Understanding Patient Experiences to Inform Future Studies to Optimize Personalization of Treatment for Early Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment is multimodal, but not all patients benefit from each treatment, and many experience morbidities significantly impacting quality of life. There is increasing interest in tailoring breast cancer treatments to optimize oncological outcomes and reduce treatment burden, but it is vital that future trials focus on treatments that most impact patients. This study was designed to explore patient experiences of treatment to inform future research. METHODS: An online survey was co-developed with patient advocates to explore respondents' experiences of breast cancer treatment. Questions included simple demographics, treatments received, and views regarding omitting treatments if that is deemed safe. The survey was circulated via social media and patient advocacy groups. Responses were summarized by using simple statistics; free text was analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Of the 235 participants completing the survey, 194 (82.6%) would choose to omit a specific treatment if safe to do so. The most commonly selected treatments were chemotherapy (n = 69, 35.6%) and endocrine therapy (n = 61, 31.4%) mainly due to side effects. Fewer respondents would choose to omit surgery (n = 40, 20.6%) or radiotherapy (n = 20, 10.3%). Several women commented that survival was their "absolute priority" and that high-quality evidence to support the safety of reducing treatment would be essential. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer are individuals who may wish to optimize different components of their treatment. A portfolio of studies co-designed with patients is needed to establish an evidence base for greater treatment personalization with studies focused on reducing avoidable chemotherapy and endocrine therapy a priority.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and reporting guidelines for locoregional treatment in neoadjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment trials: the PRECEDENT project.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen's University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely. REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

The MARECA (national study of management of breast cancer locoregional recurrence and oncological outcomes) study: protocol for a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

Background: Despite a UK 5-year breast cancer survival rate of 86.6%, patients may develop breast cancer recurrence within the same breast after breast conserving surgery, as well as in the remaining skin or chest wall after mastectomy or in the ipsilateral lymph glands. These recurrences, collectively termed locoregional recurrence (LRR), occur in around 8% of patients within 10 years of their original diagnosis. Currently, there is a lack of robust information on the presentation and prevalence of LRR with no UK-specific clinical guidelines available for the optimal management of this patient group. Additionally, there is a need to identify patterns of LRR presentation and their progression, which will enable prognostic factors to be determined. This will subsequently enable the tailoring of treatment and improve patient outcome. Methods: The MARECA study is a prospective, multicentre cohort study recruiting patients diagnosed with breast cancer LRR +/- associated distant metastases. Over 50 UK breast units are participating in the study with the aim of recruiting at least 500 patients over a recruitment period of 24 months. The data collected will detail the tumour pathology, imaging results, surgical treatment, radiotherapy and systemic therapy of the primary and recurrent breast cancer. Study follow-up will be for up to 5 years following LRR diagnosis to determine subsequent oncological outcomes and evaluate potential prognostic factors. Discussion: This study will address the current knowledge gap and identify subgroups of patients who have less successful treatment outcomes. The results will determine the current management of LRR and the prognosis of patients diagnosed with breast cancer LRR +/- distant metastases in the UK, with the aim of establishing best practice and informing future national guidelines. The results will direct future research and inform the design of additional interventional trials and translational studies.

Minimally invasive treatment of early, good prognosis breast cancer-is this feasible?

Breast cancer screening programmes frequently detect early, good prognosis breast cancers with significant treatment burden for patients, and associated health-cost implications. Emerging evidence suggests a role for minimally invasive techniques in the management of these patients enabling many women to avoid surgical intervention. Minimally invasive techniques include vacuum-assisted excision, cryoablation, and radiofrequency ablation. We review published evidence in relation to the risks and benefits of each technique and discuss ongoing trials. Data to date are promising, and we predict a trend towards minimally invasive treatment for early, good-prognosis breast cancer as technical skills, suitability criteria, and follow-up protocols are established.

Digital pathology for reporting histopathology samples, including cancer screening samples - definitive evidence from a multisite study.

