Analytical validation of the 7-gene biosignature for prediction of recurrence risk and radiation therapy benefit for breast ductal carcinoma in situ.

Purpose: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), is a noninvasive breast cancer, representing 20-25% of breast cancer diagnoses in the USA. Current treatment options for DCIS include mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with or without radiation therapy (RT), but optimal risk-adjusted treatment selection remains a challenge. Findings from past and recent clinical trials have failed to identify a 'low risk' group of patients who do not benefit significantly from RT after BCS. To address this unmet need, a DCIS biosignature, DCISionRT (PreludeDx, Laguna Hills, CA), was developed and validated in multiple cohorts. DCISionRT is a molecular assay with an algorithm reporting a recurrence risk score for patients diagnosed with DCIS intended to guide DCIS treatment. In this study, we present results from analytical validity, performance assessment, and clinical performance validation and clinical utility for the DCISionRT test comprised of multianalyte assays with algorithmic analysis. Methods: The analytical validation of each molecular assay was performed based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines Quality Assurance for Design Control and Implementation of Immunohistochemistry Assays and the College of American Pathologists/American Society of Clinical Oncology (CAP/ASCO) recommendations for analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays. Results: The analytic validation showed that the molecular assays that are part of DCISionRT test have high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy/reproducibility (≥95%). The analytic precision of the molecular assays under controlled non-standard conditions had a total standard deviation of 6.6 (100-point scale), where the analytic variables (Lot, Machine, Run) each contributed <1% of the total variance. Additionally, the precision in the DCISionRT test result (DS) had a 95%CI ≤0.4 DS units under controlled non-standard conditions (Day, Lot, and Machine) for molecular assays over a wide range of clinicopathologic factor values. Clinical validation showed that the test identified 37% of patients in a low-risk group with a 10-year invasive IBR rate of ~3% and an absolute risk reduction (ARR) from RT of 1% (number needed to treat, NNT=100), while remaining patients with higher DS scores (elevated-risk) had an ARR for RT of 9% (NNT=11) and 96% clinical sensitivity for RT benefit. Conclusion: The analytical performance of the PreludeDx DCISionRT molecular assays was high in representative formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast tumor specimens. The DCISionRT test has been analytically validated and has been clinically validated in multiple peer-reviewed published studies.

A Novel Biosignature Identifies Patients With DCIS With High Risk of Local Recurrence After Breast Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: There is an unmet need to identify women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with a low risk of in-breast recurrence (IBR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS), which could omit radiation therapy (RT), and also to identify those with elevated IBR risk remaining after BCS plus RT. We evaluated a novel biosignature for a residual risk subtype (RRt) to help identify patients with elevated IBR risk after BCS plus RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Women with DCIS treated with BCS with or without RT at centers in the US, Australia, and Sweden (n = 926) were evaluated. Patients were classified into 3 biosignature risk groups using the decision score (DS) and the RRt category: (1) Low Risk (DS ≤2.8 without RRt), (2) Elevated Risk (DS >2.8 without RRt), and (3) Residual Risk (DS >2.8 with RRt). Total and invasive IBR rates were assessed by risk group and treatment. RESULTS: In patients at low risk, there was no significant difference in IBR rates with or without RT (total, P = .8; invasive IBR, P = .7), and there were low overall 10-year rates (total, 5.1%; invasive, 2.7%). In patients with elevated risk, IBR rates were decreased with RT (total: hazard ratio [HR], 0.25; P < .001; invasive: HR, 0.28; P = .005); 10-year rates were 20.6% versus 4.9% (total) and 10.9% versus 3.1% (invasive). In patients with residual risk, although IBR rates decreased with RT after BCS (total: HR, 0.21; P < .001; invasive: HR, 0.29; P = .028), IBR rates remained significantly higher after RT compared with patients with elevated risk (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4; P = .018), with 10-year rates of 42.1% versus 14.7% (total) and 18.3% versus 6.5% (invasive). CONCLUSIONS: The novel biosignature identified patients with 3 distinct risk profiles: Low Risk patients with a low recurrence risk with or without adjuvant RT, Elevated Risk patients with excellent outcomes after BCS plus RT, and Residual Risk patients with an elevated recurrence risk remaining after BCS plus RT, warranting potential intensified or alternative treatment approaches.

