozole after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with HR+ BC. Patients were classified as normal weight (BMI: 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), or obese (≥30.0 kg/m2). The primary endpoint was DFS, evaluated from randomization (prognostic analyses) or 3 years after randomization onwards (predictive analyses; aDFS) using multivariable Cox regression analyses. P-values were 2-sided. RESULTS This study included 678 normal weight, 712 overweight, and 391 obese patients. After a median follow-up of 13.1 years, overweight and obesity were identified as negative prognostic factors for DFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.97 to 1.38 and HR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.54, respectively). The adverse prognostic effect of BMI was observed in women aged younger than 60 years, but not in women aged 60 years or older (P-interaction = .009). The effect of extended anastrozole on aDFS was similar in normal weight (HR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.35), overweight (HR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.98), and obese patients (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.36) (P-interaction = .24). CONCLUSION In this study among 1781 HR+ BC patients, overweight and obesity were adverse prognostic factors for DFS. BMI did not impact the efficacy of extended anastrozole.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Senna W M Lammers
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Sandra M E Geurts
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Astrid C P Swinkels
- Clinical research department, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Carolien H Smorenburg
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Judith R Kroep
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Hiltje de Graaf
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands
| | - Aafke H Honkoop
- Department of Medical Oncology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, the Netherlands
| | - Frans L G Erdkamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen-Sittard-Geleen, location Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| | - Wilfred K de Roos
- Department of Surgery, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Marjolein L Smidt
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Ingeborg J H Vriens
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Vliek S, Hilbers FS, van Werkhoven E, Mandjes I, Kessels R, Kleiterp S, Lips EH, Mulder L, Kayembe MT, Loo CE, Russell NS, Vrancken Peeters MJTFD, Holtkamp MJ, Schot M, Baars JW, Honkoop AH, Vulink AJE, Imholz ALT, Vrijaldenhoven S, van den Berkmortel FWPJ, Meerum Terwogt JM, Schrama JG, Kuijer P, Kroep JR, van der Padt-Pruijsten A, Wesseling J, Sonke GS, Gilhuijs KGA, Jager A, Nederlof P, Linn SC. High-dose alkylating chemotherapy in BRCA-altered triple-negative breast cancer: the randomized phase III NeoTN trial. NPJ Breast Cancer 2023; 9:75. [PMID: 37689749 PMCID: PMC10492793 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-023-00580-9] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/30/2023] [Indexed: 09/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Exploratory analyses of high-dose alkylating chemotherapy trials have suggested that BRCA1 or BRCA2-pathway altered (BRCA-altered) breast cancer might be particularly sensitive to this type of treatment. In this study, patients with BRCA-altered tumors who had received three initial courses of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC), were randomized between a fourth ddAC course followed by high-dose carboplatin-thiotepa-cyclophosphamide or conventional chemotherapy (initially ddAC only or ddAC-capecitabine/decetaxel [CD] depending on MRI response, after amendment ddAC-carboplatin/paclitaxel [CP] for everyone). The primary endpoint was the neoadjuvant response index (NRI). Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). In total, 122 patients were randomized. No difference in NRI-score distribution (p = 0.41) was found. A statistically non-significant RFS difference was found (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.23-1.25; p = 0.15). Exploratory RFS analyses showed benefit in stage III (n = 35; HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.03-0.75), but not stage II (n = 86; HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.30-3.30) patients. For stage III, 4-year RFS was 46% (95% CI 24-87%), 71% (95% CI 48-100%) and 88% (95% CI 74-100%), for ddAC/ddAC-CD, ddAC-CP and high-dose chemotherapy, respectively. No significant differences were found between high-dose and conventional chemotherapy in stage II-III, triple-negative, BRCA-altered breast cancer patients. Further research is needed to establish if there are patients with stage III, triple negative BRCA-altered breast cancer for whom outcomes can be improved with high-dose alkylating chemotherapy or whether the current standard neoadjuvant therapy including carboplatin and an immune checkpoint inhibitor is sufficient. Trial Registration: NCT01057069.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sonja Vliek
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Florentine S Hilbers
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Erik van Werkhoven
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- HOVON Data Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ingrid Mandjes
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rob Kessels
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sieta Kleiterp
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Esther H Lips
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lennart Mulder
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mutamba T Kayembe
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Claudette E Loo
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nicola S Russell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjo J Holtkamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Margaret Schot
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joke W Baars
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aafke H Honkoop
- Department of Internal Medicine, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, The Netherlands
| | - Annelie J E Vulink
- Division of Medical Oncology, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Alex L T Imholz
- Department of Internal Medicine, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Jolanda G Schrama
- Department of Internal Medicine, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
| | - Philomeen Kuijer
- Department of Internal Medicine, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
| | - Judith R Kroep
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jelle Wesseling
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kenneth G A Gilhuijs
- Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Petra Nederlof
- Department of Molecular diagnostics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Sollfrank L, Linn SC, Hauptmann M, Jóźwiak K. Correction: A scoping review of statistical methods in studies of biomarker-related treatment heterogeneity for breast cancer. BMC Med Res Methodol 2023; 23:202. [PMID: 37684558 PMCID: PMC10486084 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-02030-3] [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: 09/10/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- L Sollfrank
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Straße 39, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - S C Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Hauptmann
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Straße 39, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - K Jóźwiak
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Straße 39, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Sollfrank L, Linn SC, Hauptmann M, Jóźwiak K. A scoping review of statistical methods in studies of biomarker-related treatment heterogeneity for breast cancer. BMC Med Res Methodol 2023; 23:154. [PMID: 37386356 PMCID: PMC10308726 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-01982-w] [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] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2022] [Accepted: 06/19/2023] [Indexed: 07/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many scientific papers are published each year and substantial resources are spent to develop biomarker-based tests for precision oncology. However, only a handful of tests is currently used in daily clinical practice, since development is challenging. In this situation, the application of adequate statistical methods is essential, but little is known about the scope of methods used. METHODS A PubMed search identified clinical studies among women with breast cancer comparing at least two different treatment groups, one of which chemotherapy or endocrine treatment, by levels of at least one biomarker. Studies presenting original data published in 2019 in one of 15 selected journals were eligible for this review. Clinical and statistical characteristics were extracted by three reviewers and a selection of characteristics for each study was reported. RESULTS Of 164 studies identified by the query, 31 were eligible. Over 70 different biomarkers were evaluated. Twenty-two studies (71%) evaluated multiplicative interaction between treatment and biomarker. Twenty-eight studies (90%) evaluated either the treatment effect in biomarker subgroups or the biomarker effect in treatment subgroups. Eight studies (26%) reported results for one predictive biomarker analysis, while the majority performed multiple evaluations, either for several biomarkers, outcomes and/or subpopulations. Twenty-one studies (68%) claimed to have found significant differences in treatment effects by biomarker level. Fourteen studies (45%) mentioned that the study was not designed to evaluate treatment effect heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS Most studies evaluated treatment heterogeneity via separate analyses of biomarker-specific treatment effects and/or multiplicative interaction analysis. There is a need for the application of more efficient statistical methods to evaluate treatment heterogeneity in clinical studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Sollfrank
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Straße 39, Neuruppin, 16816, Germany
| | - S C Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Hauptmann
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Straße 39, Neuruppin, 16816, Germany
| | - K Jóźwiak
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Straße 39, Neuruppin, 16816, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Vennin C, Cattaneo CM, Bosch L, Vegna S, Ma X, Damstra HGJ, Martinovic M, Tsouri E, Ilic M, Azarang L, van Weering JRT, Pulver E, Zeeman AL, Schelfhorst T, Lohuis JO, Rios AC, Dekkers JF, Akkari L, Menezes R, Medema R, Baglio SR, Akhmanova A, Linn SC, Lemeer S, Pegtel DM, Voest EE, van Rheenen J. Taxanes trigger cancer cell killing in vivo by inducing non-canonical T cell cytotoxicity. Cancer Cell 2023; 41:1170-1185.e12. [PMID: 37311414 DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2022] [Revised: 02/28/2023] [Accepted: 05/11/2023] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Although treatment with taxanes does not always lead to clinical benefit, all patients are at risk of their detrimental side effects such as peripheral neuropathy. Understanding the in vivo mode of action of taxanes can help design improved treatment regimens. Here, we demonstrate that in vivo, taxanes directly trigger T cells to selectively kill cancer cells in a non-canonical, T cell receptor-independent manner. Mechanistically, taxanes induce T cells to release cytotoxic extracellular vesicles, which lead to apoptosis specifically in tumor cells while leaving healthy epithelial cells intact. We exploit these findings to develop an effective therapeutic approach, based on transfer of T cells pre-treated with taxanes ex vivo, thereby avoiding toxicity of systemic treatment. Our study reveals a different in vivo mode of action of one of the most commonly used chemotherapies, and opens avenues to harness T cell-dependent anti-tumor effects of taxanes while avoiding systemic toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Vennin
- Division of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Chiara M Cattaneo
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Leontien Bosch
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Serena Vegna
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, Oncode Institute, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Xuhui Ma
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hugo G J Damstra
- Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Biophysics, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, 3584CT Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Moreno Martinovic
- Division of Gene Regulation, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Efi Tsouri
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, Oncode Institute, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mila Ilic
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Division of Cell Biology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Leyla Azarang
- Biostatistics Centre & Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jan R T van Weering
- Department of Human Genetics, Center for Neurogenomics and Cognitive Research, Amsterdam UMC, 1105AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Emilia Pulver
- Division of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Amber L Zeeman
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Hubrecht Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) and University Medical Centre (UMC), 3584CT Utrecht, the Netherlands; Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, 3584CT Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Tim Schelfhorst
- Division of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jeroen O Lohuis
- Division of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Anne C Rios
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, 3584CT Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Johanna F Dekkers
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, 3584CT Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Leila Akkari
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, Oncode Institute, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Renee Menezes
- Biostatistics Centre & Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Rene Medema
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Division of Cell Biology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Serena R Baglio
- Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Anna Akhmanova
- Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Biophysics, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, 3584CT Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Divisions of Molecular Pathology and of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology, University Medical Center, 1081HV Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Simone Lemeer
- Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584CT Utrecht, the Netherlands; Netherlands Proteomics Center, 3584CT Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Dirk M Pegtel
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Emile E Voest
- Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jacco van Rheenen
- Division of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Voorwerk L, Sanders J, Keusters MS, Balduzzi S, Cornelissen S, Duijst M, Lips EH, Sonke GS, Linn SC, Horlings HM, Kok M. Immune landscape of breast tumors with low and intermediate estrogen receptor expression. NPJ Breast Cancer 2023; 9:39. [PMID: 37179445 PMCID: PMC10182974 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-023-00543-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Accepted: 04/28/2023] [Indexed: 05/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is currently approved for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), whereas responses to ICB are also observed in a small subgroup of Estrogen Receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. The cut-off for ER-positivity (≥1%) is based on likelihood of endocrine treatment response, but ER-positive breast cancer represents a very heterogeneous group. This raises the question whether selection based on ER-negativity should be revisited to select patients for ICB treatment in the context of clinical trials. Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) and other immune parameters are higher in TNBC compared to ER-positive breast cancer, but it is unknown whether lower ER levels are associated with more inflamed tumor microenvironments (TME). We collected a consecutive series of primary tumors from 173 HER2-negative breast cancer patients, enriched for tumors with ER expression between 1 and 99% and found levels of stromal TILs, CD8 + T cells, and PD-L1 positivity in breast tumors with ER 1-9% and ER 10-50% to be comparable to tumors with ER 0%. Expression of immune-related gene signatures in tumors with ER 1-9% and ER 10-50% was comparable to ER 0%, and higher than in tumors with ER 51-99% and ER 100%. Our results suggest that the immune landscape of ER low tumors (1-9%) and ER intermediate tumors (10-50%) mimic that of primary TNBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonie Voorwerk
- Division of Tumor Biology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Joyce Sanders
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Milou S Keusters
- Division of Tumor Biology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sara Balduzzi
- Department of Biometrics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sten Cornelissen
- Core Facility Molecular Pathology & Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maxime Duijst
- Division of Tumor Biology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Esther H Lips
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hugo M Horlings
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marleen Kok
- Division of Tumor Biology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Voorwerk L, Isaeva OI, Horlings HM, Balduzzi S, Chelushkin M, Bakker NAM, Champanhet E, Garner H, Sikorska K, Loo CE, Kemper I, Mandjes IAM, de Maaker M, van Geel JJL, Boers J, de Boer M, Salgado R, van Dongen MGJ, Sonke GS, de Visser KE, Schumacher TN, Blank CU, Wessels LFA, Jager A, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, Schröder CP, Linn SC, Kok M. PD-L1 blockade in combination with carboplatin as immune induction in metastatic lobular breast cancer: the GELATO trial. Nat Cancer 2023; 4:535-549. [PMID: 37038006 PMCID: PMC10132987 DOI: 10.1038/s43018-023-00542-x] [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] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2022] [Accepted: 03/08/2023] [Indexed: 04/12/2023]
Abstract
Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the second most common histological breast cancer subtype, but ILC-specific trials are lacking. Translational research revealed an immune-related ILC subset, and in mouse ILC models, synergy between immune checkpoint blockade and platinum was observed. In the phase II GELATO trial ( NCT03147040 ), patients with metastatic ILC were treated with weekly carboplatin (area under the curve 1.5 mg ml-1 min-1) as immune induction for 12 weeks and atezolizumab (PD-L1 blockade; triweekly) from the third week until progression. Four of 23 evaluable patients had a partial response (17%), and 2 had stable disease, resulting in a clinical benefit rate of 26%. From these six patients, four had triple-negative ILC (TN-ILC). We observed higher CD8+ T cell infiltration, immune checkpoint expression and exhausted T cells after treatment. With this GELATO trial, we show that ILC-specific clinical trials are feasible and demonstrate promising antitumor activity of atezolizumab with carboplatin, particularly for TN-ILC, and provide insights for the design of highly needed ILC-specific trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonie Voorwerk
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Olga I Isaeva
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hugo M Horlings
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sara Balduzzi
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maksim Chelushkin
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Noor A M Bakker
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Elisa Champanhet
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hannah Garner
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Karolina Sikorska
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Claudette E Loo
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Inge Kemper
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ingrid A M Mandjes
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Michiel de Maaker
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jasper J L van Geel
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Jorianne Boers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Maaike de Boer
