Cost-effectiveness analysis of Oncotype DX from a Brazilian private medicine perspective: a GBECAM multicenter retrospective study.

Background: Oncotype DX (ODX) is a validated assay for the prediction of risk of recurrence and benefit of chemotherapy (CT) in both node negative (N0) and 1-3 positive nodes (N1), hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (eBC). Due to limited access to genomic assays in Brazil, treatment decisions remain largely driven by traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. ODX has been reported to be cost-effective in different health system, but limited data are available considering the reality of middle-income countries such as Brazil. We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ODX across strata of clinical risk groups using data from a dataset of patients from Brazilian institutions. Methods: Clinicopathologic and ODX information were analyzed for patients with T1-T3, N0-N1, HR+/HER2- eBC who had an ODX performed between 2005 and 2020. Projections of CT indication by clinicopathologic criteria were based on binary clinical risk categorization based on the Adjuvant! Algorithm. The ODX score was correlated with the indication of CT according to TAILORx and RxPONDER data. Two decision-tree models were developed. In the first model, low and high clinical risk patients were included while in the second, only high clinical risk patients were included. The cost for ODX and CT was based on the Brazilian private medicine perspective. Results: In all, 645 patients were analyzed; 411 patients (63.7%) had low clinical risk and 234 patients (36.3%) had high clinical risk disease. The ODX indicated low (<11), intermediate (11-25), and high (>25) risk in 119 (18.4%), 415 (64.3%), and 111 (17.2%) patients, respectively. Among 645 patients analyzed in the first model, ODX was effective (5.6% reduction in CT indication) though with an incremental cost of United States Dollar (US$) 2288.87 per patient. Among 234 patients analyzed in the second model (high clinical risk only), ODX led to a 57.7% reduction in CT indication and reduced costs by US$ 4350.66 per patient. Conclusions: Our study suggests that ODX is cost-saving for patients with high clinical risk HR+/HER2- eBC and cost-attractive for the overall population in the Brazilian private medicine perspective. Its incorporation into routine practice should be strongly considered by healthcare providers.

The Challenges of Tumor Mutational Burden as an Immunotherapy Biomarker.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) reflects cancer mutation quantity. Mutations are processed to neo-antigens and presented by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) proteins to T cells. To evade immune eradication, cancers exploit checkpoints that dampen T cell reactivity. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer treatment by enabling T cell reactivation; however, response biomarkers are required, as most patients do not benefit. Higher TMB results in more neo-antigens, increasing chances for T cell recognition, and clinically correlates with better ICI outcomes. Nevertheless, TMB is an imperfect response biomarker. A composite predictor that also includes critical variables, such as MHC and T cell receptor repertoire, is needed.

Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer: Current Practice and Clinical Challenges.

Immunotherapy is currently approved for a subset of patients diagnosed with advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), based on the phase III randomized controlled trial, IMpassion130. The anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab combined with nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel is currently the standard first-line therapy in patients with metastatic TNBC who have a PD-L1-positive peritumoral immune infiltrate. Although this approval is limited to only a subset of patients, strategies to expand indications in breast cancer for this treatment modality are being extensively evaluated. A substantial need exists for the identification of patient characteristics, disease settings, immune markers, ideal partners for combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the ideal sequence with traditional anticancer therapies. Additionally, in light of the results of the KEYNOTE-522 study of adjuvant pembrolizumab in TNBC, evaluation of immunotherapy in the early disease setting is a subject of great interest. This review article discusses current knowledge on immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinical practice, and provides an overview of a variety of markers evaluated to predict benefit of immunotherapy and of promising new strategies to enhance immune response and enable more patients to benefit from immunotherapy.

CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Current Practice and Knowledge.