Prognostic Risk Assessment and Prediction of Radiotherapy Benefit for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast, in a Randomized Clinical Trial (SweDCIS).

Prediction of radiotherapy (RT) benefit after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for DCIS is crucial. The aim was to validate a biosignature, DCISionRT®, in the SweDCIS randomized trial. Women were randomly assigned to RT or not after BCS, between 1987 and 2000. Tumor blocks were collected, and slides were sent to PreludeDxTM for testing. In 504 women with complete data and negative margins, DCISionRT divided 52% women into Elevated (DS > 3) and 48% in Low (DS ≤ 3) Risk groups. In the Elevated Risk group, RT significantly decreased relative 10-year ipsilateral total recurrence (TotBE) and 10-year ipsilateral invasive recurrence (InvBE) rates, HR 0.32 and HR 0.24, with absolute decreases of 15.5% and 9.3%. In the Low Risk group, there were no significant risk differences observed with radiotherapy. Using a cutoff of DS > 3.0, the test was not predictive for RT benefit (p = 0.093); however, above DS > 2.8 RT benefit was greater for InvBE (interaction p = 0.038). Recurrences at 10 years without radiotherapy increased significantly per 5 DS units (TotBE HR:1.5 and InvBE HR:1.5). Continuous DS was prognostic for TotBE risk although categorical DS did not reach significance. Absolute 10-year TotBE and InvBE risks appear sufficiently different to indicate that DCISionRT can aid physicians in selecting individualized adjuvant DCIS treatment strategies. Further analyses are planned in combined cohorts to increase statistical power.

A Prospective, Single Arm, Multi-site, Clinical Evaluation of a Nonradioactive Surgical Guidance Technology for the Location of Nonpalpable Breast Lesions during Excision.

OBJECTIVES: This study was a multicenter evaluation of the SAVI SCOUT(®) breast localization and surgical guidance system using micro-impulse radar technology for the removal of nonpalpable breast lesions. The study was designed to validate the results of a recent 50-patient pilot study in a larger multi-institution trial. The primary endpoints were the rates of successful reflector placement, localization, and removal. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective trial enrolled patients scheduled to have excisional biopsy or breast-conserving surgery of a nonpalpable breast lesion. From March to November 2015, 154 patients were consented and evaluated by 20 radiologists and 16 surgeons at 11 participating centers. Patients had SCOUT(®) reflectors placed up to 7 days before surgery, and placement was confirmed by mammography or ultrasonography. Implanted reflectors were detected by the SCOUT(®) handpiece and console. Presence of the reflector in the excised surgical specimen was confirmed radiographically, and specimens were sent for routine pathology. RESULTS: SCOUT(®) reflectors were successfully placed in 153 of 154 patients. In one case, the reflector was placed at a distance from the target that required a wire to be placed. All 154 lesions and reflectors were successfully removed during surgery. For 101 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cancer, 86 (85.1 %) had clear margins, and 17 (16.8 %) patients required margin reexcision. CONCLUSIONS: SCOUT(®) provides a reliable and effective alternative method for the localization and surgical excision of nonpalpable breast lesions using no wires or radioactive materials, with excellent patient, radiologist, and surgeon acceptance.

Pilot Study of a New Nonradioactive Surgical Guidance Technology for Locating Nonpalpable Breast Lesions.