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Roberto Salgado
- Department of Pathology, GZA-ZNA hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium
- Division of Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Marloes G J van Dongen
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Karin E de Visser
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Department of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Ton N Schumacher
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Hematology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Christian U Blank
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lodewyk F A Wessels
- Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Carolien P Schröder
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Marleen Kok
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
de Jong VMT, Pruntel R, Steenbruggen TG, Bleeker FE, Nederlof P, Hogervorst FBL, Linn SC. Identifying the BRCA1 c.-107A > T variant in Dutch patients with a tumor BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation. Fam Cancer 2023; 22:151-154. [PMID: 36112334 PMCID: PMC10020283 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-022-00314-z] [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] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2022] [Accepted: 06/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
An inherited single nucleotide variant (SNV) in the 5'UTR of the BRCA1 gene c.-107A > T was identified to be related to BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation and a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer phenotype in two UK families. We investigated whether this BRCA1 variant was also present in a Dutch cohort of breast and ovarian cancer patients with tumor BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation. We selected all breast and ovarian cancer cases that tested positive for tumor BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation at the Netherlands Cancer Institute and Sanger sequenced the specific mutation in the tumor DNA. In total, we identified 193 tumors with BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation in 178 unique patients. The wild-type allele was identified in 100% (193/193) of sequenced tumor samples. In a large cohort of 178 patients, none had tumors harboring the previously identified c.-107A > T SNV in BRCA1. We therefore can conclude that the germline SNV is not pervasive in patients with tumor BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincent M T de Jong
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Roelof Pruntel
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Tessa G Steenbruggen
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Fonnet E Bleeker
- Department of Clinical Genetics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Petra Nederlof
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Frans B L Hogervorst
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Tjan-Heijnen VC, Lammers SW, Geurts SM, Vriens IJ, Swinkels AC, Smorenburg CH, van der Sangen MJ, Kroep JR, de Graaf H, Honkoop AH, Erdkamp FL, de Roos WK, Linn SC, Imholz AL. Extended adjuvant aromatase inhibition after sequential endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: follow-up analysis of the randomised phase 3 DATA trial. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 58:101901. [PMID: 36992863 PMCID: PMC10041456 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2022] [Revised: 02/17/2023] [Accepted: 02/21/2023] [Indexed: 03/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The DATA study evaluated the use of two different durations of anastrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who were disease-free after 2–3 years of tamoxifen. We hereby present the follow-up analysis, which was performed after all patients reached a minimum follow-up of 10 years beyond treatment divergence. Methods The open-label, randomised, phase 3 DATA study was performed in 79 hospitals in the Netherlands (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00301457). Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who were disease-free after 2–3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment were assigned to either 3 or 6 years of anastrozole (1 mg orally once a day). Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by hormone receptor status, nodal status, HER2 status, and prior tamoxifen duration. The primary outcome was adapted disease-free survival, defined as disease-free survival from 3 years after randomisation onwards. Adapted overall survival was assessed as a secondary outcome. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat design. Findings Between June 28, 2006, and August 10, 2009, 1912 patients were randomly assigned to 3 years (n = 955) or 6 years (n = 957) of anastrozole. Of these, 1660 patients were eligible and disease-free at 3 years after randomisation. The 10-year adapted disease-free survival was 69.2% (95% CI 55.8–72.3) in the 6-year group (n = 827) and 66.0% (95% CI 62.5–69.2) in the 3-year group (n = 833) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86; 95% CI 0.72–1.01; p = 0.073). The 10-year adapted overall survival was 80.9% (95% CI 77.9–83.5) in the 6-year group and 79.2% (95% CI 76.2–81.9) in the 3-year group (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.75–1.16; p = 0.53). Interpretation Extended aromatase inhibition beyond 5 years of sequential endocrine therapy did not improve the adapted disease-free survival and adapted overall survival of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Funding AstraZeneca.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivianne C.G. Tjan-Heijnen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- Corresponding author. Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - Senna W.M. Lammers
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Sandra M.E. Geurts
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Ingeborg J.H. Vriens
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Astrid C.P. Swinkels
- Clinical Research Department, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Carolien H. Smorenburg
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Judith R. Kroep
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Hiltje de Graaf
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands
| | - Aafke H. Honkoop
- Department of Medical Oncology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, the Netherlands
| | - Frans L.G. Erdkamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen-Sittard-Geleen, Location Sittard-Geleen, Geleen, the Netherlands
| | | | - Sabine C. Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Blondeaux E, Arecco L, Punie K, Graffeo R, Toss A, De Angelis C, Trevisan L, Buzzatti G, Linn SC, Dubsky P, Cruellas M, Partridge AH, Balmaña J, Paluch-Shimon S, Lambertini M. Germline TP53 pathogenic variants and breast cancer: A narrative review. Cancer Treat Rev 2023; 114:102522. [PMID: 36739824 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2022] [Revised: 01/24/2023] [Accepted: 01/26/2023] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
Approximately 10% of breast cancers are associated with the inheritance of a pathogenic variant (PV) in one of the breast cancer susceptibility genes. Multiple breast cancer predisposing genes, including TP53, are responsible for the increased breast cancer risk. Tumor protein-53 (TP53) germline PVs are associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a rare autosomal dominant inherited cancer predisposition syndrome associated with early-onset pediatric and multiple primary cancers such as soft tissue and bone sarcomas, breast cancer, brain tumors, adrenocortical carcinomas and leukemias. Women harboring a TP53 PV carry a lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of 80-90%. The aim of the present narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the criteria for offering TP53 testing, prevalence of TP53 carriers among patients with breast cancer, and what is known about its prognostic and therapeutic implications. A summary of the current indications of secondary cancer surveillance and survivorship issues are also provided. Finally, the spectrum of TP53 alteration and testing is discussed. The optimal strategies for the treatment of breast cancer in patients harboring TP53 PVs poses certain challenges. Current guidelines favor the option of performing mastectomy rather than lumpectomy to avoid adjuvant radiotherapy and subsequent risk of radiation-induced second primary malignancies, with careful consideration of radiation when indicated post-mastectomy. Some studies suggest that patients with breast cancer and germline TP53 PV might have worse survival outcomes compared to patients with breast cancer and wild type germline TP53 status. Annual breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and whole-body MRI are recommended as secondary prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eva Blondeaux
- Clinical Epidemiology Unit, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
| | - Luca Arecco
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, U.O. Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - Kevin Punie
- Department of General Medical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Rossella Graffeo
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Angela Toss
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy
| | - Carmine De Angelis
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Lucia Trevisan
- Hereditary Cancer Unit, Oncologia Medica 2, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - Giulia Buzzatti
- Hereditary Cancer Unit, Oncologia Medica 2, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Dubsky
- Breast Centre, Hirslanden Klinik St Anna, Luzern, Switzerland
| | - Mara Cruellas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ann H Partridge
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Judith Balmaña
- Department of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Shani Paluch-Shimon
- Breast Cancer Unit, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, 91120 Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Matteo Lambertini
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, U.O. Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Verbeek JGE, de Jong VMT, Wijnja HM, Jager A, Linn SC, Retèl VP, van Harten WH. High-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue to treat stage III homologous deficient breast cancer: factors influencing clinical implementation. BMC Cancer 2023; 23:26. [PMID: 36611165 PMCID: PMC9824989 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10412-x] [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] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/05/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue (HDCT) is a promising treatment for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, homologous recombination deficient (HRD) breast cancer. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are currently under investigation in an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. To increase the chance of successful introduction of HDCT into daily clinical practice, we aimed to identify relevant factors for smooth implementation using an early comprehensive assessment framework. METHODS This is a qualitative, multi-stakeholder, exploratory research using semi-structured interviews guided by the Constructive Technology Assessment model, which evaluates the quality of a novel health technology by clinical, economic, patient-related, and organizational factors. Stakeholders were recruited by purposeful stratified sampling and interviewed until sufficient content saturation was reached. Two researchers independently created themes, categories, and subcategories by following inductive coding steps, these were verified by a third researcher. RESULTS We interviewed 28 stakeholders between June 2019 and April 2021. In total, five overarching themes and seventeen categories were identified. Important findings for optimal implementation included the structural identification and referral of all eligible patients, early integration of supportive care, multidisciplinary collaboration between- and within hospitals, (de)centralization of treatment aspects, the provision of information for patients and healthcare professionals, and compliance to new regulation for the BRCA1-like test. CONCLUSIONS In anticipation of a positive reimbursement decision, we recommend to take the highlighted implementation factors into consideration. This might expedite and guide high-quality equitable access to HDCT for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, HRD breast cancer in the Netherlands.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joost G. E. Verbeek
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.6214.10000 0004 0399 8953Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Vincent M. T. de Jong
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Molecular Pathology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanna M. Wijnja
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- grid.508717.c0000 0004 0637 3764Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine C. Linn
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Molecular Pathology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Medical Oncology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.7692.a0000000090126352Department of Pathology, Utrecht University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Valesca P. Retèl
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.6214.10000 0004 0399 8953Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Wim H. van Harten
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.6214.10000 0004 0399 8953Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Vliek SB, Hilbers FS, Jager A, Retèl VP, Bueno de Mesquita JM, Drukker CA, Veltkamp SC, Zeillemaker AM, Rutgers EJ, van Tinteren H, van Harten WH, van 't Veer LJ, van de Vijver MJ, Linn SC. Ten-year follow-up of the observational RASTER study, prospective evaluation of the 70-gene signature in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2022; 175:169-179. [PMID: 36126477 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2022] [Revised: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 07/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Prognostic gene expression signatures can be used in combination with classical clinicopathological factors to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. However, long-term outcome data after introduction of genomic testing in the treatment decision-making process are limited. METHODS In the prospective RASTER study, the tumours of 427 patients with cTanyN0M0 breast cancer were tested to assess the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint). The results were provided to their treating physician to be incorporated in the decision-making on adjuvant systemic therapy. Here, we report the long-term outcome of the 310 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative tumours by clinical and genomic risk categories at a median follow-up of 10.3 years. RESULTS Among the clinically high-risk patients, 45 (49%) were classified as genomically low risk. In this subgroup, at 10 years, distant recurrence free interval (DRFI) was similar between patients treated with (95.7% [95% CI 87.7-100]) and without (95.5% [95% CI 87.1-100]) chemotherapy. Within the group of clinically low-risk patients, 56 (26%) were classified as genomically high risk. Within the clinically low-risk group, beyond 5 years, a difference emerged between the genomically high- and low-risk subgroup resulting in a 10-year DRFI of 84.3% (95% CI 74.8-95.0) and 93.4% (95% CI 89.5-97.5), respectively. Interestingly, genomic ultralow-risk patients have a 10-year DRFI of 96.7% (95% CI 90.5-100), largely (79%) without systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS These data confirm that clinically high-risk, genomically low-risk tumours have an excellent outcome in the real-world setting of shared decision-making. Together with the updated results of the MINDACT trial, these data support the use of the MammaPrint, in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, clinically high-risk breast cancer patients. REGISTRY ISRCTN71917916.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sonja B Vliek
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Florentine S Hilbers
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Valesca P Retèl
- Departmentment of Psycosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Jolien M Bueno de Mesquita
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Addiction Medicin & Psychiatry, Brijder/Parnassia Group, The Hague, the Netherlands
| | - Caroline A Drukker
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sanne C Veltkamp
- Department of Surgery, Amstelland Ziekenhuis, Amstelveen, the Netherlands
| | - Anneke M Zeillemaker
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Alrijne Ziekenhuis, Leiderdorp, the Netherlands
| | - Emiel J Rutgers
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Harm van Tinteren
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Trial and Data Center, Princes Maxima Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Wim H van Harten
- Departmentment of Psycosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Laura J van 't Veer
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
| | - Marc J van de Vijver
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
de Wild SR, de Munck L, Simons JM, Verloop J, van Dalen T, Elkhuizen PHM, Houben RMA, van Leeuwen AE, Linn SC, Pijnappel RM, Poortmans PMP, Strobbe LJA, Wesseling J, Voogd AC, Boersma LJ. De-escalation of radiotherapy after primary chemotherapy in cT1-2N1 breast cancer (RAPCHEM; BOOG 2010-03): 5-year follow-up results of a Dutch, prospective, registry study. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:1201-1210. [PMID: 35952707 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00482-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2022] [Revised: 07/08/2022] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary chemotherapy in breast cancer poses a dilemma with regard to adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy, as guidelines for locoregional radiotherapy were originally based on pathology results of primary surgery. We aimed to evaluate the oncological safety of de-escalated locoregional radiotherapy in patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy, according to a predefined, consensus-based study guideline. METHODS In this prospective registry study (RAPCHEM, BOOG 2010-03), patients referred to one of 17 participating radiation oncology centres in the Netherlands between Jan 1, 2011, and Jan 1, 2015, with cT1-2N1 breast cancer (one to three suspicious nodes on imaging before primary chemotherapy, of which at least one had been pathologically confirmed), and who were treated with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla were included in the study. The study guideline comprised three risk groups for locoregional recurrence, with corresponding locoregional radiotherapy recommendations: no chest wall radiotherapy and no regional radiotherapy in the low-risk group, only local radiotherapy in the intermediate-risk group, and locoregional radiotherapy in the high-risk group. Radiotherapy consisted of a biologically equivalent dose of 25 fractions of 2 Gy, with or without a boost. During the study period, the generally applied radiotherapy technique in the Netherlands was forward-planned or inverse-planned intensity modulated radiotherapy. 5-year follow-up was assessed, taking into account adherence to the study guideline, with locoregional recurrence rate as primary endpoint. We hypothesised that 5-year locoregional recurrence rate would be less than 4% (upper-limit 95% CI 7·8%). This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01279304, and is completed. FINDINGS 838 patients were eligible for 5-year follow-up analyses: 291 in the low-risk group, 370 in the intermediate-risk group, and 177 in the high-risk group. The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2·2% (95% CI 1·4-3·4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2·1% (0·9-4·3) in the low-risk group, 2·2% (1·0-4·1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2·3% (0·8-5·5) in the high-risk group. If the study guideline was followed, the locoregional recurrence rate was 2·3% (0·8-5·3) for the low-risk group, 1·0% (0·2-3·4) for the intermediate-risk group, and 1·4% (0·3-4·5) for the high-risk group. INTERPRETATION In this study, the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was less than 4%, which supports our hypothesis that it is oncologically safe to de-escalate locoregional radiotherapy based on locoregional recurrence risk, in selected patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy, according to this predefined, consensus-based study guideline. FUNDING Dutch Cancer Society. TRANSLATION For the Dutch translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabine R de Wild
- Department of Surgery, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands.