Treatment paradigms in advanced hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer were substantially transformed with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) approval. The addition of these drugs to endocrine treatment profoundly improved progression-free and overall survival. Additionally, other important endpoints, such as the response rate, time to chemotherapy, and a delay in quality of life deterioration, were positively impacted by CDK4/6 inhibitors' addition to the treatment of advanced HR-positive breast cancer. This review article will summarize current knowledge on CDK4/6 inhibitors in clinical practice for advanced HR-positive metastatic breast cancer, as well as describe recent efforts to more precisely characterize mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance to these drugs, both on the molecular and clinical characterization level.

Impact of Delayed Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy on Overall Survival Among Patients with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Delays in the initiation of therapy among patients with early stage breast cancer (BC) can negatively affect outcomes. Patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (NSC) usually display tumors with high-risk features. Considering these high-risk characteristics and the evidence supporting adverse outcomes associated with delays in adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, we sought to determine whether a delay in NSC initiation is associated with overall survival (OS). METHODS: We identified patients diagnosed between January 1995 and December 2015 with invasive primary BC (stage I-III) who received NSC at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Patients were categorized according to their time from BC diagnosis to NSC (in days) into three subgroups: 0-30, 31-60, and ≥61 days. Primary endpoint was OS. Descriptive statistics and Cox's proportional hazard models were used. RESULTS: A total of 5,137 patients were included. Median follow-up was 6.5 years. The 5-year OS estimates according to time to NSC were 87%, 85%, and 83% in patients who received NSC within 0-30, 31-60, and ≥61 days after diagnosis, respectively (p = .006). In multivariable analysis, compared with time to NSC of 0-30 days, delayed NSC ≥61 days was associated with an increased risk of death (31-60 days: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.19]; ≥61 days, HR = 1.28 [95% CI 1.06-1.54]). In stratified analyses, the association between delay in NSC initiation and increased risk of death was statistically significant for patients with stage I and II BC (31-60 days: HR = 1.22 [95% CI 1.02-1.47]; ≥61 days, HR = 1.41 [95% CI 1.07-1.86]) and among patients with HER2-positive tumors ( ≥61 days, HR = 1.86 [95% CI 1.21-2.86]). CONCLUSION: A delay in NSC initiation of more than 61 days after BC diagnosis was associated with an increased risk of death. Early initiation of NSC should be a priority; multidisciplinary teams must focus on coordination of care and patient-centered, timely treatment planning and delivery. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study showed that a delay in neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy initiation of more than 61 days after breast cancer diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of death; therefore, efforts must focus on early initiation of therapy, which should be a priority. Multidisciplinary teams must enhance coordination of care and patient-centered, timely treatment planning and delivery.

Efficacy and safety of anticancer drug combinations: a meta-analysis of randomized trials with a focus on immunotherapeutics and gene-targeted compounds.

Hundreds of trials are being conducted to evaluate combination of newer targeted drugs as well as immunotherapy. Our aim was to compare efficacy and safety of combination versus single non-cytotoxic anticancer agents. We searched PubMed (01/01/2001 to 03/06/2018) (and, for immunotherapy, ASCO and ESMO abstracts (2016 through March 2018)) for randomized clinical trials that compared a single non-cytotoxic agent (targeted, hormonal, or immunotherapy) versus a combination with another non-cytotoxic partner. Efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated in a meta-analysis using a linear mixed-effects model (guidelines per PRISMA Report).We included 95 randomized comparisons (single vs. combination non-cytotoxic therapies) (59.4%, phase II; 41.6%, phase III trials) (29,175 patients (solid tumors)). Combinations most frequently included a hormonal agent and a targeted small molecule (23%). Compared to single non-cytotoxic agents, adding another non-cytotoxic drug increased response rate (odds ratio [OR]=1.61, 95%CI 1.40-1.84)and prolonged progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]=0.75, 95%CI 0.69-0.81)and overall survival (HR=0.87, 95%CI 0.81-0.94) (all p<0.001), which was most pronounced for the association between immunotherapy combinations and longer survival. Combinations also significantlyincreased the risk of high-grade toxicities (OR=2.42, 95%CI 1.98-2.97) (most notably for immunotherapy and small molecule inhibitors) and mortality at least possibly therapy related (OR: 1.33, 95%CI 1.15-1.53) (both p<0.001) (absolute mortality = 0.90% (single agent) versus 1.31% (combinations)) compared to single agents. In conclusion, combinations of non-cytotoxic drugs versus monotherapy in randomized cancer clinical trials attenuated safety, but increased efficacy, with the balance tilting in favor of combination therapy, based on the prolongation in survival.