BACKGROUND: The current technique for locating nonpalpable breast lesions is wire localization (WL). Radioactive seed localization and intraoperative ultrasound were developed to improve difficulties with WL. The SAVI SCOUT surgical guidance system was developed to improve these methods. The SCOUT system is a non-radioactive, FDA-cleared medical device that uses electromagnetic wave technology to provide real-time guidance during excisional breast procedures. METHODS: Consenting patients underwent localization and excision using an implantable electromagnetic wave reflective device (reflector) and a detector handpiece with a console. Using image guidance, the reflector was placed up to 7 days before the surgical procedure. The primary end points of the study were successful reflector placement, localization, and retrieval. The secondary end points were percentage of clear margins, reexcision rates, days of placement before excision, and physician comparison with WL. RESULTS: This study analyzed 50 patients. The reflectors were placed under mammographic guidance (n = 18, 36 %) or ultrasound guidance (n = 32, 64 %). Of the 50 patients, 10 (20 %) underwent excisional biopsy and 40 (80 %) had a lumpectomy. The lesion and reflector were successfully removed in all 50 patients, and no adverse events occurred. Of the 41 patients who had in situ and/or invasive carcinoma identified, 38 (93 %) had clear margins and 3 (7 %) were recommended for reexcision. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the SCOUT system is safe and effective for guiding the excision of nonpalpable breast lesions and a viable alternative to standard localization options. A larger prospective, multi-institution trial of SCOUT currently is underway to validate these findings.

An Analysis of Inhalation Injury Diagnostic Methods and Patient Outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to compare patient outcomes according to the method of diagnosing burn inhalation injury. After approval from the American Burn Association, the National Burn Repository Dataset Version 8.0 was queried for patients with a diagnosis of burn inhalation injury. Subgroups were analyzed by diagnostic method as defined by the National Burn Repository. All diagnostic methods listed for each patient were included, comparing mortality, hospital days, intensive care unit (ICU) days, and ventilator days (VDs). Z-tests, t-tests, and linear regression were used with a statistical significance of P value of less than .05. The database query yielded 9775 patients diagnosed with inhalation injury. The greatest increase in mortality was associated with diagnosis by bronchoscopy or carbon monoxide poisoning. A relative increase in hospital days was noted with diagnosis by bronchoscopy (9 days) or history (2 days). A relative increase in ICU days was associated with diagnosis according to bronchoscopy (8 days), clinical findings (2 days), or history (2 days). A relative increase in VDs was associated with diagnosis by bronchoscopy (6 days) or carbon monoxide poisoning (3 days). The combination of diagnosis by bronchoscopy and clinical findings increased the relative difference across all comparison measures. The combination of diagnosis by bronchoscopy and carbon monoxide poisoning exhibited decreased relative differences when compared with bronchoscopy alone. Diagnosis by laryngoscopy showed no mortality or association with poor outcomes. Bronchoscopic evidence of inhalation injury proved most useful, predicting increased mortality, hospital, ICU, and VDs. A combined diagnosis determined by clinical findings and bronchoscopy should be considered for clinical practice.

Comparison of Allergan, Mentor, and Sientra Contoured Cohesive Gel Breast Implants: A Single Surgeon's 10-Year Experience.

BACKGROUND: Contoured cohesive gel breast implants have been recently approved in the United States. These implants have been available for premarket approval studies for selected surgeons. The purpose of this study was to assess a single surgeon's outcomes in three specific clinical situations-breast augmentation, secondary augmentation, and breast reconstruction-using implants of all three contoured cohesive gel implant manufacturers (Allergan, Mentor, and Sientra) over a 10-year period. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective study of contoured cohesive silicone gel breast implants. Demographic and outcomes data were recorded. Complication rates were compared among the three implant manufacturers. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2013, 695 patients were included from U.S. Food and Drug Administration clinical trials. Mean age at implantation was 42.7 years (range, 18 to 82 years), and mean time enrolled was 5.3 years (range, <1 to 10 years). One hundred sixty-four patients (24 percent) received Allergan implants, 245 (35 percent) received Mentor implants, and 286 (41 percent) received Sientra implants. Three hundred eighty-four patients (55 percent) underwent primary augmentation, 198 (29 percent) underwent secondary augmentation, and 113 (16 percent) underwent breast reconstruction. The total complication rate was the lowest for primary augmentation of the Mentor group compared with the Allergan and Sientra groups (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in complication rates when used for secondary augmentation and reconstruction. There was no statistically significant difference between implant group reoperation, explantation, or capsular contracture rates. Overall implant rupture and rotation rates were low (0.7 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively). Patient and surgeon satisfaction was high. CONCLUSIONS: Contoured cohesive gel breast implants overall have low complication rates and high patient and surgeon satisfaction. The authors believe these implants to be safe and effective in breast augmentation and reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Baseline immune biomarkers as predictors of MBSR(BC) treatment success in off-treatment breast cancer patients.