| | - Linda de Munck
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Janine M Simons
- Department of Surgery, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands; Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Janneke Verloop
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Thijs van Dalen
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Paula H M Elkhuizen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Ruud M A Houben
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | | | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Ruud M Pijnappel
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Netherlands
| | - Philip M P Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Netwerk, Antwerp, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Luc J A Strobbe
- Department of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Adri C Voogd
- Department of Epidemiology, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands; Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, Netherlands; CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Liesbeth J Boersma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Koole SN, Schouten PC, van Driel WJ, Sonke GS, Linn SC. Reply to: Comments on "Effect of HIPEC according to HRD/BRCAwt genomic profile in stage III ovarian cancer - results from the phase III OVHIPEC trial". Int J Cancer 2022; 151:2057-2058. [PMID: 35857410 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34219] [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] [Received: 06/26/2022] [Accepted: 06/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Simone N Koole
- Department of Gynecology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Center of Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Philip C Schouten
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Willemien J van Driel
- Department of Gynecology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Center of Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Balkenende EME, Dahhan T, Beerendonk CCM, Fleischer K, Stoop D, Bos AME, Lambalk CB, Schats R, Smeenk JMJ, Louwé LA, Cantineau AEP, Bruin JPD, Linn SC, van der Veen F, van Wely M, Goddijn M. Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial on various ovarian stimulation protocols. Hum Reprod 2022; 37:1786-1794. [PMID: 35776109 PMCID: PMC9340107 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac145] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [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: 11/29/2021] [Revised: 04/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Does ovarian stimulation with the addition of tamoxifen or letrozole affect the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved compared to standard ovarian stimulation in women with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation? SUMMARY ANSWER Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols with tamoxifen or letrozole did not affect the number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration in women with breast cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced for women with breast cancer who opt for fertility preservation by means of banking of oocytes or embryos. How these ovarian stimulation protocols compare to standard ovarian stimulation in terms of COC yield is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This multicentre, open-label randomized controlled superiority trial was carried out in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands and 1 hospital in Belgium between January 2014 and December 2018. We randomly assigned women with breast cancer, aged 18–43 years, who opted for banking of oocytes or embryos to one of three study arms; ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, ovarian stimulation plus letrozole or standard ovarian stimulation. Standard ovarian stimulation included GnRH antagonist, recombinant FSH and GnRH agonist trigger. Randomization was performed with a web-based system in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified for oral contraception usage at start of ovarian stimulation, positive estrogen receptor (ER) status and positive lymph nodes. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to the assigned treatment. The primary outcome was number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS During the study period, 162 women were randomly assigned to one of three interventions. Fifty-four underwent ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 53 ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 55 standard ovarian stimulation. Analysis was according to intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE No differences among groups were observed in the mean (±SD) number of COCs retrieved: 12.5 (10.4) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 14.2 (9.4) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 13.6 (11.6) after standard ovarian stimulation (mean difference −1.13, 95% CI −5.70 to 3.43 for tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.58, 95% CI −4.03 to 5.20 for letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation). After adjusting for oral contraception usage at the start of ovarian stimulation, positive ER status and positive lymph nodes, the mean difference was −1.11 (95% CI −5.58 to 3.35) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.30 (95% CI −4.19 to 4.78) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation. There were also no differences in the number of oocytes or embryos banked. There was one serious adverse event after standard ovarian stimulation: one woman was admitted to the hospital because of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The available literature on which we based our hypothesis, power analysis and sample size calculation was scarce and studies were of low quality. Our study did not have sufficient power to perform subgroup analysis on follicular, luteal or random start of ovarian stimulation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our study showed that adding tamoxifen or letrozole to a standard ovarian stimulation protocol in women with breast cancer does not impact the effectiveness of fertility preservation and paves the way for high-quality long-term follow-up on breast cancer treatment outcomes and women’s future pregnancy outcomes. Our study also highlights the need for high-quality studies for all women opting for fertility preservation, as alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced to clinical practice without proper evidence. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was supported by a grant (2011.WO23.C129) of ‘Stichting Pink Ribbon’, a breast cancer fundraising charity organization in the Netherlands. M.G., C.B.L. and R.S. declared that the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location VUMC) has received unconditional research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. C.B.L. declared a speakers fee for Inmed and Yingming. S.C.L. reports grants and non-financial support from Agendia, grants, non-financial support and other from AstraZeneca, grants from Eurocept-pharmaceuticals, grants and non-financial support from Genentech/Roche and Novartis, grants from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from Tesaro and Immunomedics, other from Cergentis, IBM, Bayer, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work; In addition, S.C.L. has a patent UN23A01/P-EP pending that is unrelated to the present work. J.M.J.S. reported payments and travel grants from Merck and Ferring. C.C.M.B. reports her role as unpaid president of the National guideline committee on Fertility Preservation in women with cancer. K.F. received unrestricted grants from Merck Serono, Good Life and Ferring not related to present work. K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. declared former employment from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD). K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. reports grants from MSD, Gedeon Richter and Ferring paid to his institution; consulting fee payments from MSD and Merck Serono paid to his institution; speaker honoraria from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono paid to his institution. D.S. has also received travel and meeting support from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono. No payments are related to present work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NTR4108. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 6 August 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 30 January 2014.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eva M E Balkenende
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Taghride Dahhan
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Catharina C M Beerendonk
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Kathrin Fleischer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Dominic Stoop
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, UZ Brussel, Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.,Department for Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Annelies M E Bos
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Cornelis B Lambalk
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roel Schats
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jesper M J Smeenk
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Leonie A Louwé
- Department of Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Astrid E P Cantineau
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Peter de Bruin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Fulco van der Veen
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Madelon van Wely
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mariëtte Goddijn
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Meijer TG, Nguyen L, van Hoeck A, Ladan MM, Verkaik NS, Ruigrok-Ritstier K, van Deurzen CH, van de Werken HJ, Lips EH, Linn SC, Memari Y, Davies H, Nik-Zainal S, Kanaar R, Martens JW, Cuppen E, Jager A, van Gent DC. Abstract 805: RECAP (REpair CAPacity) identifies a subset of breast cancers unable to form RAD51 foci which are undetected by DNA-based BRCAness tests. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-805] [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: Germline BRCA1/2 mutation status is currently used as predictive biomarker for response to Poly-(ADP-Ribose)-Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in breast cancer (BC) patients. However, non-germline BRCA1/2 mutated tumors and homologous recombination repair deficient (HRD) tumors with unknown etiology are probably also PARP inhibitor-sensitive. Various HRD biomarkers have been proposed and their clinical validity and utility are under investigation. We recently described the functional REpair CAPacity (RECAP) test as a real-time method to select HRD tumors based on their inability to form RAD51 foci. Here, we investigated whether this functional test defines a similar group of HRD tumors as DNA-based tests for primary and metastatic BCs.
Materials and Methods: A cohort (n=71; 52 primary and 19 metastatic BCs) enriched for HRD tumors was selected based on the RECAP test, consisting of 26 RECAP-HRD (37%), 9 RECAP-HR intermediate (HRi; 13%) and 36 RECAP-HR proficient (HRP; 51%) tumors. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was carried out on matched germline and tumor DNA samples for 38 primary BCs and the 19 metastatic lesions, for which material was available. Three samples were excluded due to a low purity score (<0.2), thus WGS data was present for 54 tumors. The tumors were subjected to DNA-based HRD tests: CHORD and BRCA1/2-like classifier algorithms. Concordance between different HRD tests was reached when a tumor was classified as HRD/HRi or HRP by both tests.
Results: The RECAP test identified all bi-allelic BRCA deficient samples (n=15) in this cohort as HRD/HRi. Within the remaining non-BRCA RECAP-HRD/HRi samples, there were no pathogenic mutations in other relevant genes that could explain the HRD status of these tumors. In the RECAP-HR proficient tumors no bi-allelic BRCA1/2 deficiencies were identified. The RECAP status partially correlated with the DNA-based HRD test outcomes using the HRDetect, CHORD and BRCA1/2-like classifier algorithms (70% concordance for RECAP-CHORD and RECAP-BRCA1/2-like classifier, and 66% for CHORD-BRCA1/2-like classifier). However, RECAP identified additional samples unable to form RAD51 foci. The discordance among the tests were evenly distributed among the primary and metastatic BCs.
Conclusions: The difference between RECAP and other HRD tests in BC patients is relatively large (30-34% discordance), implying that RECAP may be identifying deficiencies in other components of DNA repair which could also result in PARP inhibitor sensitivity. Therefore, direct comparison of these HRD tests in clinical trials will be required to evaluate the optimal predictive test for clinical decision making.
