Outcomes of single versus double hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. A GEICAM/9906 sub-study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective data suggest better outcomes for patients with double hormonal receptor (oestrogen [ER] and progesterone receptor [PgR])-positive (dHR+) early breast cancer, compared with single hormonal receptor-positive, sHR+, (ER+/PgR- or ER-/PgR+) disease. Here, we evaluate the classification according to intrinsic subtypes and clinical outcomes of sHR+ versus dHR+ in HER2-negative breast cancer patients enrolled in GEICAM/9906 study (NCT00129922). METHODS: Archival tumours were retrieved retrospectively for the analysis of ER, PgR and HER2 status and classified into intrinsic subtypes using the PAM50 gene expression assay. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were explored using a Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: Data on intrinsic subtypes were available in 571 (50%) patients with ER+ and/or PR+, and HER2-negative primary tumours. The incidence of luminal A and luminal B subtypes were 52%/36% in dHR+ tumours (ER+/PgR+), and 15%/58% in ER+/PgR-tumours. ER-/PgR+ tumours were mainly luminal A (52%). Compared with ER+/PgR+ patients, DFS was similar in ER-/PgR+ (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-2.34, p = 0.70) but worse in ER+/PgR- patients (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.12-2.28, p < 0.01). Similar results were observed for OS (HR 1.50, p = 0.30 and HR 1.86, p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The ER+/PgR- group is characterised by higher proliferation and worse outcomes. In spite of the ER-/PgR+ subgroup resembles ER+/PgR+ disease in terms of molecular subtypes and outcomes, the small number of patients in this subgroup prevents from drawing any conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2005-003108-12 (retrospectively registered 28/06/2005). CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00129922 (retrospectively registered 10/08/2005).

Hyperglycaemia and Survival in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

AIMS: Diabetes is associated with adverse cancer outcomes. However, the effect of hyperglycaemia in non-diabetic cancer patients is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases identified publications exploring the effect of hyperglycaemia on overall survival, disease-free survival (DFS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval and/or a P-value were pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse-variance and random effects modelling. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on method of hyperglycaemia measurement (HbA1c, other) and stage (early, advanced, mixed). Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of clinical characteristics including baseline diabetes status on the hazard ratio for overall survival. RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising a total of 9872 patients were included. All studies reported hazard ratios for overall survival. Three studies reported DFS; two reported PFS outcomes. Definitions of hyperglycaemia and cut-offs varied between studies. Hyperglycaemia was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 2.05, 95% confidence interval 1.67-2.51; P < 0.001) and DFS (hazard ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.20-3.27; P = 0.007), but did not affect PFS (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.62; P = 0.71). The association with worse overall survival was maintained in subgroups based on method of hyperglycaemia measurement (subgroup difference P = 0.46) and stage (P = 0.14). Meta-regression showed a significantly greater magnitude of association between hyperglycaemia and decreased overall survival in studies with higher proportions of women and diabetic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperglycaemia is associated with adverse overall survival and DFS in patients with cancer. The therapeutic role of glycaemic control in cancer patients warrants further investigation.

A systematic review and quality appraisal of international guidelines for early breast cancer systemic therapy: Are recommendations sensitive to different global resources?

The breast cancer incidence in low and middle income countries (LMCs) is increasing globally, and patient outcomes are generally worse in these nations compared to high income countries (HICs). This is partly due to resource constraints associated with implementing recommended breast cancer therapies. Clinical practice guideline (CPG) adherence can improve breast cancer outcomes, however, many CPGs are created in HICs, and include costly recommendations that may not be feasible in LMCs. In addition, the quality of CPGs can be variable. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of CPGs on early breast cancer systemic therapy with potential international impact, to evaluate their content, quality, and resource sensitivity. A MEDLINE and gray literature search was completed for English language CPGs published between 2005 and 2010, and then updated to July 2014. Extracted guidelines were evaluated using the AGREE 2 instrument. Guidelines were specifically analyzed for resource sensitivity. Most of the extracted CPGs had similar recommendations with regards to systemic therapy. However, only one, the Breast Health Global Initiative, made recommendations with consideration of different global resources. Overall, the CPGs were of variable quality, and most scored poorly in the quality domain evaluating implementation barriers such as resources. Published CPGs for early breast cancer are created in HICs, have similar recommendations, and are generally resource-insensitive. Given the visibility and influence of these CPGs on LMCs, efforts to create higher quality, resource-sensitive guidelines with less redundancy are needed.