Researchers focused on patient-centered medicine are increasingly trying to identify baseline factors that predict treatment success. Because the quantity and function of lymphocyte subsets change during stress, we hypothesized that these subsets would serve as stress markers and therefore predict which breast cancer patients would benefit most from mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)-facilitated stress relief. The purpose of this study was to assess whether baseline biomarker levels predicted symptom improvement following an MBSR intervention for breast cancer survivors (MBSR[BC]). This randomized controlled trial involved 41 patients assigned to either an MBSR(BC) intervention group or a no-treatment control group. Biomarkers were assessed at baseline, and symptom change was assessed 6 weeks later. Biomarkers included common lymphocyte subsets in the peripheral blood as well as the ability of T cells to become activated and secrete cytokines in response to stimulation with mitogens. Spearman correlations were used to identify univariate relationships between baseline biomarkers and 6-week improvement of symptoms. Next, backward elimination regression models were used to identify the strongest predictors from the univariate analyses. Multiple baseline biomarkers were significantly positively related to 6-week symptom improvement. The regression models identified B-lymphocytes and interferon-γ as the strongest predictors of gastrointestinal improvement (p < .01), +CD4+CD8 as the strongest predictor of cognitive/psychological (CP) improvement (p = .02), and lymphocytes and interleukin (IL)-4 as the strongest predictors of fatigue improvement (p < .01). These results provide preliminary evidence of the potential to use baseline biomarkers as predictors to identify the patients likely to benefit from this intervention.

Molecular mechanisms of metastasis.

A major topic covered at the First International Symposium on Cancer Metastasis and the Lymphovascular System was the molecular mechanisms of metastasis. This has become of major interest in recent years as we have discovered new metastasis-related genes and gained understanding of the molecular events of lymphatic metastasis. The symposium covered new aspects and important questions related to the events of metastasis in both humans and animals. The basic and clinical related research covered in this topic represented many disciplines. The presentations showed novel findings and at the same time, raised many new unanswered questions, indicating the limited knowledge we still have regarding the molecular events of metastasis. The hope is that further unraveling of the direct and indirect molecular events of lymphatic metastasis will lead to new approaches in developing effective therapeutics.

Workshop on cancer biometrics: identifying biomarkers and surrogates of cancer in patients: a meeting held at the Masur Auditorium, National Institutes of Health.

The current excitement about molecular targeted therapies has driven much of the recent dialog in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Particularly in the biologic therapy of cancer, identifiable antigenic T-cell targets restricted by MHC molecules and the related novel stress molecules such as MICA/B and Letal allow a degree of precision previously unknown in cancer therapy. We have previously held workshops on immunologic monitoring and angiogenesis monitoring. This workshop was designed to discuss the state of the art in identification of biomarkers and surrogates of tumor in patients with cancer, with particular emphasis on assays within the blood and tumor. We distinguish this from immunologic monitoring in the sense that it is primarily a measure of the tumor burden as opposed to the immune response to it. Recommendations for intensive investigation and targeted funding to enable such strategies were developed in seven areas: genomic analysis; detection of molecular markers in peripheral blood and lymph node by tumor capture and RT-PCR; serum, plasma, and tumor proteomics; immune polymorphisms; high content screening using flow and imaging cytometry; immunohistochemistry and tissue microarrays; and assessment of immune infiltrate and necrosis in tumors. Concrete recommendations for current application and enabling further development in cancer biometrics are summarized. This will allow a more informed, rapid, and accurate assessment of novel cancer therapies.