Citation Format: Titia G. Meijer, Luan Nguyen, Arne van Hoeck, Marjolijn M. Ladan, Nicole S. Verkaik, Kirsten Ruigrok-Ritstier, Carolien H. van Deurzen, Harmen J. van de Werken, Esther H. Lips, Sabine C. Linn, Yasin Memari, Helen Davies, Serena Nik-Zainal, Roland Kanaar, John W. Martens, Edwin Cuppen, Agnes Jager, Dik C. van Gent. RECAP (REpair CAPacity) identifies a subset of breast cancers unable to form RAD51 foci which are undetected by DNA-based BRCAness tests [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 805.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Luan Nguyen
- 2University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Arne van Hoeck
- 2University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Esther H. Lips
- 3The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sabine C. Linn
- 3The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Yasin Memari
- 4University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Helen Davies
- 4University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - Roland Kanaar
- 1Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Edwin Cuppen
- 2University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- 1Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Meijer TG, Nguyen L, Van Hoeck A, Sieuwerts AM, Verkaik NS, Ladan MM, Ruigrok-Ritstier K, van Deurzen CHM, van de Werken HJG, Lips EH, Linn SC, Memari Y, Davies H, Nik-Zainal S, Kanaar R, Martens JWM, Cuppen E, Jager A, van Gent DC. Functional RECAP (REpair CAPacity) assay identifies homologous recombination deficiency undetected by DNA-based BRCAness tests. Oncogene 2022; 41:3498-3506. [PMID: 35662281 PMCID: PMC9232391 DOI: 10.1038/s41388-022-02363-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [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: 01/05/2022] [Revised: 05/19/2022] [Accepted: 05/25/2022] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Germline BRCA1/2 mutation status is predictive for response to Poly-[ADP-Ribose]-Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in breast cancer (BC) patients. However, non-germline BRCA1/2 mutated and homologous recombination repair deficient (HRD) tumors are likely also PARP-inhibitor sensitive. Clinical validity and utility of various HRD biomarkers are under investigation. The REpair CAPacity (RECAP) test is a functional method to select HRD tumors based on their inability to form RAD51 foci. We investigated whether this functional test defines a similar group of HRD tumors as DNA-based tests. An HRD enriched cohort (n = 71; 52 primary and 19 metastatic BCs) selected based on the RECAP test (26 RECAP-HRD; 37%), was subjected to DNA-based HRD tests (i.e., Classifier of HOmologous Recombination Deficiency (CHORD) and BRCA1/2-like classifier). Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was carried out for 38 primary and 19 metastatic BCs. The RECAP test identified all bi-allelic BRCA deficient samples (n = 15) in this cohort. RECAP status partially correlated with DNA-based HRD test outcomes (70% concordance for both RECAP-CHORD and RECAP-BRCA1/2-like classifier). RECAP selected additional samples unable to form RAD51 foci, suggesting that this functional assay identified deficiencies in other DNA repair genes, which could also result in PARP-inhibitor sensitivity. Direct comparison of these HRD tests in clinical trials will be required to evaluate the optimal predictive test for clinical decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Titia G Meijer
- Department of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. .,Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. .,Oncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Luan Nguyen
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Molecular Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Arne Van Hoeck
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Molecular Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Anieta M Sieuwerts
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nicole S Verkaik
- Department of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Oncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marjolijn M Ladan
- Department of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Oncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Kirsten Ruigrok-Ritstier
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Carolien H M van Deurzen
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harmen J G van de Werken
- Cancer Computational Biology Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Immunology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Esther H Lips
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Yasin Memari
- Academic Department of Medical Genetics, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.,MRC Cancer Unit, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Helen Davies
- Academic Department of Medical Genetics, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.,MRC Cancer Unit, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Serena Nik-Zainal
- Academic Department of Medical Genetics, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.,MRC Cancer Unit, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Roland Kanaar
- Department of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Oncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - John W M Martens
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Edwin Cuppen
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Molecular Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Science Park, Hartwig Medical Foundation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Dik C van Gent
- Department of Molecular Genetics, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Oncode Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Voorwerk L, Horlings HM, Sanders J, Keusters MS, Cornelissen S, Sonke GS, Linn SC, Kok M. Immune landscape of breast tumors with low and intermediate estrogen receptor (ER) expression. J Clin Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [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
566 Background: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is currently only approved for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, the cut-off used for ER expression (<1% and in some countries <10%) has been developed as a biomarker for endocrine treatment response and not for selection for likelihood of response to ICB. While stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) and PD-L1 expression are higher in TNBC compared to ER-positive tumors, the distribution of these and other key immune parameters in tumors with very low (1-9%), low (10-50%), intermediate (51-99%) and high (100%) ER levels is unknown. Methods: We collected a consecutive series of treatment-naïve tumor blocks of ER+/HER2- breast tumors diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. All available tumor blocks were used from the groups with ER expression between 1-9% and 10-50%. For the other groups, we randomly selected tumor blocks aiming for similar group sizes. This resulted in the following subgroups: ER 0% (n=46), 1-9% (n=17), 10-50% (n=22), 51-99% (n=37) and 100% (n=51). sTILs were scored using H&E slides. Immunohistochemistry was performed for CD8 and PD-L1 (22C3, scored on immune cells, cut-off ≥1%). Gene expression analysis was performed using the NanoString nCounter Breast Cancer 360 panel. Results: We found the highest levels of sTILs and stromal CD8+ cells in tumors with ER0% with comparable levels in tumors with ER1-9% and ER10-50% (Table). The proportion of PD-L1 positive tumors was 86% in tumors with ER0%, 81% in tumors with ER1-9%, 76% in tumors with ER 10-50% and 59% and 50% in tumors with ER51-99% and 100% respectively. As expected, a higher differentiation grade correlated with lower levels of ER expression. Differential gene expression demonstrated that expression of immune-related signatures, such as IDO1, antigen presenting machinery, CD8+ T cells and IFNγ, was comparable in tumors with ER1-50% as compared to ER0%, but statistically significantly higher as compared to tumors with ER100%. Conclusions: Our data suggest that breast tumors with low levels of ER expression (1-9%, 10-50%) comprise a separate entity within ER-positive breast cancer regarding their immune landscape. Here we show that not only tumors with very low ER levels (1-9%) mimic TNBC in terms of immune landscape but also that tumors with low ER levels (10-50%) might be more likely to respond to ICB than tumors with high levels of ER expression. [Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Hugo M. Horlings
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Joyce Sanders
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | | | - Gabe S. Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sabine C. Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marleen Kok
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
De Boo L, Quist J, Opdam M, Jozwiak K, Gazinska P, Peters D, Horlings HM, Steenbruggen TG, Steggink LC, De Vries E, Sonke GS, Gietema JA, Tutt A, Kok M, Grigoriadis A, Linn SC. Predictive value of ectopic HORMAD1 tumor expression for high-dose platinum-based chemotherapy benefit in patients with high-risk HER2-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.541] [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: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
541 Background: The meiotic DNA break regulator HORMAD1 is aberrantly expressed in many cancers and is associated with increased genomic instability. The susceptibility of HORMAD1 expressing tumors to agents targeting DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways is poorly understood since clinical data within the context of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is lacking. Here, we retrospectively studied HORMAD1 expression as a putative predictive biomarker in an RCT for benefit of adjuvant high-dose platinum-based chemotherapy (HDCT) with autologous stem cell support in patients with high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer (BC). Methods: Patients with stage III BC participated in an RCT comparing HDCT to conventional chemotherapy (CDCT; Rodenhuis et all, NEJM, 2003; Steenbruggen et all, JAMA Oncol, 2020). We studied the subgroup with HER2-negative BC for whom tumor BRCA1-like classification was previously determined using a validated DNA comparative genomic hybridization algorithm (Vollebergh et all, BCR, 2014). Tumor HORMAD1 expression was determined on FFPE samples using RNAscope, an RNA in situ hybridization method, and classified as negative (no expression) or positive (any expression detected). Results: For 195/246 (79.3%) HER2-negative patients treated according to protocol, HORMAD1 RNAscope status was available; dropout was due to absence or insufficient quality of tumor specimens. HORMAD1 positivity was enriched in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (23/47; 48.9%). Furthermore, in all HER2-negative BCs, HORMAD1 positivity (45/195; 23.1%) was associated with age ≤40 years, histological grade III, <10 positive lymph nodes, breast-conserving surgery, BRCA1-like profile, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) >10%. Such association, although not significant, was also observed within TNBC. During a median follow-up of 20.3 years, 124 (63.6%) recurrences and 115 deaths (59.0%) occurred. The prognostic effect of HORMAD1 positivity on overall survival (OS) varied with follow-up time and was borderline significant at 10 years and significant thereafter (10-year: adjusted (adj.) HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21-1.04; 15-year: adj. HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.91). Benefit on RFS from HDCT over CDCT was stronger in patients with HORMAD1-positive tumors (adj. HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06-0.54) than in patients with HORMAD1-negative tumors (adj. HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46-1.02) (P-interaction = 0.02). Similar results were observed for OS. Conclusions: In this retrospective sub study of 195 patients with high-risk HER2-negative BC participating in an RCT, tumor HORMAD1 expression is predictive for benefit of high-dose platinum-based chemotherapy. Our observations are consistent with the prior observations that HORMAD1 expression is associated with genomic instability and impaired DDR pathways. Further research is warranted to validate our findings. Clinical trial information: NCT03087409.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Mark Opdam
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Katarzyna Jozwiak
- Medical School Brandenburg, Institute for Biometrics and Registry Research, Neuruppin, Neuruppin, Germany
| | | | - Dennis Peters
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Hugo M. Horlings
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Lars C. Steggink
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | | | - Gabe S. Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jourik A. Gietema
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Andrew Tutt
- King's College London School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Marleen Kok
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Sabine C. Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Koole SN, Schouten PC, Hauke J, Kluin RJC, Nederlof P, Richters LK, Krebsbach G, Sikorska K, Alkemade M, Opdam M, Schagen van Leeuwen JH, Schreuder HWR, Hermans RHM, de Hingh IHJT, Mom CH, Arts HJG, van Ham M, van Dam P, Vuylsteke P, Sanders J, Horlings HM, van de Vijver KK, Hahnen E, van Driel WJ, Schmutzler R, Sonke GS, Linn SC. Effect of HIPEC according to HRD/BRCAwt genomic profile in stage III ovarian cancer - results from the phase III OVHIPEC trial. Int J Cancer 2022; 151:1394-1404. [PMID: 35583992 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34124] [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] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2021] [Revised: 04/09/2022] [Accepted: 04/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
The addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cisplatin to interval cytoreductive surgery improves recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. Homologous recombination deficient (HRD) ovarian tumors are usually more platinum sensitive. Since hyperthermia impairs BRCA1/2 protein function, we hypothesized that HRD tumors respond best to treatment with HIPEC. We analyzed the effect of HIPEC in patients in the OVHIPEC trial, stratified by HRD status and BRCAm status. Clinical data and tissue samples were collected from patients included in the randomized, phase III OVHIPEC-1 trial. DNA copy number variation (CNV) profiles, HRD-related pathogenic mutations, and BRCA1 promotor hypermethylation were determined. CNV-profiles were categorized as HRD or non-HRD, based on a previously validated algorithm-based BRCA1-like classifier. Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 99% confidence intervals (CI) for the effect of RFS and OS of HIPEC in the BRCAm, the HRD/BRCAwt and the non-HRD group were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. DNA was available from 200/245 (82%) patients. Seventeen (9%) tumors carried a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 and 14 (7%) in BRCA2. Ninety-one (46%) tumors classified as BRCA1-like. The effect of HIPEC on RFS and OS was absent in BRCAm tumors (HR 1.25; 99%CI 0.48-3.29), and most present in HRD/BRCAwt (HR 0.44; 99%CI 0.21-0.91), and non-HRD/BRCAwt tumors (HR 0.82; 99%CI 0.48-1.42), interaction p-value: 0.024. Patients with HRD tumors without pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation appear to benefit most from treatment with HIPEC, while benefit in patients with BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations and patients without HRD seems less evident.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone N Koole
- Department of Gynecology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Center of Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Philip C Schouten
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Hauke
- Faculty of Medicine and Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Roel J C Kluin
- Genomics Core Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Petra Nederlof
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lisa K Richters
- Faculty of Medicine and Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Gabriele Krebsbach
- Faculty of Medicine and Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Karolina Sikorska
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maartje Alkemade
- Core Facility of Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark Opdam
- Core Facility of Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Henk W R Schreuder
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Ralph H M Hermans
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - Constantijne H Mom
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Center of Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henriette J G Arts
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Maaike van Ham
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Peter van Dam
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Peter Vuylsteke
- Department of Medical Oncology, UCL Louvain, CHU Namur Sainte-Elisabeth, Namur, Belgium
- University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana
| | - Joyce Sanders
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hugo M Horlings
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Eric Hahnen
- Faculty of Medicine and Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Willemien J van Driel
- Department of Gynecology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Center of Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rita Schmutzler
- Faculty of Medicine and Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Vliek SB, Noordhoek I, Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg E, van Rossum AGJ, Dezentje VO, Jager A, Hokken JWE, Putter H, van der Velden AWG, Hendriks MP, Bakker SD, van Riet YEA, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, Portielje JEA, Kroep JR, Nortier JWR, van de Velde CJH, Linn SC. Daily Oral Ibandronate With Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer (BOOG 2006-04): Randomized Phase III TEAM-IIB Trial. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:2934-2945. [PMID: 35442755 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.00311] [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: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE For postmenopausal patients with breast cancer, previous subgroup analyses have shown a modest benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment. However, the efficacy of oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates such as ibandronate is unclear in this setting. TEAM-IIB investigates adjuvant ibandronate in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. METHODS TEAM-IIB is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III study. Postmenopausal women with stage I-III ER+ breast cancer and an indication for adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) were randomly assigned 1:1 to 5 years of ET with or without oral ibandronate 50 mg once daily for 3 years. Major ineligibility criteria were bilateral breast cancer, active gastroesophageal problems, and health conditions that might interfere with study treatment. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS Between February 1, 2007, and May 27, 2014, 1,116 patients were enrolled, 565 to ET with ibandronate (ibandronate arm) and 551 to ET alone (control arm). Median follow-up was 8.5 years. DFS was not significantly different between the ibandronate and control arms (HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.24; log-rank P = .811). Three years after random assignment, DFS was 94% in the ibandronate arm and 91% in the control arm. Five years after random assignment, this was 89% and 86%, respectively. In the ibandronate arm, 97/565 (17%) of patients stopped ibandronate early because of adverse events. Significantly more patients experienced GI issues, mainly dyspepsia, in the ibandronate arm than in the control arm (89 [16%] and 54 [10%], respectively; P < .003). Eleven patients in the ibandronate arm developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. CONCLUSION In postmenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer, adjuvant ibandronate 50 mg once daily does not improve DFS and should not be recommended as part of standard treatment regimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sonja B Vliek
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Iris Noordhoek
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | | | - Annelot G J van Rossum
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Vincent O Dezentje
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Hein Putter
- Department of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | | | - Mathijs P Hendriks
- Department of Medical Oncology, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, the Netherlands
| | - Sandra D Bakker
- Department of Internal Medicine, Zaans Medical Centre, Zaandam, the Netherlands
| | - Yvonne E A van Riet
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Judith R Kroep
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Johan W R Nortier