Lessons From the Development of the Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Oncology.

Immunotherapies are becoming increasingly important in the treatment armamentarium of a variety of malignancies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the most representative drugs receiving regulatory approval over the past few years. In a recent study published in Clinical Cancer Research, we demonstrated that these agents are being developed faster than other prior anticancer therapies. All checkpoint inhibitors received priority review, being granted with at least one Food and Drug Administration expedited program. Hence, some of them are getting marketing approval after preliminary trials. The model continues to rely on phase I trials, designed with traditional models for dose definition, although a substantial number of patients are treated during the dose expansion cohorts. We demonstrated that efficacy and safety are reasonably predicted from the dose-finding portion of phase I trials with these agents, assuring a low treatment-related mortality for patients throughout the development process. In this article, we further discuss and summarize these findings and update some recent approval information for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Analysis of Drug Development Paradigms for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have unique toxicities and response kinetics compared with cytotoxic and gene-targeted anticancer agents. We investigated the impact of innovative/accelerated immunotherapy drug development/approval models on the accuracy of safety and efficacy assessments by searching the FDA website. Initial phase I trials for each agent were reviewed and safety and efficacy data compared with that found in later trials leading to regulatory approvals of the same agents. As of June 2017, the FDA approved six checkpoint inhibitors for a variety of cancer types. All checkpoint inhibitors received a priority review status and access to at least two additional FDA special access programs, more often breakthrough therapy designation and accelerated approval. Median clinical development time (investigational new drug application to approval) was 60.77 months [avelumab had the shortest timeline (52.33 months)]. Response rates during early phase I trials (median = 16%) are higher than for phase I trials of other agents (with the exception of gene-targeted agents tested with a biomarker). Doses approved were usually not identical to doses recommended on phase I trials. Approximately 50% of types of immune-related and 43% of types of clinically relevant toxicities from later trials were identified in early-phase trials. Even so, treatment-related mortality remains exceedingly low in later studies (0.33% of patients). In conclusion, efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be reasonably predicted from the dose-finding portion of phase I trials, indicating that the fast-track development of these agents is safe and justified. Clin Cancer Res; 24(8); 1785-94. ©2017 AACR.

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in Breast Cancer and implications for clinical practice.

Breast Cancer (BC) can be classified using pathologic features, such as grade and tumor size. It can be categorized based on the gene expression profile, which identifies the distinct molecular subtype. More recently, stromal tissue has been recognized as an important modulator of tumor cell growth, pathogenesis, and progression. Immune cells could drive important clinical characteristics that affect BC outcomes. Subgroups of patients who have tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in the stroma may have better response to chemotherapy and favorable long-term prognosis. Accumulating evidence shows that the immune system plays a crucial role in the outcomes of some BC subgroups, especially more aggressive, proliferative ones such as triple-negative and HER2-positive BC. This review article will present data on the role of lymphocyte infiltration in BC prognosis and response to therapy. This review will also introduce the reader to the challenges of applying this promising prognostic and predictive biomarker in clinical practice.

