Effects of Endocrine Interventions Targeting ERα or PR on Breast Cancer Risk in the General Population and Carriers of BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variants.

There is evidence suggesting that endocrine interventions such as hormone replacement therapy and hormonal contraception can increase breast cancer (BC) risk. Sexual steroid hormones like estrogens have long been known for their adverse effects on BC development and progression via binding to estrogen receptor (ER) α. Thus, in recent years, endocrine interventions that include estrogens have been discussed more and more critically, and their impact on different BC subgroups has increasingly gained interest. Carriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 genes are known to have a high risk of developing BC and ovarian cancer. However, there remain open questions to what extent endocrine interventions targeting ERα or the progesterone receptor further increase cancer risk in this subgroup. This review article aims to provide an overview and update on the effects of endocrine interventions on breast cancer risk in the general population in comparison to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Finally, future directions of research are addressed, to further improve the understanding of the effects of endocrine interventions on high-risk pathogenic variant carriers.

Clinical impact of delaying initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early triple negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The optimal time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (TTAC) for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients is unclear. This study evaluates the association between TTAC and survival in TNBC patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using data from a cohort of TNBC patients diagnosed between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018, registered in the Tumor Centre Regensburg was conducted. Data included demographics, pathology, treatment, recurrence and survival. TTAC was defined as days from primary surgery to first dose of adjuvant chemotherapy. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate impact of TTAC on overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. RESULTS: A total of 245 TNBC patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and valid TTAC data were included. Median TTAC was 29 days. The group receiving systemic therapy within 22 to 28 days after surgery had the most favorable outcome, with median OS of 10.2 years. Groups receiving systemic therapy between 29-35 days, 36-42 days, and more than 6 weeks after surgery had significantly decreased median survival, with median OS of 8.3 years, 7.8 years, and 6.9 years, respectively. Patients receiving therapy between 22-28 days had significantly better survival compared to those receiving therapy between 29-35 days (p = 0.043), and patients receiving therapy after 22-28 days also demonstrated significantly better survival compared to those receiving therapy after more than 43 days (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Timing of adjuvant systemic therapy can influence OS in TNBC patients. Efforts should be made to avoid unnecessary delays in administering chemotherapy to ensure timely initiation of systemic therapy and optimize patient outcomes.

Does timing of neoadjuvant chemotherapy influence the prognosis in patients with early triple negative breast cancer?

PURPOSE: For patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), the optimal time to initiate neoadjuvant chemotherapy (TTNC) is unknown. This study evaluates the association between TTNC and survival in patients with early TNBC. METHODS: A retrospective study using data from of a cohort of TNBC patients diagnosed between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018 registered in the Tumor Centre Regensburg was performed. Data included demographics, pathology, treatment, recurrence, and survival. Interval to treatment was defined as days from pathology diagnosis of TNBC to first dose of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). The Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to evaluate the impact of TTNC on overall survival (OS) and 5 year OS. RESULTS: A total of 270 patients were included. Median follow up was 3.5 years. The 5-year OS estimates according to TTNC were 77.4%, 66.9%, 82.3%, 80.6%, 88.3%, 58.3%, 71.1% and 66.7% in patients who received NACT within 0-14, 15-21, 22-28, 29-35, 36-42, 43-49, 50-56 and > 56 days after diagnosis. Patients who received systemic therapy early had the highest estimated mean OS of 8.4 years, while patients who received systemic therapy after more than 56 days survived an estimated 3.3 years. CONCLUSION: The optimal time interval between diagnosis and NACT remains to be determined. However, starting NACT more than 42 days after diagnosis of TNBC seems to reduce survival. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to carry out the treatment in a certified breast center with appropriate structures, in order to enable an adequate and timely care.

Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for intraoperative margin control on surgical specimens in breast conserving surgery.

PURPOSE: As breast-conserving surgery (BCS) has become the standard for treatment of early breast cancer, the need for new technologies to improve intraoperative margin assessment has become clear. Close or positive margins during BCS lead to additional surgeries, treatment delay, additional stress for patients and increasing healthcare cost. Automated three-dimensional breast ultrasound (ABUS) systems are meant to overcome the shortcomings of hand-held ultrasound (HHUS). In this study, we investigate the feasibility of ABUS to conduct ultrasound on surgical specimens in breast conserving therapy. METHODS: In this monocentric, non-interventional study, specimens of 40 women were examined via ABUS. A construction with isotonic saline solution, gel pads and ABUS membranes was invented by our team to produce images of breast cancer specimens using ABUS. Evaluation of the ABUS images was carried out by two independent physicians trained on ABUS evaluation. RESULTS: ABUS was conducted on 40 specimens. 90% of the generated images were of high quality. Measured tumor sizes with ABUS were bigger than measured tumor size with HHUS (mean tumor size 22.9 vs. 18.1 mm, CI 2.38-7.35, p < 0.05). The mean difference between the ABUS tumor size and the pathological tumor size was 1.8 mm (CI - 0.84-4.53, p = 0.17). The mean difference between the HHUS tumor size and the pathological tumor size was 3.2 mm (CI - 5.35 to - 1.03, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: ABUS seems to be a suitable method to conduct specimen ultrasound. Further studies are required to evaluate the accuracy of ABUS for intraoperative margin assessment and possible implementation in clinical work routine.

Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: Recently, molecular tumour boards (MTBs) have been integrated into the clinical routine. Since their benefit remains debated, we assessed MTB outcomes in the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ostbayern (CCCO) from 2019 to 2021. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 251 patients were included. Targeted sequencing was performed with PCR MSI-evaluation and immunohistochemistry for PD-L1, Her2, and mismatch repair enzymes. 125 treatment recommendations were given (49.8%). High-recommendation rates were achieved for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (20/30, 66.7%) and gastric adenocarcinoma (10/16, 62.5%) as opposed to colorectal cancer (9/36, 25.0%) and pancreatic cancer (3/18, 16.7%). MTB therapies were administered in 47 (18.7%) patients, while 53 (21.1%) received alternative treatment regimens. Thus 37.6% of recommended MTB therapies were implemented (47/125 recommendations). The clinical benefit rate (complete + partial + mixed response + stable disease) was 50.0% for MTB and 63.8% for alternative treatments. PFS2/1 ratios were 34.6% and 16.1%, respectively. Significantly improved PFS could be achieved for m1A-tier-evidence-based MTB therapies (median 6.30 months) compared to alternative treatments (median 2.83 months; P = 0.0278). CONCLUSION: The CCCO MTB yielded a considerable recommendation rate, particularly in cholangiocarcinoma patients. The discrepancy between the low-recommendation rates in colorectal and pancreatic cancer suggests the necessity of a weighted prioritisation of entities. High-tier recommendations should be implemented predominantly.

Impact of cavity shaving on residual tumor rates in patients with primary invasive carcinoma and carcinoma in situ in breast conserving surgery.

BACKGROUND: Several international studies reported relatively high re-excision rates due to residual tumor in breast conserving surgery (BCS). Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical strategy to reduce re-excision rates. This study aimed to investigate the effect of circumferential cavity shaving during BCS to reduce residual tumor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 591 patients with early invasive carcinoma or carcinoma in situ of the breast (ICD-10, C50 or D05) who were diagnosed between 01/01/2017 and 31/12/2019 and underwent BCS in a certified breast cancer center of the University Regensburg were analyzed regarding surgical excision methods. Patients with CS during BCS and patients with targeted re-excision in a specific direction depending on the result of intraoperative mammography or sonography during BCS were compared. The risk of pathologic residual tumor (R1) was compared between both groups by means of a multivariable binary logistic regression model to determine if there is a benefit of a certain surgical method to avoid a second intervention for re-excision. We adjusted for age, tumor size, nodal status, histologic type, surgeon, breast side, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: 80 (n = 13.54%) patients had CS and 511 (n = 86.46%) had a targeted re-excision in a specific direction during BCS according to intraoperative mammography or sonography. After comparing both techniques in a multivariable regression model, there was no significant difference regarding risk of residual tumor (p = 0.738) in the total cohort. However, CS showed a tendency to be favorable regarding rates of residual tumor in patients with invasive breast cancer between 60 and 70 years (p = 0.072) and smaller T1-tumors (p = 0.057) compared to targeted intraoperative re-excision following mammographic or sonographic assessment. CONCLUSION: CS showed a tendency to reduce residual tumor compared to the standard technique of intraoperative re-excision in specific subgroups, although no statistical significance was reached. Further studies are needed to overcome potential limitations like surgeon-based bias and missing standardized definitions of CS to reduce residual tumor rates.

Feasibility of ABUS as an Alternative to Handheld Ultrasound for Response Control in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The Invenia Automated Breast Ultrasound Screening (ABUS) is indicated as an adjunct to mammography for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic women with high-density breast tissue. ABUS provides time-efficient evaluation of the 3-dimensional recordings within 3 to 6 minutes. The role and advantages of ABUS in everyday clinical practice, especially in routine examination during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), is not clear. The aim of this monocentric, noninterventional retrospective study is to evaluate the use of ABUS in patients who are under NACT treatment for response control. METHODS: Regular sonographic response check with handheld ultrasound (HHUS) examination and with ABUS were conducted in 83 women who underwent NACT. The response controls were conducted every 3 to 6 weeks during NACT. The handheld sonography was performed with GE Voluson S8. Handheld sonographic measurements and ABUS measurements were compared with the final pathologic tumor size. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the measurements with HHUS examination or ABUS compared with final pathologic tumor size (P = .47). The average difference from ABUS measured tumor size to final pathologic tumor size was 9.8 mm. The average difference from handheld measured tumor size to final pathologic tumor size was 9/3 mm. Both the specificity of ABUS and HHUS examination in predicting pathologic complete remission was 100%. CONCLUSION: ABUS seems to be a suitable method to conduct response control in neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment. ABUS may facilitate preoperative planning and offers remarkable time saving for physicians compared with HHUS examination and thus should be considered for clinical practice.