AIMS: To conduct a definitive multicentre comparison of digital pathology (DP) with light microscopy (LM) for reporting histopathology slides including breast and bowel cancer screening samples. METHODS: A total of 2024 cases (608 breast, 607 GI, 609 skin, 200 renal) were studied, including 207 breast and 250 bowel cancer screening samples. Cases were examined by four pathologists (16 study pathologists across the four speciality groups), using both LM and DP, with the order randomly assigned and 6 weeks between viewings. Reports were compared for clinical management concordance (CMC), meaning identical diagnoses plus differences which do not affect patient management. Percentage CMCs were computed using logistic regression models with crossed random-effects terms for case and pathologist. The obtained percentage CMCs were referenced to 98.3% calculated from previous studies. RESULTS: For all cases LM versus DP comparisons showed the CMC rates were 99.95% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 99.90-99.97] and 98.96 (95% CI = 98.42-99.32) for cancer screening samples. In speciality groups CMC for LM versus DP showed: breast 99.40% (99.06-99.62) overall and 96.27% (94.63-97.43) for cancer screening samples; [gastrointestinal (GI) = 99.96% (99.89-99.99)] overall and 99.93% (99.68-99.98) for bowel cancer screening samples; skin 99.99% (99.92-100.0); renal 99.99% (99.57-100.0). Analysis of clinically significant differences revealed discrepancies in areas where interobserver variability is known to be high, in reads performed with both modalities and without apparent trends to either. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing LM and DP CMC, overall rates exceed the reference 98.3%, providing compelling evidence that pathologists provide equivalent results for both routine and cancer screening samples irrespective of the modality used.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Added to Synthetic Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Literature meta-analysis results show that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with synthesized two-dimensional (s2D) mammograms can reduce recalls and improve breast cancer detection. Uncertainty regarding the screening of patients with breast cancer presents a health economic challenge, both in terms of healthcare resource use and quality of life impact on patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the cost effectiveness of DBT + s2D versus digital mammography (DM) used in a biennial breast cancer screening setting of women aged 40-69 years with scattered areas of fibroglandular breast density and heterogeneous dense breasts in the Brazilian supplementary health system. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on the basis of clinical data obtained from a systematic review with meta-analysis performed to evaluate the analytical validity and clinical utility of DBT + s2D compared with DM. The search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases, with the main descriptors of the technology, a comparator, and the clinical condition in question, on 9 June 2022. The hybrid economic model (decision tree plus Markov model) simulated costs and outcomes over a lifetime for women aged 40-69 years with scattered areas of fibroglandular breast density and heterogeneous dense breasts. We analyzed incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to measure the incremental cost difference per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of adding DBT + s2D to breast cancer screening. RESULTS: DBT + s2D incurred a cost saving of € 954.02 per patient, in the time horizon of 30 years, compared with DM, and gained 5.1989 QALYs, which would be considered a dominant intervention. These results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Switching from DM to biennial DBT + s2D was cost effective. Furthermore, reductions in false-positive recall rates should also be considered in decision making.

Vaginal Estrogen Therapy Use and Survival in Females With Breast Cancer.