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | | | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Tavares S, Liv N, Pasolli M, Opdam M, Rätze MAK, Saornil M, Sluimer LM, Hengeveld RCC, van Es R, van Werkhoven E, Vos H, Rehmann H, Burgering BMT, Oosterkamp HM, Lens SMA, Klumperman J, Linn SC, Derksen PWB. FER regulates endosomal recycling and is a predictor for adjuvant taxane benefit in breast cancer. Cell Rep 2022; 39:110584. [PMID: 35385742 DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110584] [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] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2021] [Revised: 10/28/2021] [Accepted: 03/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Elevated expression of non-receptor tyrosine kinase FER is an independent prognosticator that correlates with poor survival of high-grade and basal/triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Here, we show that high FER levels are also associated with improved outcomes after adjuvant taxane-based combination chemotherapy in high-risk, HER2-negative patients. In TNBC cells, we observe a causal relation between high FER levels and sensitivity to taxanes. Proteomics and mechanistic studies demonstrate that FER regulates endosomal recycling, a microtubule-dependent process that underpins breast cancer cell invasion. Using chemical genetics, we identify DCTN2 as a FER substrate. Our work indicates that the DCTN2 tyrosine 6 is essential for the development of tubular recycling domains in early endosomes and subsequent propagation of TNBC cell invasion in 3D. In conclusion, we show that high FER expression promotes endosomal recycling and represents a candidate predictive marker for the benefit of adjuvant taxane-containing chemotherapy in high-risk patients, including TNBC patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra Tavares
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Nalan Liv
- Section Cell Biology, Center for Molecular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Milena Pasolli
- Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Biophysics, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, 3584CH Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Mark Opdam
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Max A K Rätze
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Manuel Saornil
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Lilian M Sluimer
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Rutger C C Hengeveld
- Oncode Institute, Department of Molecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Robert van Es
- Oncode Institute, Department of Molecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Erik van Werkhoven
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Harmjan Vos
- Oncode Institute, Department of Molecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Holger Rehmann
- Flensburg University of Applied Sciences, 24943 Flensburg, Germany
| | - Boudewijn M T Burgering
- Oncode Institute, Department of Molecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Hendrika M Oosterkamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, Haaglanden Medisch Centrum, 2501 CK The Hague, the Netherlands
| | - Susanne M A Lens
- Oncode Institute, Department of Molecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Judith Klumperman
- Section Cell Biology, Center for Molecular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Patrick W B Derksen
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Schmutzler RK, Schmitz-Luhn B, Borisch B, Devilee P, Eccles D, Hall P, Balmaña J, Boccia S, Dabrock P, Emons G, Gaissmaier W, Gronwald J, Houwaart S, Huster S, Kast K, Katalinic A, Linn SC, Moorthie S, Pharoah P, Rhiem K, Spranger T, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, van Delden JJM, van den Bulcke M, Woopen C. Risk-Adjusted Cancer Screening and Prevention (RiskAP): Complementing Screening for Early Disease Detection by a Learning Screening Based on Risk Factors. Breast Care (Basel) 2022; 17:208-223. [PMID: 35702492 PMCID: PMC9149472 DOI: 10.1159/000517182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [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: 02/10/2021] [Accepted: 03/22/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-adjusted cancer screening and prevention is a promising and continuously emerging option for improving cancer prevention. It is driven by increasing knowledge of risk factors and the ability to determine them for individual risk prediction. However, there is a knowledge gap between evidence of increased risk and evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical preventive interventions based on increased risk. This gap is, in particular, aggravated by the extensive availability of genetic risk factor diagnostics, since the question of appropriate preventive measures immediately arises when an increased risk is identified. However, collecting proof of effective preventive measures, ideally by prospective randomized preventive studies, typically requires very long periods of time, while the knowledge about an increased risk immediately creates a high demand for action. SUMMARY Therefore, we propose a risk-adjusted prevention concept that is based on the best current evidence making needed and appropriate preventive measures available, and which is constantly evaluated through outcome evaluation, and continuously improved based on these results. We further discuss the structural and procedural requirements as well as legal and socioeconomical aspects relevant for the implementation of this concept.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rita K. Schmutzler
- Center Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Björn Schmitz-Luhn
- Cologne Center for Ethics, Rights, Economics, and Social Sciences of Health (ceres), University of Cologne, and Research Unit Ethics, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Bettina Borisch
- Institute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Peter Devilee
- Leids Universitair Medisch Zentrum, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Diana Eccles
- Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Per Hall
- Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Judith Balmaña
- Vall d'Hebron Instituto de Oncologia (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Stefania Boccia
- Sezione di Igiene, Instituto di Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
- Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health − Public Health Area, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Günter Emons
- Uniklinik Göttingen, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Gaissmaier
- Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
| | - Jacek Gronwald
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | | | - Stefan Huster
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Sozial- und Gesundheitsrecht und Rechtsphilosophie, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Karin Kast
- Center Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | | | - Sabine C. Linn
- Departments of Medical Oncology and Molecular Pathology − Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sowmiya Moorthie
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Pharoah
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Kerstin Rhiem
- Center Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Tade Spranger
- Center for Life Science & Law, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Christiane Woopen
- Cologne Center for Ethics, Rights, Economics, and Social Sciences of Health (ceres), University of Cologne, and Research Unit Ethics, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
de Jong VMT, Wang Y, Ter Hoeve ND, Opdam M, Stathonikos N, Jóźwiak K, Hauptmann M, Cornelissen S, Vreuls W, Rosenberg EH, Koop EA, Varga Z, van Deurzen CHM, Mooyaart AL, Córdoba A, Groen EJ, Bart J, Willems SM, Zolota V, Wesseling J, Sapino A, Chmielik E, Ryska A, Broeks A, Voogd AC, Loi S, Michiels S, Sonke GS, van der Wall E, Siesling S, van Diest PJ, Schmidt MK, Kok M, Dackus GMHE, Salgado R, Linn SC. Prognostic Value of Stromal Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Young, Node-Negative, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients Who Did Not Receive (neo)Adjuvant Systemic Therapy. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:2361-2374. [PMID: 35353548 PMCID: PMC9287283 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.01536] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.5] [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] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is considered aggressive, and therefore, virtually all young patients with TNBC receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Increased stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) have been associated with a favorable prognosis in TNBC. However, whether this association holds for patients who are node-negative (N0), young (< 40 years), and chemotherapy-naïve, and thus can be used for chemotherapy de-escalation strategies, is unknown. METHODS We selected all patients with N0 TNBC diagnosed between 1989 and 2000 from a Dutch population–based registry. Patients were age < 40 years at diagnosis and had not received (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy, as was standard practice at the time. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded blocks were retrieved (PALGA: Dutch Pathology Registry), and a pathology review including sTILs was performed. Patients were categorized according to sTILs (< 30%, 30%-75%, and ≥ 75%). Multivariable Cox regression was performed for overall survival, with or without sTILs as a covariate. Cumulative incidence of distant metastasis or death was analyzed in a competing risk model, with second primary tumors as competing risk. RESULTS sTILs were scored for 441 patients. High sTILs (≥ 75%; 21%) translated into an excellent prognosis with a 15-year cumulative incidence of a distant metastasis or death of only 2.1% (95% CI, 0 to 5.0), whereas low sTILs (< 30%; 52%) had an unfavorable prognosis with a 15-year cumulative incidence of a distant metastasis or death of 38.4% (32.1 to 44.6). In addition, every 10% increment of sTILs decreased the risk of death by 19% (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.87), which are an independent predictor adding prognostic information to standard clinicopathologic variables (χ2 = 46.7, P < .001). CONCLUSION Chemotherapy-naïve, young patients with N0 TNBC with high sTILs (≥ 75%) have an excellent long-term prognosis. Therefore, sTILs should be considered for prospective clinical trials investigating (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy de-escalation strategies. Young cancer patients with TNBC and high sTILs have an excellent outcome, even without systemic treatment![]()
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincent M T de Jong
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Yuwei Wang
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Natalie D Ter Hoeve
- Division of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Mark Opdam
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Nikolas Stathonikos
- Division of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Katarzyna Jóźwiak
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Sten Cornelissen
- Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Willem Vreuls
- Department of Pathology, Canisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Efraim H Rosenberg
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Esther A Koop
- Department of Pathology, Gelre Ziekenhuizen, Apeldoorn, Netherlands
| | - Zsuzsanna Varga
- Departement of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Antien L Mooyaart
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Alicia Córdoba
- Department of Pathology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Emma J Groen
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Joost Bart
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Pathology and Medical Biology, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Stefan M Willems
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Pathology and Medical Biology, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Vasiliki Zolota
- Department of Pathology, Rion University Hospital, Patras, Greece
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Anna Sapino
- Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.,Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Italy
| | - Ewa Chmielik
- Tumor Pathology Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Ales Ryska
- Charles University Medical Faculty and University Hospital, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
| | - Annegien Broeks
- Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Adri C Voogd
- Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.,Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Sherene Loi
- Division of Clinical Medicine and Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Stefan Michiels
- Service de Biostatistique et d'Epidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, Oncostat U1018, Inserm, Paris-Saclay University, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Sabine Siesling
- Division of Clinical Medicine and Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
| | - Paul J van Diest
- Division of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Marleen Kok
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Gwen M H E Dackus
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Division of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Roberto Salgado
- Division of Clinical Medicine and Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,Department of Pathology, GZA-ZNA Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Division of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Kester L, Seinstra D, van Rossum AG, Vennin C, Hoogstraat M, van der Velden D, Opdam M, van Werkhoven E, Hahn K, Nederlof I, Lips EH, Mandjes IA, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Canisius S, van Tinteren H, Imholz AL, Portielje JE, Bos ME, Bakker SD, Rutgers EJ, Horlings HM, Wesseling J, Voest EE, Wessels LF, Kok M, Oosterkamp HM, van Oudenaarden A, Linn SC, van Rheenen J. Differential Survival and Therapy Benefit of Patients with Breast Cancer Are Characterized by Distinct Epithelial and Immune Cell Microenvironments. Clin Cancer Res 2022; 28:960-971. [PMID: 34965952 PMCID: PMC9377758 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-1442] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [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: 04/19/2021] [Revised: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 12/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Extensive work in preclinical models has shown that microenvironmental cells influence many aspects of cancer cell behavior, including metastatic potential and their sensitivity to therapeutics. In the human setting, this behavior is mainly correlated with the presence of immune cells. Here, in addition to T cells, B cells, macrophages, and mast cells, we identified the relevance of nonimmune cell types for breast cancer survival and therapy benefit, including fibroblasts, myoepithelial cells, muscle cells, endothelial cells, and seven distinct epithelial cell types. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Using single-cell sequencing data, we generated reference profiles for all these cell types. We used these reference profiles in deconvolution algorithms to optimally detangle the cellular composition of more than 3,500 primary breast tumors of patients that were enrolled in the SCAN-B and MATADOR clinical trials, and for which bulk mRNA sequencing data were available. RESULTS This large data set enables us to identify and subsequently validate the cellular composition of microenvironments that distinguish differential survival and treatment benefit for different treatment regimens in patients with primary breast cancer. In addition to immune cells, we have identified that survival and therapy benefit are characterized by various contributions of distinct epithelial cell types. CONCLUSIONS From our study, we conclude that differential survival and therapy benefit of patients with breast cancer are characterized by distinct microenvironments that include specific populations of immune and epithelial cells.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lennart Kester
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Oncode Institute-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Oncode Institute-Hubrecht Institute- KNAW & University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Danielle Seinstra
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Oncode Institute-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Annelot G.J. van Rossum
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Claire Vennin
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Oncode Institute-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marlous Hoogstraat
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Oncode Institute-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Daphne van der Velden
- Division of Molecular Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark Opdam
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Erik van Werkhoven
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Kerstin Hahn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Oncode Institute-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Iris Nederlof
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ester H. Lips
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Sander Canisius
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Division of Molecular Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Harm van Tinteren
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Alex L.T. Imholz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Deventer, the Netherlands
| | - Johanneke E.A. Portielje
- Department of Medical Oncology, HagaZiekenhuis, The Hague, the Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Monique E.M.M. Bos
- Department of Internal Oncology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, the Netherlands
| | - Sandra D. Bakker
- Department of Medical Oncology, Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, the Netherlands
| | - Emiel J. Rutgers
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hugo M. Horlings
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Division of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Division of Diagnostic Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Emile E. Voest
- Oncode Institute-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Division of Molecular Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lodewyk F.A. Wessels
- Oncode Institute-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Division of Molecular Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marleen Kok
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Division of Tumor Biology & Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Alexander van Oudenaarden
- Oncode Institute-Hubrecht Institute- KNAW & University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C. Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.,Corresponding Authors: Jacco van Rheenen, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX Amsterdam, Netherlands. Phone: 31-20-512-6906; E-mail: ; and Sabine Linn, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX Amsterdam, Netherlands. Phone: 31-20-512-2449; E-mail:
| | - Jacco van Rheenen
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Oncode Institute-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Molecular Cancer Research, Center Molecular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.,Corresponding Authors: Jacco van Rheenen, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX Amsterdam, Netherlands. Phone: 31-20-512-6906; E-mail: ; and Sabine Linn, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX Amsterdam, Netherlands. Phone: 31-20-512-2449; E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Suelmann BBM, Bakhuis CFJ, van Dooijeweert C, Verloop J, Zweemer RP, Linn SC, van der Wall E, van Diest PJ. Abstract P3-12-06: Prognosis of pregnancy-associated breast cancer: Inferior outcome in patients diagnosed during second and third gestational trimesters and lactation. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p3-12-06] [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 Pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC), although most commonly defined as breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy or within one year following delivery, knows a variety of definitions, likely related to the diversity of reported clinicopathological features and prognosis. More insight into the different breast cancer subgroups during pregnancy, the time after delivery and the postpartum period is therefore warranted. METHODS Patients with breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy or within six months after delivery between January 1, 1988 and July 1, 2019, were included. Pregnant patients were subdivided according to gestational trimester, and postpartum patients according to lactational status. To investigate the influence of pregnancy and lactation on the histopathologic profile, these subgroups were compared to non-PABC patients matched for age at diagnosis, year at diagnosis, grade and ER status. Pearson Chi-square tests were used to compare clinicopathologic characteristics, while Kaplan-Meier/logrank/Cox regression methods were used to perform overall survival (OS) analysis. RESULTS Overall, 662 PABC patients were included, of which 73.6% were diagnosed during pregnancy. Median age at diagnosis was 34 years, with a median follow-up of 6.5 years. Overall, PABC patients as a group showed an advanced stage at diagnosis and an inferior OS at 5-years (75.4% vs. 83.2%, p = 0.000) compared to 1,392 non-PABC patients. In subgroup analysis, PABC patients within their first trimester showed a significantly lower tumor size and stage as compared to other trimesters. Patients diagnosed during the first trimester and postpartum non-lactating patients had a relatively good OS (81.3% and 77.9%, respectively) versus patients diagnosed during the second and third trimesters and during lactation (OS 60.0%, 64.9% and 65.6%, respectively, p = 0.003). In multivariate Cox regression, trimester of diagnosis, year of diagnosis, PR status, stage at diagnosis and surgery-or-not were significant contributors to OS. CONCLUSION In this large PABC cohort, uniquely specified by gestational trimester, an inferior outcome was found for patients diagnosed within the second and third gestational trimesters and during postpartum lactation, compared to first trimester and non-lactating postpartum patients. These findings indicate that PABC is clinically a heterogeneous group of breast cancer patients that should be redefined based on trimester of diagnosis and postpartum lactational status.
