Influence of Height on Risk and Outcome of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 4,925 Patients from 5 Randomized Trials of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG).

Background: Associations between height, cancer risk and worse outcome have been reported for several cancers including breast cancer. We hypothesized that in breast cancer clinical trials, tall women should be overrepresented and might have worse prognosis. Methods: Data of 4,935 women, included from 1990 to 2010 in 5 trials of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG), were analyzed retrospectively. The primary objective was to determine differences in height distribution between the ABCSG cohort and the Austrian female population according to a cross-sectional health survey conducted by the Austrian Statistic Center in 2006 and 2007. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in different height classes and differences of body mass index (BMI) distribution. Results: Breast cancer patients in the ABCSG cohort were only slightly but statistically significantly smaller compared to unselected Austrian adult females (mean 164.3 vs. 164.8 cm; p < 0.0001) and significantly more patients were seen in the lower body height class (50 vs. 46%; p < 0.0001) when using the median as a cutoff. However, after adjustment for age, the difference in body height between the two cohorts was no longer significant (p = 0.089). DFS and OS in the two upper height groups (≥170 cm) compared to the two lowest height groups (<160 cm) was not significantly different (5-year DFS: 84.7 vs. 83.0%; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73-1.13, p = 0.379; 5-year OS: 94.8 vs. 91.7%; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-1.00, p = 0.051). The BMI of ABCSG patients was significantly higher than in the reference population (mean BMI 24.64 vs. 23.96; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our results do not confirm previous findings that greater body height is associated with a higher breast cancer risk and worse outcome.

Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis Comparing Conventional with Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Oncological and Surgical Outcomes in Women with High-Risk Breast Cancer from the OPBC-01/iTOP2 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggest that margins ≥2 mm after breast-conserving surgery may improve local control in invasive breast cancer (BC). By allowing large resection volumes, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCII; Clough level II/Tübingen 5-6) may achieve better local control than conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS; Tübingen 1-2) or oncoplastic breast conservation with low resection volumes (OBCI; Clough level I/Tübingen 3-4). METHODS: Data from consecutive high-risk BC patients treated in 15 centers from the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) network, between January 2010 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 3,177 women were included, 30% of whom were treated with OBC (OBCI n = 663; OBCII n = 297). The BCS/OBCI group had significantly smaller tumors and smaller resection margins compared with OBCII (pT1: 50% vs. 37%, p = 0.002; proportion with margin <1 mm: 17% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). There were significantly more re-excisions due to R1 ("ink on tumor") in the BCS/OBCI compared with the OBCII group (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.049). Univariate and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for tumor biology, tumor size, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment demonstrated no differences in local, regional, or distant recurrence-free or overall survival between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Large resection volumes in oncoplastic surgery increases the distance from cancer cells to the margin of the specimen and reduces reexcision rates significantly. With OBCII larger tumors are resected with similar local, regional and distant recurrence-free as well as overall survival rates as BCS/OBCI.

Duration of Adjuvant Aromatase-Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer, the most effective duration for adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor remains unclear. METHODS: In this prospective, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer who had received 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy to receive the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole for an additional 2 years (2-year group, receiving a total of 7 years) or an additional 5 years (5-year group, receiving a total of 10 years). The primary end point was disease-free survival. The primary analysis included all the patients who were still participating in the trial and who had no recurrence 2 years after randomization (i.e., when treatment in the 2-year group had ended). Secondary end points were overall survival, contralateral breast cancer, second primary cancer, and clinical bone fracture. RESULTS: Among the 3484 women who were enrolled in the trial, 3208 remained in the trial without disease progression after the first 2 years of extended anastrozole treatment following randomization. Among these women, disease progression or death occurred in 335 women in each treatment group in the primary-analysis set at 8 years (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.15; P = 0.90). No between-group differences occurred in most secondary end points, and subgroup analyses did not indicate differences in any particular subgroup. The risk of clinical bone fracture was higher in the 5-year group than in the 2-year group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.84). CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer who had received 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy, extending hormone therapy by 5 years provided no benefit over a 2-year extension but was associated with a greater risk of bone fracture. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group; ABCSG-16/SALSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00295620.).

Endocrine therapy with or without whole breast irradiation in low-risk breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery: 10-year results of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group 8A trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate long-term results of patients with hormonal receptor-positive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and consecutive endocrine therapy (ET) with or without whole breast irradiation (WBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Within the 8 A trial of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group, a total of 869 patients received ET after BCS which was randomly followed by WBI (n = 439, group 1) or observation (n = 430, group 2). WBI was applied up to a mean total dosage of 50 Gy (+/- 10 Gy boost) in conventional fractionation. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 9.89 years, 10 in-breast recurrences (IBRs) were observed in group 1 and 31 in group 2, resulting in a 10-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) of 97.5% and 92.4%, respectively (p = 0.004). This translated into significantly higher rates for disease-free survival (DFS): 94.5% group 1 vs 88.4% group 2, p = 0.0156. For distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS), respective 10-year rates amounted 96.7% and 86.6% for group 1 versus 96.4% and 87.6%, for group 2 (ns). WBI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.27, p < 0.01) and tumour grading (HR: 3.76, p = 0.03) were found as significant predictors for IBR in multiple cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10 years, WBI resulted in a better local control and DFS compared with ET alone. The omission of WBI and tumour grading, respectively, were the only negative predictors for LRFS.