Importance: Genitourinary syndrome of menopause can be treated with vaginal estrogen therapy. However, there are concerns about the safety of vaginal estrogen therapy in patients with breast cancer. Objective: To determine whether the risk of breast cancer-specific mortality was higher in females with breast cancer who used vaginal estrogen therapy vs females with breast cancer who did not use hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed 2 large cohorts, one each in Scotland and Wales, of females aged 40 to 79 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer. These population-based cohorts were identified from national cancer registry records from 2010 to 2017 in Scotland and from 2000 to 2016 in Wales and were followed up for breast cancer-specific mortality until 2020. Females were excluded if they had a previous cancer diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancer). Data analysis was performed between August 2022 and August 2023. Exposure: Use of vaginal estrogen therapy, including vaginal tablets and creams, was ascertained from pharmacy dispensing records of the Prescribing Information System for the Scotland cohort and from general practice prescription records for the Wales cohort. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to breast cancer-specific mortality, which was obtained from national mortality records. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for breast cancer-specific mortality, comparing vaginal estrogen therapy users with HRT nonusers and adjusting for confounders, including cancer stage and grade. Results: The 2 cohorts comprised 49 237 females with breast cancer (between 40 and 79 years of age) and 5795 breast cancer-specific deaths. Five percent of patients with breast cancer used vaginal estrogen therapy after breast cancer diagnosis. In vaginal estrogen therapy users compared with HRT nonusers, there was no evidence of a higher risk of breast cancer-specific mortality in the pooled fully adjusted model (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study showed no evidence of increased early breast cancer-specific mortality in patients who used vaginal estrogen therapy compared with patients who did not use HRT. This finding may provide some reassurance to prescribing clinicians and support the guidelines suggesting that vaginal estrogen therapy can be considered in patients with breast cancer and genitourinary symptoms.

Mastitis and Mammary Abscess Management Audit (MAMMA) in the UK and Ireland.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicentre prospective audit was to describe the current practice in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses in the UK and Ireland, with a specific focus on rates of surgical intervention. METHODS: This audit was conducted in two phases from August 2020 to August 2021; a phase 1 practice survey and a phase 2 prospective audit. Primary outcome measurements for phase 2 included patient management pathway characteristics and treatment type (medical/radiological/surgical). RESULTS: A total of 69 hospitals participated in phase 2 (1312 patients). The key findings were a high overall rate of incision and drainage (21.0 per cent) and a lower than anticipated proportion of ultrasound-guided aspiration of breast abscesses (61.0 per cent). Significant variations were observed regarding the rate of incision and drainage (range 0-100 per cent; P < 0.001) and the rate of needle aspiration (range 12.5-100 per cent; P < 0.001) between individual units. Overall, 22.5 per cent of patients were admitted for inpatient treatment, out of whom which 72.9 per cent were commenced on intravenous antibiotics. The odds of undergoing incision and drainage for a breast abscess or being admitted for inpatient treatment were significantly higher if patients presented at the weekend compared with a weekday (P ≤ 0.023). Breast specialists reviewed 40.9 per cent of all patients directly, despite the majority of patients (74.2 per cent) presenting within working hours on weekdays. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in practice exists in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses, with high rates of incision and drainage in certain regions of the UK. There is an urgent need for a national best-practice toolbox to minimize practice variation and standardize patient care.

Mastitis and breast abscess is a painful infection of the breast. It is an extremely common breast problem. One in three women can get this condition at some stage in their life. To treat a breast abscess, the pus inside should be drained out of the body. This can be done either by cutting into the breast using surgery or by inserting a fine needle using an ultrasonography scan (which uses ultrasound). Fine-needle drainage has the benefit that it does not require admission to hospital. Surgery can cause the breast to look misshapen. It is unknown which method is used more often in the UK and Ireland. The aim of this study was to describe how mastitis and breast abscesses are treated in the UK and Ireland. This study involved a survey of practice (phase 1) and collection of data, which are routinely recorded for these patients (phase 2). This study involved 69 hospitals and 1312 patient records. One in five women had an operation for a breast abscess. This was higher than expected. Six in 10 women had a pus drainage using a fine needle. The chance of having an operation depended on the hospital. Women that came to hospital at the weekend were almost twice as likely to have an operation. One in five women were admitted to hospital. The chances of that more than doubled if a woman came to hospital at the weekend. There are differences in treatment of mastitis and breast abscesses across the UK and Ireland. Changes need to be put in place to make access to treatment more equal.

Global trends in psycho-oncology research investments 2016-2020: A content analysis.

