Prognostic value of histopathologic traits independent of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte levels in chemotherapy-naïve patients with triple-negative breast cancer

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.

High-dose alkylating chemotherapy in BRCA-altered triple-negative breast cancer: the randomized phase III NeoTN trial

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.

Which reasons do doctors, nurses, and patients have for hospital discharge? A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

The decision to discharge a patient from a hospital is a complex process governed by many medical and non-medical factors, while the actual reasons for discharge frequently remain ill-defined.

AIM

To define relevant discharge criteria as perceived by doctors, nurses and patients for the development of a standard hospital discharge policy, we collected actual reasons and most pivotal medical and organisational criteria for discharge among all stakeholders.

SETTING

A tertiary referral university teaching hospital.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods analysis, using patient questionnaires, interviews and a focus group with caregivers, and observations during the daily rounds of doctors, nurses and patients during their hospital stay. Fourteen wards of the Surgery, Paediatrics and Neurology departments contributed.

RESULTS

We observed 426 patients during their hospital stay. Forty doctors and nurses were interviewed, and 7 senior nurses attended a focus group. The most commonly used discharge criteria were clinical factors, organisational discharge issues and patient-related factors. A total of 269 patients returned their questionnaires. About one third of the adult patients and nearly half of the children (or their parents) felt their personal situation and assistance needed at home was insufficiently taken into account before discharge. Patients were least satisfied with the information given about what they were allowed to do or should avoid after discharge and their involvement in the planning of their discharge. Thus, besides obvious medical reasons for discharge, several non-medical reasons were signalled by all stakeholders as important issues to be improved.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of discharge criteria could be defined that is useful for a more uniform hospital discharge policy that may help reduce unnecessary length of stay and improve patient satisfaction.