Clinical outcomes based on multigene profiling in metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the clinical impact of recurrent mutations can help define their role in cancer. Here, we identify frequent hotspot mutations in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients and associate them with clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Hotspot mutation testing was conducted in 500 MBC patients using an 11 gene (N = 126) and/or 46 or 50 gene (N = 391) panel. Patients were stratified by hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) status. Clinical outcomes were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: Hotspot mutations were most frequently detected in TP53 (30%), PIK3CA (27%) and AKT1 (4%). Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients had the highest incidence of TP53 (58%) and the lowest incidence of PIK3CA (9%) mutations. TP53 mutation was associated with shorter relapse-free survival (RFS) (median 22 vs 42months; P < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) from diagnosis of distant metastatic disease (median 26 vs 51months; P < 0.001). Conversely, PIK3CA mutation was associated with a trend towards better clinical outcomes including RFS (median 41 vs 30months; P = 0.074) and OS (52 vs 40months; P = 0.066). In HR-positive patients, TP53 mutation was again associated with shorter RFS (median 30 vs 46months; P = 0.017) and OS (median 30 vs 55months; P = 0.001). When multivariable analysis was performed for RFS and OS, TP53 but not PIK3CA mutation remained a significant predictor of outcomes in the overall cohort and in HR-positive patients. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical hotspot sequencing identifies potentially actionable mutations. In this cohort, TP53 mutation was associated with worse clinical outcomes, while PIK3CA mutation did not remain a significant predictor of outcomes after multivariable analysis.

Mechanisms of resistance and sensitivity to anti-HER2 therapies in HER2+ breast cancer.

Breast Cancer (BC) is a highly prevalent disease. A woman living in the United States has a 12.3% lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer [1]. It is the most common female cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death in women [2]. Of note, amplification or overexpression of Human Epidermal Receptor 2 (HER2) oncogene is present in approximately 18 to 20% of primary invasive breast cancers, and until personalized therapy became available for this specific BC subtype, the worst rates of Overall Survival (OS) and Recurrence-Free Survival (RFS) were observed in the HER2+ BC cohort, compared to all other types, including triple negative BC (TNBC) [3].HER2 is a member of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family. Other family members include EGFR or HER1, HER3 and HER4. HER2 can form heterodimers with any of the other three receptors, and is considered to be the preferred dimerization partner of the other HER or ErbB receptors [4]. Phosphorylation of tyrosine residues within the cytoplasmic domain is the result of receptor dimerization and culminates into initiation of a variety of signalling pathways involved in cellular proliferation, transcription, motility and apoptosis inhibition [5].In addition to being an important prognostic factor in women diagnosed with BC, HER2 overexpression also identifies those patients who benefit from treatment with agents that target HER2, such as trastuzumab, pertuzumab, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and small molecules tyrosine kinase inhibitors of HER2 [6, 11, 127].In fact, trastuzumab altered the natural history of patients diagnosed with HER2+ BC, both in early and metastatic disease setting, in a major way [8-10]. Nevertheless, there are many women that will eventually develop metastatic disease, despite being treated with anti-HER2 therapy in the early disease setting. Moreover, advanced tumors may reach a point where no anti-HER2 treatment will achieve disease control, including recently approved drugs, such as T-DM1.This review paper will concentrate on major biological pathways that ultimately lead to resistance to anti-HER2 therapies in BC, summarizing their mechanisms. Strategies to overcome this resistance, and the rationale involved in each tactics to revert this scenario will be presented to the reader.

Multigene clinical mutational profiling of breast carcinoma using next-generation sequencing.

OBJECTIVES: The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms in the realm of clinical molecular diagnostics provides multigene mutational profiling through massively parallel sequencing. METHODS: We analyzed 415 breast carcinoma samples from 354 patients using NGS in known hotspots of 46 commonly known cancer-causing genes. RESULTS: A total of 281 somatic nonsynonymous mutations were detected in 62.1% of patients. TP53 was most frequently mutated (38.8%), followed by PIK3CA (31.7%), AKT1 (6%), and ATM (3.9%), with other mutations detected at a lower frequency. When stratified into clinically relevant therapeutic groups (estrogen receptor [ER]/progesterone receptor [PR]+ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-, ER/PR+HER2+, ER/PR-HER2+, ER/PR/HER2-), each group showed distinct mutational profiles. The ER/PR+HER2- tumors (n = 132) showed the highest frequency of PIK3CA mutations (38%), while the triple-negative tumors (n = 64) had a significantly higher number of TP53 mutations (62%). Of the 61 patients tested for both primary and metastatic tumors, concordant results were seen in 47 (77%) patients, while 13 patients showed additional mutations in the metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that breast cancers may harbor potentially actionable mutations for targeted therapeutics. Therefore, NGS-based mutational profiling can provide useful information that can guide targeted cancer therapy.