OBJECTIVE: An estimated one-third of cancer patients experience a clinically significant psychological disorder, however it is unclear to what extent this is reflected in research funding. To address this a systematic analysis the allocation of psycho-oncology research funding globally between 2016 and 2020 was conducted. METHODS: A global dataset of 66,388 cancer research awards, from 2016 to 2020 inclusive and totalling $24.5 billion USD was assembled from public and philanthropic funders. Each award was previously categorised by cancer site type and research theme, including psychosocial research and these awards were further sub-categorised for this analysis. RESULTS: There was $523m of funding awarded for psychological research across 1122 studies: 2.14% of all cancer research funding during this period ($24.5 billion). Median funding per award was $97,473 (IQR $36,864 - $453,051). Within psychological research, mental health received most funding ($174m, 33.5% of psychological funding). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) focused research was the specific psychological support with the highest proportion of funding at $14 million. By country of funder, the USA provided most investment ($375.5 m, 71.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Psycho-oncology research received relatively little funding, for example, when compared with pre-clinical cancer research. There needs to be a shift from pre-clinical science to research that benefits cancer patients in the shorter-term. Low- and middle-income countries, and ethnic minorities in higher-income settings, were underrepresented despite having a large cancer burden, indicating inequities that need to be addressed.

Dose escalation and expansion cohorts in patients with advanced breast cancer in a Phase I study of the CDK7-inhibitor samuraciclib.

Samuraciclib is a selective oral CDK7-inhibitor. A multi-modular, open-label Phase I study to evaluate safety and tolerability of samuraciclib in patients with advanced malignancies was designed (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03363893). Here we report results from dose escalation and 2 expansion cohorts: Module 1A dose escalation with paired biopsy cohort in advanced solid tumor patients, Module 1B-1 triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) monotherapy expansion, and Module 2A fulvestrant combination in HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients post-CDK4/6-inhibitor. Core study primary endpoints are safety and tolerability, and secondary endpoints are pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD) activity, and anti-tumor activity. Common adverse events are low grade nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Maximum tolerated dose is 360 mg once daily. PK demonstrates dose proportionality (120 mg-480 mg), a half-life of approximately 75 hours, and no fulvestrant interaction. In dose escalation, one partial response (PR) is identified with disease control rate of 53% (19/36) and reduction of phosphorylated RNA polymerase II, a substrate of CDK7, in circulating lymphocytes and tumor tissue. In TNBC expansion, one PR (duration 337 days) and clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks (CBR) of 20.0% (4/20) is achieved. In combination with fulvestrant, 3 patients achieve PR with CBR 36.0% (9/25); in patients without detectable TP53-mutation CBR is 47.4% (9/19). In this study, samuraciclib exhibits tolerable safety and PK is supportive of once-daily oral administration. Clinical activity in TNBC and HR+/HER2-breast cancer post-CDK4/6-inhibitor settings warrants further evaluation.

Global funding for cancer research between 2016 and 2020: a content analysis of public and philanthropic investments.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of disease burden globally, with more than 19·3 million cases and 10 million deaths recorded in 2020. Research is crucial to understanding the determinants of cancer and the effects of interventions, and to improving outcomes. We aimed to analyse global patterns of public and philanthropic investment in cancer research. METHODS: In this content analysis, we searched the UberResearch Dimensions database and Cancer Research UK data for human cancer research funding awards from public and philanthropic funders between Jan 1, 2016, and Dec 31, 2020. Included award types were project and programme grants, fellowships, pump priming, and pilot projects. Awards focused on operational delivery of cancer care were excluded. Awards were categorised by cancer type, cross-cutting research theme, and research phase. Funding amount was compared with global burden of specific cancers, measured by disability-adjusted life-years, years lived with disability, and mortality using data from the Global Burden of Disease study. FINDINGS: We identified 66 388 awards with total investment of about US$24·5 billion in 2016-20. Investment decreased year-on-year, with the largest drop observed between 2019 and 2020. Pre-clinical research received 73·5% of the funding across the 5 years ($18 billion), phase 1-4 clinical trials received 7·4% ($1·8 billion), public health research received 9·4% ($2·3 billion), and cross-disciplinary research received 5·0% ($1·2 billion). General cancer research received the largest investment ($7·1 billion, 29·2% of the total funding). The most highly funded cancer types were breast cancer ($2·7 billion [11·2%]), haematological cancer ($2·3 billion [9·4%]), and brain cancer ($1·3 billion [5·5%]). Analysis by cross-cutting theme revealed that 41·2% of investment ($9·6 billion) went to cancer biology research, 19·6% ($4·6 billion) to drug treatment research, and 12·1% ($2·8 billion) to immuno-oncology. 1·4% of the total funding ($0·3 billion) was spent on surgery research, 2·8% ($0·7 billion) was spent on radiotherapy research, and 0·5% ($0·1 billion) was spent on global health studies. INTERPRETATION: Cancer research funding must be aligned with the global burden of cancer with more equitable funding for cancer research in low-income and middle-income countries (which account for 80% of cancer burden), both to support research relevant to these settings, and build research capacity within these countries. There is an urgent need to prioritise investment in surgery and radiotherapy research given their primacy in the treatment of many solid tumours. FUNDING: None.