Risk Factors for Local Relapse and Inferior Disease-free Survival After Breast-conserving Management of Breast Cancer: Recursive Partitioning Analysis of 2161 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze risk factors for ipsilateral in-breast relapse and inferior disease-free survival (DFS) after standard adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy (± boost and systemic treatment) as part of a multimodal breast-conserving approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Decision trees were built through recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). The median follow-up for all 2161 patients was 114 months (9.5 years). RESULTS: Local relapse in the treated breast was uncommon (actuarial rates after 5 and 10 years were 2.7% and 5.8%, respectively). In RPA, the first split was related to age (52 years), with younger patients having a significantly higher risk of local relapse. The younger patients were stratified further by lymph node ratio (LNR). In patients older than 52 years, lack of endocrine treatment was associated with significantly higher risk. DFS was 80.7% at 10 years. The first split was caused by LNR, and the group with unfavorable LNR (> 0.20) could not be stratified further. Ten-year DFS in this group was as low as 50.6%. Patients with favorable LNR (0-0.20) could be stratified by additional risk factors, in particular primary tumor size. CONCLUSION: RPA is a suitable method to assign patients with early stage breast cancer to different risk groups, both regarding local relapse and DFS. Although age was a major risk factor for local relapse after breast-conserving management, LNR was associated with both endpoints. The systemic treatment approaches used in this study failed to provide satisfactory DFS in patients with LNR > 0.20 and 2 other subgroups.

The influence of breast cancer subtypes on axillary ultrasound accuracy: A retrospective single center analysis of 583 women.

INTRODUCTION: Axillary ultrasound staging (AUS) is an important tool to guide clinical decisions in breast cancer therapy, especially regarding axillary surgery but also radiation therapy. It is unknown whether biological subtypes influence axillary staging using ultrasound (AUS). METHOD: This is a retrospective single center analysis. All patients with breast cancer, a preoperative axillary ultrasound and a complete surgical axillary staging were included between 1999 and 2014, except patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). The results of the AUS were compared with final pathological results. Biological subtypes were identified by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: 583 women were included in the study. Sensitivity, Specificity, positive and negative predictive value for AUS were 39%, 96%, 91% and 83%. While sensitivity was significantly lower in Luminal A and B patients (25.0%; 39.8%) as compared to non Luminal breast cancer patients (TN 68.8%; Her2+ 71.4%; p = 0.0032), there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to specificity, PPV and NPV. CONCLUSION: Solely regarding sensitivity of AUS, our study could show significant differences between biological subtypes of breast cancer with lower sensitivity in Luminal patients. While PPV was excellent, standing for a low overtreatment rate using AUS for clinical decision making, sensitivity was poor overall, comparable to the results of other studies.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: 62-month follow-up from the ABCSG-12 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group trial-12 (ABCSG-12) at 48 months' follow-up showed that addition of zoledronic acid to adjuvant endocrine therapy significantly improved disease-free survival. We have now assessed long-term clinical efficacy including disease-free survival and disease outcomes in patients receiving anastrozole or tamoxifen with or without zoledronic acid. METHODS: ABSCG-12 is a randomised, controlled, open-label, two-by-two factorial, multicentre trial in 1803 premenopausal women with endocrine-receptor-positive early-stage (stage I-II) breast cancer receiving goserelin (3.6 mg every 28 days), comparing the efficacy and safety of anastrozole (1 mg per day) or tamoxifen (20 mg per day) with or without zoledronic acid (4 mg every 6 months) for 3 years. Randomisation (1:1:1:1 ratio) was computerised and based on the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to balance the four treatment arms across eight prognostic variables (age, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathological tumour stage; lymph-node involvement, type of surgery or locoregional therapy, complete axillary dissection, intraoperative radiation therapy, and geographical region). Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (defined as disease recurrence or death) and analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00295646; follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: At a median follow-up of 62 months (range 0-114.4 months), more than 2 years after treatment completion, 186 disease-free survival events had been reported (53 events in 450 patients on tamoxifen alone, 57 in 453 patients on anastrozole alone, 36 in 450 patients on tamoxifen plus zoledronic acid, and 40 in 450 patients on anastrozole plus zoledronic acid). Zoledronic acid reduced risk of disease-free survival events overall (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.91; p=0.009), although the difference was not significant in the tamoxifen (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44-1.03; p=0.067) and anastrozole arms (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.45-1.02; p=0.061) assessed separately. Zoledronic acid did not significantly affect risk of death (30 deaths with zoledronic acid vs 43 deaths without; HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41-1.07; p=0.09). There was no difference in disease-free survival between patients on tamoxifen alone versus anastrozole alone (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81-1.44; p=0.591), but overall survival was worse with anastrozole than with tamoxifen (46 vs 27 deaths; HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.83; p=0.02). Treatments were generally well tolerated, with no reports of renal failure or osteonecrosis of the jaw. Bone pain was reported in 601 patients (33%; 349 patients on zoledronic acid vs 252 not on the drug), fatigue in 361 (20%; 192 vs 169), headache in 280 (16%; 147 vs 133), and arthralgia in 266 (15%; 145 vs 121). INTERPRETATION: Addition of zoledronic acid improved disease-free survival in the patients taking anastrozole or tamoxifen. There was no difference in disease-free survival between patients receiving anastrozole and tamoxifen overall, but those on anastrozole alone had inferior overall survival. These data show persistent benefits with zoledronic acid and support its addition to adjuvant endocrine therapy in premenopausal patients with early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca; Novartis.