MET abnormalities in patients with genitourinary malignancies and outcomes with c-MET inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of MET amplification and mutation among GU malignancies and its association with clinical factors and responses to c-MET inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with GU malignancies referred to our Phase I Clinical Trials Program were evaluated for MET mutation and amplification and outcomes using protocols with c-MET inhibitors. RESULTS: MET amplification was found in 7 of 97 (7.2%) patients (4/27 renal [all clear cell], 1/18 urothelial, and 2/12 adrenocortical carcinoma), with MET mutation/variant in 3 of 54 (5.6%) (2/20 renal cell carcinoma [RCC] [1 clear cell and 1 papillary] and 1/16 prostate cancer). No demographic characteristics were associated with specific MET abnormalities, but patients who tested positive for mutation or amplification had more metastatic sites (median, 4 vs. 3 for wild type MET). Median overall survival after phase I consultation was 6.1 and 11.5 months for patients with and without a MET alteration, respectively (hazard ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 6.9; P = .034). Twenty-nine (25%) patients were treated according to a c-MET inhibitor protocol. Six (21%) had a partial response (prostate and RCC) and 10 (34%) had stable disease as best response. Median time to tumor progression was 2.3 months (range, 0.4-19.7) for all treated patients with no responses in patients with a MET abnormality or single-agent c-MET inhibitor treatment. CONCLUSION: MET genetic abnormalities occur in diverse GU malignancies and are associated with a worse prognosis in a phase I setting. Efficacy of c-MET inhibitors was more pronounced in patients without MET abnormalities and when combined with other targets/drugs.

Cardiac safety of (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab in the community setting: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab improves the survival of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC). The incidence and long-term impact of trastuzumab-related cardiotoxicity in the community setting is of great clinical importance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with HER2-positive BC treated with (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab were retrospectively evaluated. Cardiotoxicity was defined as cardiac death or absolute decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 10% to a value less than 50%, or symptomatic heart failure. RESULTS: We evaluated 237 patients: median age 53 years (range 27-83 years). 40.5% of these patients had received neoadjuvant and 59.5% adjuvant chemotherapy. The majority (83.9%) were treated with an anthracycline-based regimen. Median exposure to trastuzumab was 8 months (range 2-12 months). Cardiotoxicity was diagnosed in 20.2%, but symptoms only occurred in 3.8%. 41.6% recovered cardiac function. None of the risk factors were associated with cardiotoxicity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of trastuzumab-related cardiotoxicity found in this study was slightly higher than those reported in randomized clinical trials. Nevertheless, most patients were asymptomatic. We describe the cardiac outcomes of a non-selected population, which possibly reflects those found in the 'real world'. The risks versus benefits of trastuzumab use remain in favor of treatment, but cardiotoxicity should be monitored.

Analysis of MET genetic aberrations in patients with breast cancer at MD Anderson Phase I unit.