Bridging pre-surgical endocrine therapy for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the B-MaP-C study.

PURPOSE: The B-MaP-C study investigated changes to breast cancer care that were necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we present a follow-up analysis of those patients commenced on bridging endocrine therapy (BrET), whilst they were awaiting surgery due to reprioritisation of resources. METHODS: This multicentre, multinational cohort study recruited 6045 patients from the UK, Spain and Portugal during the peak pandemic period (Feb-July 2020). Patients on BrET were followed up to investigate the duration of, and response to, BrET. This included changes in tumour size to reflect downstaging potential, and changes in cellular proliferation (Ki67), as a marker of prognosis. RESULTS: 1094 patients were prescribed BrET, over a median period of 53 days (IQR 32-81 days). The majority of patients (95.6%) had strong ER expression (Allred score 7-8/8). Very few patients required expedited surgery, due to lack of response (1.2%) or due to lack of tolerance/compliance (0.8%). There were small reductions in median tumour size after 3 months' treatment duration; median of 4 mm [IQR - 20, 4]. In a small subset of patients (n = 47), a drop in cellular proliferation (Ki67) occurred in 26 patients (55%), from high (Ki67 ≥ 10%) to low (< 10%), with at least one month's duration of BrET. DISCUSSION: This study describes real-world usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy as necessitated by the pandemic. BrET was found to be tolerable and safe. The data support short-term (≤ 3 months) usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy. Longer-term use should be investigated in future trials.

Identifying research priorities in breast cancer surgery: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

PURPOSE: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership was developed to identify research priorities in breast cancer surgery from individuals with lived experience, at high genetic risk of breast cancer, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: 'Uncertainties' were collected using an online survey. Following an evidence check and development of summary questions, an interim survey asked participants to rank their top 10 research priorities from the question list. Top-ranked questions from patient/carer, high-risk and professional groups were carried forward for discussion to a final online prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: 260 participants (101 patients/carers, 156 HCPs) submitted 940 uncertainties via the initial survey. These were analysed thematically into 128 summary questions in six topic areas. Following evidence checking, 59 questions were included in the interim survey which was completed by 572 respondents. Marked differences were seen in questions prioritised by patients/carers, HCPs and women at high-risk. The top eight priorities in patient/carer and professional groups and top two priorities for high-risk women were carried forward to the online workshop at which 22 participants discussed and agreed the final top 10. Key themes included de-escalation of breast and axillary surgery, factors impacting the development/detection of locoregional recurrence and optimal provision of support for informed treatment decision-making. CONCLUSION: The top 10 research priorities in breast cancer surgery have been agreed. However, the observed differences in research priorities identified by patients and professional groups were not anticipated. Top priorities from both groups should inform future UK breast cancer surgical research, to ensure that it addresses questions that are important to breast cancer community as a whole.

The DNA damage induced immune response: Implications for cancer therapy.