Citation Format: Britt BM Suelmann, Carsten FJ Bakhuis, Carmen van Dooijeweert, Janneke Verloop, Ronald P Zweemer, Sabine C Linn, Elsken van der Wall, Paul J van Diest. Prognosis of pregnancy-associated breast cancer: Inferior outcome in patients diagnosed during second and third gestational trimesters and lactation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-12-06.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Sabine C Linn
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
de Boo LW, Jóźwiak K, Joensuu H, Lindman H, Lauttia S, Opdam M, van Steenis C, Brugman W, Kluin RJC, Schouten PC, Kok M, Nederlof PM, Hauptmann M, Linn SC. Adjuvant capecitabine-containing chemotherapy benefit and homologous recombination deficiency in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2022; 126:1401-1409. [PMID: 35124703 PMCID: PMC9090783 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01711-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2021] [Revised: 12/16/2021] [Accepted: 01/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The addition of adjuvant capecitabine to standard chemotherapy of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients has improved survival in a few randomised trials and in meta-analyses. However, many patients did not benefit. We evaluated the BRCA1-like DNA copy number signature, indicative of homologous recombination deficiency, as a predictive biomarker for capecitabine benefit in the TNBC subgroup of the FinXX trial. Methods Early-stage TNBC patients were randomised between adjuvant capecitabine-containing (TX + CEX: capecitabine-docetaxel, followed by cyclophosphamide-epirubicin-capecitabine) and conventional chemotherapy (T + CEF: docetaxel, followed by cyclophosphamide-epirubicin-fluorouracil). Tumour BRCA1-like status was determined on low-coverage, whole genome next-generation sequencing data using an established DNA comparative genomic hybridisation algorithm. Results For 129/202 (63.9%) patients the BRCA1-like status could be determined, mostly due to lack of tissue. During a median follow-up of 10.7 years, 35 recurrences and 32 deaths occurred. Addition of capecitabine appears to improve recurrence-free survival more among 61 (47.3%) patients with non-BRCA1-like tumours (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08–0.70) compared to 68 (52.7%) patients with BRCA1-like tumours (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24–1.81) (P-interaction = 0.17). Conclusion Based on our data, patients with non-BRCA1-like TNBC appear to benefit from the addition of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with BRCA1-like TNBC may also benefit. Additional research is needed to define the subgroup within BRCA1-like TNBC patients who may not benefit from adjuvant capecitabine.
Collapse
|
37
|
van Rossum AGJ, Mandjes IAM, van Werkhoven E, van Tinteren H, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Nederlof P, Portielje JEA, van Alphen RJ, Platte E, van den Broek D, Huitema A, Kok M, Linn SC, Oosterkamp HM. Carboplatin-Cyclophosphamide or Paclitaxel without or with Bevacizumab as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (BOOG 2013-01). Breast Care (Basel) 2022; 16:598-606. [PMID: 35087363 DOI: 10.1159/000512200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [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: 02/01/2020] [Accepted: 10/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy conferred a modest progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). However, no overall survival (OS) benefit has been reported. Also, its combination with carboplatin-cyclophosphamide (CC) has never been investigated. Methods The Triple-B study is a multicenter, randomized phase IIb trial that aims to prospectively validate predictive biomarkers, including baseline plasma vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (pVEGFR-2), for bevacizumab benefit. mTNBC patients were randomized between CC and paclitaxel (P) without or with bevacizumab (CC ± B or P ± B). Here we report on a preplanned safety and preliminary efficacy analysis after the first 12 patients had been treated with CC+B and on the predictive value of pVEGFR-2. Results In 58 patients, the median follow-up was 22.1 months. Toxicity was manageable and consistent with what was known for each agent separately. There was a trend toward a prolonged PFS with bevacizumab compared to chemotherapy only (7.0 vs. 5.2 months; adjusted HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.08; p = 0.09), but there was no effect on OS. In this small study, pVEGFR-2 concentration did not predict a bevacizumab PFS benefit. Both the intention-to-treat analysis and the per-protocol analysis did not yield a significant treatment-by-biomarker test for interaction (pinteraction = 0.69). Conclusions CC and CC+B are safe first-line regimens for mTNBC and the side effects are consistent with those known for each individual agent. pVEGFR-2 concentration did not predict a bevacizumab PFS benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annelot G J van Rossum
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Erik van Werkhoven
- Biometrics Department, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harm van Tinteren
- Biometrics Department, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Petra Nederlof
- Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Johanna E A Portielje
- Department of Medical Oncology, HagaZiekenhuis, The Hague, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Robbert J van Alphen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Els Platte
- Clinical Chemical Laboratory, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daan van den Broek
- Clinical Chemical Laboratory, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Alwin Huitema
- Pharmacy, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marleen Kok
- Division of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hendrika M Oosterkamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, Haaglanden Medisch Centrum, The Hague, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Schouten PC, Richters L, Vis DJ, Kommoss S, van Dijk E, Ernst C, Kluin RJ, Marmé F, Lips EH, Schmidt S, Scheerman E, Prieske K, van Deurzen CH, Burges A, Ewing-Graham PC, Dietrich D, Jager A, de Gregorio N, Hauke J, du Bois A, Nederlof PM, Wessels LF, Hahnen E, Harter P, Linn SC, Schmutzler RK. Ovarian Cancer-Specific BRCA-like Copy-Number Aberration Classifiers Detect Mutations Associated with Homologous Recombination Deficiency in the AGO-TR1 Trial. Clin Cancer Res 2021; 27:6559-6569. [PMID: 34593530 PMCID: PMC9401539 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-1673] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [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: 05/06/2021] [Revised: 09/12/2021] [Accepted: 09/23/2021] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Previously, we developed breast cancer BRCA1-like and BRCA2-like copy-number profile shrunken centroid classifiers predictive for mutation status and response to therapy, targeting homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Therefore, we investigated BRCA1- and BRCA2-like classification in ovarian cancer, aiming to acquire classifiers with similar properties as those in breast cancer.Experimental Design: We analyzed DNA copy-number profiles of germline BRCA1- and BRCA2-mutant ovarian cancers and control tumors and observed that existing breast cancer classifiers did not sufficiently predict mutation status. Hence, we trained new shrunken centroid classifiers on this set and validated them in the independent The Cancer Genome Atlas dataset. Subsequently, we assessed BRCA1/2-like classification and obtained germline and tumor mutation and methylation status of cancer predisposition genes, among them several involved in HR repair, of 300 ovarian cancer samples derived from the consecutive cohort trial AGO-TR1 (NCT02222883). RESULTS The detection rate of the BRCA1-like classifier for BRCA1 mutations and promoter hypermethylation was 95.6%. The BRCA2-like classifier performed less accurately, likely due to a smaller training set. Furthermore, three quarters of the BRCA1/2-like tumors could be explained by (epi)genetic alterations in BRCA1/2, germline RAD51C mutations and alterations in other genes involved in HR. Around half of the non-BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer cases displayed a BRCA-like phenotype. CONCLUSIONS The newly trained classifiers detected most BRCA-mutated and methylated cancers and all tumors harboring a RAD51C germline mutations. Beyond that, we found an additional substantial proportion of ovarian cancers to be BRCA-like.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip C. Schouten
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Corresponding Author: Philip C. Schouten, Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Phone: 312-051-2449; E-mail:
| | - Lisa Richters
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Daniel J. Vis
- Department of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Stefan Kommoss
- Department of Women's Health, Tübingen University Hospital, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Ewald van Dijk
- Department of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Corinna Ernst
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Roelof J.C. Kluin
- Genomics Core Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Frederik Marmé
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, University Hospital Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Esther H. Lips
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sandra Schmidt
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Esther Scheerman
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Katharina Prieske
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | | | - Alexander Burges
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Munich-Großhadern, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Dimo Dietrich
- Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nikolaus de Gregorio
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Jan Hauke
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Andreas du Bois
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Ev. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - Petra M. Nederlof
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lodewyk F. Wessels
- Department of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
| | - Eric Hahnen
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Philipp Harter
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Ev. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - Sabine C. Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Rita K. Schmutzler
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Joosten SEP, Wellenstein M, Koornstra R, van Rossum A, Sanders J, van der Noort V, Ferrandez MC, Harkes R, Mandjes IAM, Rosing H, Huitema A, Beijnen JH, Wesseling J, van Diest PJ, Horlings HM, Linn SC, Zwart W. IHC-based Ki67 as response biomarker to tamoxifen in breast cancer window trials enrolling premenopausal women. NPJ Breast Cancer 2021; 7:138. [PMID: 34671036 PMCID: PMC8528844 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-021-00344-3] [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] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2020] [Accepted: 09/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Window studies are gaining traction to assess (molecular) changes in short timeframes. Decreased tumor cell positivity for the proliferation marker Ki67 is often used as a proxy for treatment response. Immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based Ki67 on tissue from neo-adjuvant trials was previously reported to be predictive for long-term response to endocrine therapy for breast cancer in postmenopausal women, but none of these trials enrolled premenopausal women. Nonetheless, the marker is being used on this subpopulation. We compared pathologist assessed IHC-based Ki67 in samples from pre- and postmenopausal women in a neo-adjuvant, endocrine therapy focused trial (NCT00738777), randomized between tamoxifen, anastrozole, or fulvestrant. These results were compared with (1) IHC-based Ki67 scoring by AI, (2) mitotic figures, (3) mRNA-based Ki67, (4) five independent gene expression signatures capturing proliferation, and (5) blood levels for tamoxifen and its metabolites as well as estradiol. Upon tamoxifen, IHC-based Ki67 levels were decreased in both pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer patients, which was confirmed using mRNA-based cell proliferation markers. The magnitude of decrease of Ki67 IHC was smaller in pre- versus postmenopausal women. We found a direct relationship between post-treatment estradiol levels and the magnitude of the Ki67 decrease in tumors. These data suggest IHC-based Ki67 may be an appropriate biomarker for tamoxifen response in premenopausal breast cancer patients, but anti-proliferative effect size depends on estradiol levels.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stacey E P Joosten
- Division of Oncogenomics, Oncode Institute, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Rutger Koornstra
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology, Rijnstate hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Annelot van Rossum
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joyce Sanders
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Vincent van der Noort
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maria C Ferrandez
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rolf Harkes
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ingrid A M Mandjes
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hilde Rosing
- Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Alwin Huitema
- Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Division of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jos H Beijnen
- Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek-The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Division of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Paul J van Diest
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hugo M Horlings
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. .,Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands. .,Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Wilbert Zwart
- Division of Oncogenomics, Oncode Institute, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. .,Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Dackus GMHE, Jóźwiak K, Hauptmann M, Linn SC. Response to Klar and Adams. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 114:167-168. [PMID: 34396390 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab153] [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] [Received: 07/20/2021] [Accepted: 08/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Gwen M H E Dackus
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Katarzyna Jóźwiak
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Haus O, Fehrbelliner Straße 38, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Haus O, Fehrbelliner Straße 38, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