BACKGROUND: c-MET is a receptor tyrosine kinase whose phosphorylation activates important proliferation pathways. MET amplification and mutation have been described in various malignancies, including breast cancer (BC), and c-MET overexpression is associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with BC. We describe MET mutation and amplification rates in a BC cohort of patients referred to a Phase I Unit. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic medical records of all patients with advanced BC tested for MET amplification, mutation, or both who were referred to the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at MD Anderson. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients with advanced BC were analyzed for MET mutation/variant (88 patients) or amplification (63 patients). Of these, 49 were tested for both genetic abnormalities. Three of 63 patients (4.7%) demonstrated MET gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization (2 in primary tissue; 1 in metastatic site). MET mutation/variant was detected in 8 of 88 patients (9%). High-grade tumors were characteristic of all patients harboring MET amplification and were present in 7 of 8 (87.5%) of those with MET mutation. Metastatic sites were greater in MET-amplified compared with wild-type patients (median of 7 vs. 3 sites). Five of 8 patients (62.5%) with MET mutations had triple negative BC compared with 46% in controls. In addition, patients with positive test results for MET aberrations (n = 11) had inferior overall survival (OS) from Phase I consult compared with wild-type patients (n = 37), although this was not statistically significant (median OS = 9 vs. 15 months, P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with BC who were referred to our Phase I Department, MET aberrations were associated with higher metastatic burden and high-grade histology. We could not demonstrate differences in survival outcomes because of a small sample size.

MET aberrations and c-MET inhibitors in patients with gastric and esophageal cancers in a phase I unit.

We sought to investigate the demographics and tumor-associated features in patients with gastroesophageal (GE) malignancies referred to our Phase I Program who had formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from archival or new biopsies tested for MET mutation and/or amplification. MET amplification was found in 5 of 76 (6.6%) patients (3/34 [8.8%] esophageal, 2/26 [7.7%] gastric and none in 22 gastroesophageal junction cancers). The only MET mutation detected in 3 of 41 (7.3%) patients was N375S. No demographic and histologic characteristics were associated with specific MET abnormalities. Median overall survival was 3 and 5 months for patients with and without a MET alteration, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.5; P=.14). Sixteen of 81 (20%) patients were enrolled in a c-MET inhibitor trial. Best responses were stable disease in 3 patients (19%), including a patient with esophageal adenocarcinoma that remained on the trial for 9.9 months (wild-type for MET abnormality). All tumors with MET abnormality (n=3) progressed on a c-MET inhibitor in fewer than 2 months. In conclusion, MET abnormalities can be found in a small group of patients with GE adenocarcinoma and further studies are necessary to better characterize the prognostic and predictive impact of MET alterations.

Differences in gene and protein expression and the effects of race/ethnicity on breast cancer subtypes.

BACKGROUND: Differences in gene or protein expression patterns between breast cancers according to race/ethnicity and cancer subtype. METHODS: Transcriptional profiling was performed using Affymetrix HG-U133A platform in 376 patients and reverse phase protein array analysis (RPPA) was done for 177 proteins in 255 patients from a separate cohort. Unsupervised clustering was conducted, as well as supervised comparison by race and tumor subtype. Standard statistical methods, BRB-Array tools, and Ingenuity Pathways software packages were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Median age was 50 years in both the cohorts. In the RPPA cohort, 54.5% of the tumors were hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive), 20.7% HER2-positive, and 24.71% triple-negative (TNBC). One hundred and forty-seven (57.6%), 47 (18.43%), and 46 (18.1%) of the patients were White, Hispanic, and Black, respectively. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the protein expression data showed no distinct clusters by race (P values were 0.492, 0.489, and 0.494 for the HR-positive, HER2-positive, and TNBC tumors respectively). In the gene expression cohort, 54.2% of the tumors were HR-positive, 16.5% HER2-positive, and 29.3% TNBC. Two hundred and sixteen (57.5%), 111 (29.52%), and 32 (8.52%) patients were White, Hispanic, and Black, respectively. No probe set with a false discovery rate (FDR) of <0.05 showed an association with race by breast cancer subtype; similar results were obtained using pathway and gene set enrichment analysis methods. CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect a significant variation in RNA or protein expression comparing different race/ethnicity groups of women with breast cancer. IMPACT: More research on the complex network of factors that result in outcomes differences among race/ethnicities is needed.