Genomic instability is a hallmark of tumourigenesis, influencing tumour development and progression. In particular, defects in the DNA damage response (DDR) have been extensively investigated and are known to shape therapeutic response. Since immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy has been approved for treatment of tumours with defective mismatch repair the interplay between DDR pathway deficiency and the immune system has been of particular interest. The cGAS/STING signalling pathway has recently emerged as a key mediator of inflammation in response to DNA damage.This was identified through transcriptional profiling of BRCA1/2 deficient breast cancers and Fanconi Anaemia (FA) patient bone marrow, revealing a common transcriptional subgroup associated with BRCA1/2 and FA deficiency characterised by upregulation of innate immune signalling genes. Additionally, it is now apparent that the DNA damage arising from a multitude of DNA repair defects and DNA damage induced by some classical chemotherapies/radiation also has the ability to induce an innate immune response mediated by cGAS/STING activation. Here we review the role of intrinsic and extrinsic DNA damage in mediating immune activation and its context within tumourigenesis, as well as the potential therapeutic opportunities it represents for the treatment of cancer, such as combining DNA damaging agents with immunotherapies.

A Phase I Trial of CT900, a Novel α-Folate Receptor-Mediated Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitor, in Patients with Solid Tumors with Expansion Cohorts in Patients with High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: CT900 is a novel small molecule thymidylate synthase inhibitor that binds to α-folate receptor (α-FR) and thus is selectively taken up by α-FR-overexpressing tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 3+3 dose escalation design was used. During dose escalation, CT900 doses of 1-6 mg/m2 weekly and 2-12 mg/m2 every 2 weeks (q2Wk) intravenously were evaluated. Patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were enrolled in the expansion cohorts. RESULTS: 109 patients were enrolled: 42 patients in the dose escalation and 67 patients in the expansion cohorts. At the dose/schedule of 12 mg/m2/q2Wk (with and without dexamethasone, n = 40), the most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, cough, anemia, and pneumonitis, which were predominantly grade 1 and grade 2. Levels of CT900 more than 600 nmol/L needed for growth inhibition in preclinical models were achieved for >65 hours at a dose of 12 mg/m2. In the expansion cohorts, the overall response rate (ORR), was 14/64 (21.9%). Thirty-eight response-evaluable patients in the expansion cohorts receiving 12 mg/m2/q2Wk had tumor evaluable for quantification of α-FR. Patients with high or medium expression had an objective response rate of 9/25 (36%) compared with 1/13 (7.7%) in patients with negative/very low or low expression of α-FR. CONCLUSIONS: The dose of 12 mg/m2/q2Wk was declared the recommended phase II dose/schedule. At this dose/schedule, CT900 exhibited an acceptable side effect profile with clinical benefit in patients with high/medium α-FR expression and warrants further investigation.

Cancer-specific mortality in breast cancer patients with hypothyroidism: a UK population-based study.

PURPOSE: Epidemiological studies have indicated a higher prevalence of hypothyroidism in breast cancer patients, possibly related to shared risk factors and breast cancer treatments. However, few studies have evaluated how hypothyroidism impacts survival outcomes in breast cancer patients. We aimed to determine the association between hypothyroidism and breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study using the Scottish Cancer Registry to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2010 and 2017. A matched comparison cohort of breast cancer-free women was also identified. Using hospital diagnoses and dispensed prescriptions for levothyroxine, we identified hypothyroidism diagnosed before and after breast cancer diagnosis and determined associations with breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 33,500 breast cancer patients were identified, of which 3,802 had hypothyroidism before breast cancer diagnosis and 565 patients went on to develop hypothyroidism after. Breast cancer patients had higher rates of hypothyroidism compared with cancer-free controls (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.30). Among breast cancer patients, we found no association between hypothyroidism (diagnosed before or after) and cancer-specific mortality (before: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.12, after: HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63-1.49). Similar associations were seen for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: In a large contemporary breast cancer cohort, there was little evidence that hypothyroidism, either at diagnosis or diagnosed after breast cancer, was associated with cancer-specific or all-cause mortality.