van der Voort A, van Ramshorst MS, van Werkhoven ED, Mandjes IA, Kemper I, Vulink AJ, Oving IM, Honkoop AH, Tick LW, van de Wouw AJ, Mandigers CM, van Warmerdam LJ, Wesseling J, Vrancken Peeters MJT, Linn SC, Sonke GS. Three-Year Follow-up of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With or Without Anthracyclines in the Presence of Dual ERBB2 Blockade in Patients With ERBB2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the TRAIN-2 Randomized, Phase 3 Trial. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7:978-984. [PMID: 34014249 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.1371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Importance Primary analysis of the TRAIN-2 study showed high pathologic complete response rates after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without anthracyclines plus dual ERBB2 (formerly HER2) blockade. Objective To evaluate 3-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) of an anthracycline-free and anthracycline-containing regimen with dual ERBB2 blockade in patients with stage II and III ERBB2-positive breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants A total of 438 patients with stage II and III ERBB2-positive breast cancer were enrolled in this randomized, clinical, open-label phase 3 trial across 37 hospitals in the Netherlands from December 9, 2013, until January 14, 2016. Follow-up analyses were performed after a median follow-up of 48.8 months (interquartile range, 44.1-55.2 months). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis, stratified by age, tumor stage, nodal stage, and estrogen receptor status, to receive 3 cycles of fluorouracil (500 mg/m2), epirubicin (90 mg/m2), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2), followed by 6 cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin or 9 cycles of paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 days 1 and 8) and carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve, 6 mg/mL/min). Both groups received trastuzumab (6 mg/kg; loading dose 8 mg/kg) and pertuzumab (420 mg intravenously; loading dose 840 mg) every 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Three-year EFS, OS, and safety. Results A total of 438 women were randomized, with 219 per group (anthracycline group, median age, 49 years [interquartile range, 43-55 years]; and nonanthracycline group, median age, 48 years [interquartile range, 43-56 years]). A total of 23 EFS events (10.5%) occurred in the anthracycline group and 21 EFS events (9.6%) occurred in the nonanthracycline group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.50-1.63; favoring nonanthracyclines). Three-year EFS estimates were 92.7% (95% CI, 89.3%-96.2%) in the anthracycline group and 93.6% (95% CI, 90.4%-96.9%) in the nonanthracycline group and 3-year OS estimates were 97.7% (95% CI, 95.7%-99.7%) in the anthracycline group and 98.2% (95% CI, 96.4%-100%) in the nonanthracycline group. The results were irrespective of hormone receptor and nodal status. A decline in left ventricular ejection fraction of 10% or more from baseline to less than 50% was more common in patients who received anthracyclines than those who did not (17 of 220 [7.7%] vs 7 of 218 [3.2%]; P = .04). Two patients treated with anthracyclines developed acute leukemia. Conclusions and Relevance This follow-up analysis of the TRAIN-2 study shows similar 3-year EFS and OS estimates with or without anthracyclines in patients with stage II and III ERBB2-positive breast cancer. Anthracycline use is associated with increased risk of febrile neutropenia, cardiotoxic effects, and secondary malignant neoplasms. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01996267.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna van der Voort
- Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mette S van Ramshorst
- Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Erik D van Werkhoven
- Department of Biometrics, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ingrid A Mandjes
- Department of Biometrics, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Inge Kemper
- Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Annelie J Vulink
- Department of Medical Oncology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, the Netherlands
| | - Irma M Oving
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands
| | - Aafke H Honkoop
- Department of Medical Oncology, Isala, Zwolle, the Netherlands
| | - Lidwine W Tick
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maxima Medical Center, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Agnes J van de Wouw
- Department of Medical Oncology, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, the Netherlands
| | - Caroline M Mandigers
- Department of Medical Oncology, Canisius Wilhelmina hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | | - Jelle Wesseling
- Department of Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Ragusi MA, Winter-Warnars GA, Wesseling J, Linn SC, Beets-Tan RG, van der Velden BH, Elias SG, Gilhuijs KG, Loo CE. Prognostic value of breast MRI characteristics before and during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in patients with ER+/HER2- breast cancer. Br J Radiol 2021; 94:20201125. [PMID: 34142870 PMCID: PMC8248214 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20201125] [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] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: To investigate whether BIRADS MRI characteristics before or during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) are associated with the preoperative endocrine prognostic index (PEPI) in ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients. Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study included 35 ER+/HER2- patients with 38 tumors (3 bilateral cases) treated with NET. The pre- and midtreatment (after 3 months) MRIs were evaluated by two breast radiologists for BIRADS imaging characteristics, shrinkage pattern, and radiologic response. PEPI was used as end point. PEPI is based on the post-treatment surgical specimen’s pT- and pN-stage, Ki67, and ER-status. Tumors were assigned PEPI-1 (good prognosis) or PEPI-2/3 (poor prognosis). We investigated whether pre- and midtreatment BIRADS characteristics were associated with PEPI. Results: Median patient age was 65 years (interquartile interval [IQI]: 53, 70). 17 tumors (44.7%) were associated with good prognosis (PEPI-1), and 21 tumors (55.3%) with poor prognosis (PEPI-2/3). A larger reduction in tumor size after 3 months of NET was significantly associated with PEPI; 10 mm (IQI: 5, 13.5) in PEPI-1 tumors vs 4.5 mm (IQI: 3, 7; p = .045) in PEPI-2/3 tumors. Other BIRADS characteristics, shrinkage pattern or radiologic response were not associated with PEPI. Conclusion: Only a larger reduction in tumor size on MRI after 3 months of NET was associated with PEPI-1 (good prognosis) in ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients. Advances in knowledge: MRI characteristics previously reported to be associated with prognosis during neoadjuvant chemotherapy are not necessarily associated with prognosis during NET in ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Max Aa Ragusi
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology/Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gonneke Ao Winter-Warnars
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Regina G Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bas Hm van der Velden
- Department of Radiology/Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd G Elias
- Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Kenneth Ga Gilhuijs
- Department of Radiology/Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Claudette E Loo
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
van Aken ESM, Beeker A, Houtenbos I, Pos FJ, Linn SC, Elkhuizen PHM, de Jong MC. Unexpected toxicity of CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib and radiotherapy. Cancer Rep (Hoboken) 2021; 5:e1470. [PMID: 34145976 PMCID: PMC8842704 DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1470] [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] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2021] [Revised: 05/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/26/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Cyclin‐dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors have recently been approved for the treatment of hormone receptor–positive and HER2‐negative metastatic breast cancer in association with endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women. Data on the interaction of CDK4/6 inhibition and radiotherapy are scarce, but some studies show unexpected toxicity. Cases We report three cases of unexpected severe or prolonged soft tissue, skin, and gastrointestinal toxicity in patients treated with a combination of radiotherapy and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib. Conclusion These cases indicate a possible interaction between radiotherapy and palbociclib. Therefore, we recommend using radiotherapy cautiously when combined with CDK4/6 inhibitors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evert S M van Aken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aart Beeker
- Department of Medical Oncology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
| | - Ilse Houtenbos
- Department of Medical Oncology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
| | - Floris J Pos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paula H M Elkhuizen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique C de Jong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Dackus GM, Jóźwiak K, Sonke GS, van der Wall E, van Diest PJ, Siesling S, Hauptmann M, Linn SC. Adjuvant Aromatase Inhibitors or Tamoxifen following Chemotherapy for Perimenopausal Breast Cancer Patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113:1506-1514. [PMID: 34101806 PMCID: PMC8562974 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [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: 11/26/2020] [Revised: 03/29/2021] [Accepted: 05/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The benefit of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) vs tamoxifen has been investigated in randomized clinical trials for premenopausal and postmenopausal patients with early, estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer. The optimal endocrine treatment for chemotherapy-treated perimenopausal women, who generally develop chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea, is uncertain. Methods All Dutch women who received adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine treatment for stage I-III, ER+ (>10% positive cells), invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2007 were identified through the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Included women were considered perimenopausal based on an age at diagnosis of 45 to 50 years (n = 2295). For each patient, AI treatment duration relative to total endocrine treatment duration was calculated. Predominantly tamoxifen-treated patients (AI < 25%) were compared with those receiving AI and tamoxifen for a similar duration (AI 25%-75%) and those mostly using AI (AI > 75%). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were calculated using time-dependent Cox regression. Results After an average follow-up of 7.6 years, 377 RFS events occurred. Women mostly receiving AI (AI > 75%) had the best RFS (adjusted HR = 0.63, 95% confidence interval = 0.46 to 0.86) followed by those receiving AI 25% to 75% (adjusted HR = 0.85, 95% confidence interval = 0.65 to 1.12) compared with predominantly tamoxifen-treated women. Trend analyses showed that every 10% increase in AI-endocrine treatment ratio reduced RFS event risk by 5% (2-sided Ptrend = .002). In total, 236 deaths occurred; hazard ratios for overall survival showed similar trends. Conclusions These results suggest that the best adjuvant endocrine treatment for chemotherapy-treated, ER+ breast cancer patients diagnosed aged 45-50 years consists of mainly AI followed by a switch strategy and mainly tamoxifen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gwen Mhe Dackus
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Katarzyna Jóźwiak
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Haus O, Fehrbelliner Straße 38, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Elsken van der Wall
- Division Cancer Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Paul J van Diest
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Health Technology & Services Research (HTSR), University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Haus O, Fehrbelliner Straße 38, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Geenen JJJ, Dackus GMHE, Schouten PC, Pluim D, Marchetti S, Sonke GS, Jóźwiak K, Huitema ADR, Beijnen JH, Schellens JHM, Linn SC. A Phase I dose-escalation study of two cycles carboplatin-olaparib followed by olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer. Int J Cancer 2021; 148:3041-3050. [PMID: 33539540 PMCID: PMC8248128 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33498] [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] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2020] [Revised: 12/18/2020] [Accepted: 12/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Preclinical studies have shown synergistic effects when combining PARP1/2 inhibitors and platinum drugs in BRCA1/2 mutated cancer cell models. After a formulation change of olaparib from capsules to tablets, we initiated a dose finding study of olaparib tablets bidaily (BID) continuously with carboplatin to prepare comparative studies in this patient group. Patients were included in a 3 + 3 dose‐escalation schedule: olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 3 mg*min/mL d1/d22, olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22, followed by increasing dose‐levels of olaparib from 50 mg BID, 75 mg BID, to 100 mg BID with carboplatin at AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22. After two cycles, patients continued olaparib 300 mg BID as monotherapy. Primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerable dose (MTD). Twenty‐four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of advanced cancer were included. Most common adverse events were nausea (46%), fatigue (33%) and platelet count decrease (33%). Dose‐level 3 (olaparib 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL; n = 6) was defined as MTD. Fourteen out of 24 patients (56%) had a partial response as best response (RECIST 1.1). Systemic exposure of the olaparib tablet formulation appeared comparable to the previous capsule formulation with olaparib tablet AUC0‐12 of 16.3 μg/mL*h at MTD. Polymers of ADP‐ribose levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were reduced by 98.7% ± 0.14% at Day 8 compared to Day 1 for dose‐level 3. Olaparib tablets 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL for two cycles preceding olaparib monotherapy 300 mg is a feasible and tolerable treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer.
What's new?
Preclinical studies have shown synergistic effects when combining PARP1/2‐inhibitors and platinum drugs in BRCA1/2 mutated cancer cell models. This phase I trial of olaparib tablets combined with carboplatin in advanced cancer patients showed that the combination has an acceptable side‐effect profile. The maximum tolerable dose was olaparib tablets 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/ml. The observed preliminary anti‐tumor activity was encouraging, with 58% of patients having a decrease in tumor volume of more than 30%. This study shows that the tablet formulation of olaparib can be administered safely in combination with carboplatin, compared to the previous capsule formulation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jill J J Geenen
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Division of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gwen M H E Dackus
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, Utrecht University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Philip C Schouten
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Dick Pluim
- Division of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Serena Marchetti
- Division of Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Katarzyna Jóźwiak
- Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Alwin D R Huitema
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Utrecht University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Faculty of Science, Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jos H Beijnen
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Utrecht University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Faculty of Science, Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jan H M Schellens
- Faculty of Science, Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, Utrecht University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital - Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Steenbruggen TG, Schaapveld M, Horlings HM, Sanders J, Hogewoning SJ, Lips EH, Vrancken Peeters MJT, Kok NF, Wiersma T, Esserman L, van 't Veer LJ, Linn SC, Siesling S, Sonke GS. Characterization of Oligometastatic Disease in a Real-World Nationwide Cohort of 3447 Patients With de Novo Metastatic Breast Cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2021; 5:pkab010. [PMID: 33977227 PMCID: PMC8099998 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkab010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [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: 12/02/2020] [Revised: 12/08/2020] [Accepted: 01/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Observational studies in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) show that long-term overall survival (OS) is associated with limited tumor burden, or oligo-MBC (OMBC). However, a uniform definition of OMBC is lacking. In this real-world nationwide cohort, we aimed to define the optimal OMBC threshold and factors associated with survival in patients with OMBC. Methods 3535 patients aged younger than 80 years at diagnosis of de novo MBC in the Netherlands between January 2000 and December 2007 were included. Detailed clinical, therapy, and outcome data were collected from medical records of a sample of the patients. Using inverse-sampling-probability weighting, the analysis cohort (n = 3447) was constructed. We assessed OS according to number of metastases at diagnosis to determine the optimal OMBC threshold. Next, we applied Cox regression models with inverse-sampling-probability weighting to study associations with OS and progression-free survival in OMBC. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Compared with more than 5 distant metastases, adjusted hazard ratios for OS (with 95% confidence interval [CI] based on robust standard errors) for 1, 2-3, and 4-5 metastases were 0.70 (95% CI = 0.52 to 0.96), 0.63 (95% CI = 0.45 to 0.89), and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.61 to 1.37), respectively. Ten-year OS estimates for patients with no more than 3 vs more than 3 metastases were 14.9% and 3.4% (P < .001). In multivariable analyses, premenopausal andperimenopausal status, absence of lung metastases, and local therapy of metastases (surgery and/or radiotherapy) added to systemic therapy were statistically significantly associated with better OS and progression-free survival in OMBC, independent of local therapy of the primary tumor. Conclusion OMBC defined as MBC limited to 1-3 metastases was associated with favorable OS. In OMBC, local therapy of metastases was associated with better OS, particularly if patients were premenopausal or perimenopausal without lung metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tessa G Steenbruggen
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Michael Schaapveld
- Department of Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hugo M Horlings
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Joyce Sanders
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sander J Hogewoning
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Esther H Lips
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Niels F Kok
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Terry Wiersma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Laura Esserman
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Laura J van 't Veer
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Molecular Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, the Netherlands.,Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Sipos O, Tovey H, Quist J, Haider S, Nowinski S, Gazinska P, Kernaghan S, Toms C, Maguire S, Orr N, Linn SC, Owen J, Gillett C, Pinder SE, Bliss JM, Tutt A, Cheang MCU, Grigoriadis A. Assessment of structural chromosomal instability phenotypes as biomarkers of carboplatin response in triple negative breast cancer: the TNT trial. Ann Oncol 2021; 32:58-65. [PMID: 33098992 PMCID: PMC7784666 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.10.475] [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] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2020] [Revised: 08/05/2020] [Accepted: 10/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the TNT trial of triple negative breast cancer (NCT00532727), germline BRCA1/2 mutations were present in 28% of carboplatin responders. We assessed quantitative measures of structural chromosomal instability (CIN) to identify a wider patient subgroup within TNT with preferential benefit from carboplatin over docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS Copy number aberrations (CNAs) were established from 135 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary carcinomas using Illumina OmniExpress SNP-arrays. Seven published [allelic imbalanced CNA (AiCNA); allelic balanced CNA (AbCNA); copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity (CnLOH); number of telomeric allelic imbalances (NtAI); BRCA1-like status; percentage of genome altered (PGA); homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) scores] and two novel [Shannon diversity index (SI); high-level amplifications (HLAMP)] CIN-measurements were derived. HLAMP was defined based on the presence of at least one of the top 5% amplified cytobands located on 1q, 8q and 10p. Continuous CIN-measurements were divided into tertiles. All nine CIN-measurements were used to analyse objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Patients with tumours without HLAMP had a numerically higher ORR and significantly longer PFS in the carboplatin (C) than in the docetaxel (D) arm [56% (C) versus 29% (D), PHLAMP,quiet = 0.085; PFS 6.1 months (C) versus 4.1 months (D), Pinteraction/HLAMP = 0.047]. In the carboplatin arm, patients with tumours showing intermediate telomeric NtAI and AiCNA had higher ORR [54% (C) versus 20% (D), PNtAI,intermediate = 0.03; 62% (C) versus 33% (D), PAiCNA,intermediate = 0.076]. Patients with high AiCNA and PGA had shorter PFS in the carboplatin arm [3.4 months (high) versus 5.7 months (low/intermediate); and 3.8 months (high) versus 5.6 months (low/intermediate), respectively; Pinteraction/AiCNA = 0.027, Padj.interaction/AiCNA = 0.125 and Pinteraction/PGA = 0.053, Padj.interaction/PGA = 0.176], whilst no difference was observed in the docetaxel arm. CONCLUSIONS Patients with tumours lacking HLAMP and demonstrating intermediate CIN-measurements formed a subgroup benefitting from carboplatin relative to docetaxel treatment within the TNT trial. This suggests a complex and paradoxical relationship between the extent of genomic instability in primary tumours and treatment response in the metastatic setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O Sipos
- Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - H Tovey
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - J Quist
- Breast Cancer Now Unit, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK; School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK
| | - S Haider
- Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - S Nowinski
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK
| | - P Gazinska
- Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - S Kernaghan
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - C Toms
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - S Maguire
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - N Orr
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - S C Linn
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - J Owen
- King's Health Partners Cancer Biobank, London, UK
| | - C Gillett
- King's Health Partners Cancer Biobank, London, UK
| | - S E Pinder
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK
| | - J M Bliss
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - A Tutt
- Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Breast Cancer Now Unit, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK; School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK
| | - M C U Cheang
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - A Grigoriadis
- Breast Cancer Now Unit, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK; School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Steenbruggen TG, Steggink LC, Seynaeve CM, van der Hoeven JJM, Hooning MJ, Jager A, Konings IR, Kroep JR, Smit WM, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, van der Wall E, Bins AD, Linn SC, Schaapveld M, Jacobse JN, van Leeuwen FE, Schröder CP, van Tinteren H, de Vries EGE, Sonke GS, Gietema JA. High-Dose Chemotherapy With Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant in Patients With High-Risk Breast Cancer and 4 or More Involved Axillary Lymph Nodes: 20-Year Follow-up of a Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2020; 6:528-534. [PMID: 31999296 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6276] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [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: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
Importance Trials of adjuvant high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) have failed to show a survival benefit in unselected patients with breast cancer, but long-term follow-up is lacking. Objective To determine 20-year efficacy and safety outcomes of a large trial of adjuvant HDCT vs conventional-dose chemotherapy (CDCT) for patients with stage III breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This secondary analysis used data from a randomized phase 3 multicenter clinical trial of 885 women younger than 56 years with breast cancer and 4 or more involved axillary lymph nodes conducted from August 1, 1993, to July 31, 1999. Additional follow-up data were collected between June 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, from medical records, general practitioners, the Dutch national statistical office, and nationwide cancer registries. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Statistical analysis was performed from February 1, 2018, to October 14, 2019. Interventions Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 5 cycles of CDCT consisting of fluorouracil, 500 mg/m2, epirubicin, 90 mg/m2, and cyclophosphamide, 500 mg/m2, or HDCT in which the first 4 cycles were identical to CDCT and the fifth cycle was replaced by cyclophosphamide, 6000 mg/m2, thiotepa, 480 mg/m2, and carboplatin, 1600 mg/m2, followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Main Outcomes and Measures Main end points were overall survival and safety and cumulative incidence risk of a second malignant neoplasm or cardiovascular events. Results Of the 885 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 44.5 [6.6] years), 442 were randomized to receive HDCT, and 443 were randomized to receive CDCT. With 20.4 years median follow-up (interquartile range, 19.2-22.0 years), the 20-year overall survival was 45.3% with HDCT and 41.5% with CDCT (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.06). The absolute improvement in 20-year overall survival was 14.6% (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95) for patients with 10 or more invoved axillary lymph nodes and 15.4% (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.05) for patients with triple-negative breast cancer. The cumulative incidence risk of a second malignant neoplasm at 20 years or major cardiovascular events was similar in both treatment groups (20-year cumulative incidence risk for second malignant neoplasm was 12.1% in the HDCT group vs 16.2% in the CDCT group, P = .10), although patients in the HDCT group more often had hypertension (21.7% vs 14.3%, P = .02), hypercholesterolemia (15.7% vs 10.6%, P = .04), and dysrhythmias (8.6% vs 4.6%, P = .005). Conclusions and Relevance High-dose chemotherapy provided no long-term survival benefit in unselected patients with stage III breast cancer but did provide improved overall survival in very high-risk patients (ie, with ≥10 involved axillary lymph nodes). High-dose chemotherapy did not affect long-term risk of a second malignant neoplasm or major cardiovascular events. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03087409.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tessa G Steenbruggen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lars C Steggink
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Caroline M Seynaeve
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Maartje J Hooning
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Inge R Konings
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Judith R Kroep
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Wim M Smit
- Department of Internal Medicine/Medical Oncology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | | | - Elsken van der Wall
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Adriaan D Bins
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Michael Schaapveld
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Judy N Jacobse
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Flora E van Leeuwen
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Carolien P Schröder
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Harm van Tinteren
- Department of Biostatistics, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Elisabeth G E de Vries
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jourik A Gietema
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
van der Meer DJ, Kramer I, van Maaren MC, van Diest PJ, C Linn S, Maduro JH, J A Strobbe L, Siesling S, Schmidt MK, Voogd AC. Comprehensive trends in incidence, treatment, survival and mortality of first primary invasive breast cancer stratified by age, stage and receptor subtype in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2017. Int J Cancer 2020; 148:2289-2303. [PMID: 33252836 PMCID: PMC8048677 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [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: 06/05/2020] [Revised: 10/27/2020] [Accepted: 11/11/2020] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Our study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of trends in incidence, survival, mortality and treatment of first primary invasive breast cancer (BC), according to age, stage and receptor subtype in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2017. Data from all women diagnosed with first primary stage I to IV BC (N = 320 249) were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. BC mortality and general population data were retrieved from Statistics Netherlands. Age-standardised incidence and mortality rates were calculated with annual percentage change (APC) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) statistics. The relative survival (RS) was used as estimator for disease-specific survival. The BC incidence for all BC patients combined significantly increased until 2013 from 126 to 158 per 100 000 person-years, after which a declining trend was observed. Surgery became less extensive, but (neo-)adjuvant systemic treatments and their combinations were given more frequently. The RS improved for all age groups and for most stages and receptor subtypes, but remained stable for all subtypes since 2012 to 2013 and since 2000 to 2009 for Stage IV BC at 15 years of follow-up. Overall, the 5- and 10-year RS increased from 76.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.1, 77.4) and 55.9% (95% CI: 54.7, 57.1) in 1989 to 1999 to 91.0% (95% CI: 90.5, 91.5) and 82.9% (95% CI: 82.2, 83.5), respectively, in 2010 to 2016. BC mortality improved regardless of age and overall decreased from 57 to 35 per 100 000 person-years between 1989 and 2017. In conclusion, the BC incidence in the Netherlands has steadily increased since 1989, but the latest trends show promising declines. Survival improved markedly for most patients and the mortality decreased regardless of age.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniël J van der Meer
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht
| | - Iris Kramer
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marissa C van Maaren
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht.,Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Center, University of Twente, Enschede
| | - Paul J van Diest
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht
| | | | - John H Maduro
- Department of radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen
| | - Luc J A Strobbe
- Department of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht.,Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Center, University of Twente, Enschede
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Adri C Voogd
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht.,Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Bruin MAC, Korse CM, van Wijnen B, de Jong VMT, Linn SC, van Triest B, Rosing H, Beijnen JH, van den Broek D, Huitema ADR. A real or apparent decrease in glomerular filtration rate in patients using olaparib? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2020; 77:179-188. [PMID: 33319340 PMCID: PMC7803870 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-020-03070-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [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: 05/11/2020] [Accepted: 12/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Olaparib is a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor indicated for ovarian and metastatic breast cancer. Increased serum creatinine levels have been observed in patients taking olaparib, but the underlying mechanism is unknown. This study aimed to investigate if patients receiving olaparib have increased creatinine levels during olaparib treatment and whether this actually relates to a declined glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Methods We retrospectively identified patients using olaparib at the Netherlands Cancer Institute – Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (NKI-AVL) from 2012 until 2020. Patients with at least one plasma or serum sample available at baseline/off treatment and during olaparib treatment were included. Cystatin C levels were measured, creatinine levels were available and renal function was determined by calculating the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the Creatinine Equation (CKD-EPI 2009) and the Cystatin C Equation (CKD-EPI 2012). Results In total, 66 patients were included. Olaparib treatment was associated with a 14% increase in median creatinine from 72 (inter quartile range (IQR): 22) μmol/L before/off treatment to 82 (IQR: 20) μmol/L during treatment (p < 0.001) and a 13% decrease in median creatinine-derived eGFR from 86 (IQR: 26) mL/min/1.73 m2 before/off treatment to 75 (IQR: 29) mL/min/1.73 m2 during treatment (p < 0.001). Olaparib treatment had no significant effect on median cystatin C levels (p = 0.520) and the median cystatin C–derived eGFR (p = 0.918). Conclusions This study demonstrates that olaparib likely causes inhibition of renal transporters leading to a reversible and dose-dependent increase in creatinine and does not affect GFR, since the median cystatin C–derived eGFR was comparable before/off treatment and during treatment of olaparib. Using the creatinine-derived eGFR can give an underestimation of GFR in patients taking olaparib. Therefore, an alternative renal marker such as cystatin C should be used to accurately calculate eGFR in patients taking olaparib.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M A C Bruin
- Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - C M Korse
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B van Wijnen
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - V M T de Jong
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S C Linn
- Department of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B van Triest
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H Rosing
- Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J H Beijnen
- Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D van den Broek
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A D R Huitema
- Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Pharmacology, Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|