A 7-Gene Biosignature for Ductal Carcinoma in situ of the Breast Identifies Subpopulations of HER2-positive Patients With Distinct Recurrence Rates After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: A subpopulation of women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains at risk for in-breast recurrence (IBR) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiation therapy (RT). The NSABP B-43 trial evaluated the role of concurrent RT and trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive DCIS but did not reach the prespecified endpoint. We hypothesized that a 7-gene biosignature (DCISionRT) with its Residual Risk subtype (RRt) could identify 2 groups of HER2(3+) patients with significantly different IBR risks after BCS plus RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with HER2(3+) DCIS (n = 178) treated with BCS plus RT were selected from a combined multinational patient cohort. Treatment decisions were neither randomized nor strictly rules-based. Biosignature testing was performed on all patients and stratified with previously defined groups: (1) Combined Low Risk group (DS ≤ 2.8) and Elevated Risk group (DS > 2.8) without RRt or (2) Residual Risk subtype. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compute IBR curves. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of HER2(3+) patients (113/178) were classified into the Residual Risk subtype. These patients had significantly higher 10-year rates of IBR compared to the nonresidual risk group (16.2% vs. 1.6%, P = .01). The Residual Risk subtype had more nuclear grade 3 disease (87% vs. 63%, P < .001), but age, size, and grade were not associated with IBR rate (P = NS) on univariate and multivariable analysis. Only the Residual Risk group was associated with IBR (P = .05) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The 7-gene biosignature with RRt identified a subset of HER2(3+) patients with greater IBR rates following BCS and RT beyond traditional clinical and pathologic features. Consideration of therapies to reduce these elevated IBR rates should be evaluated, including the incorporation of HER2-targeted therapy.

Validation of a clinical breast cancer risk assessment tool combining a polygenic score for all ancestries with traditional risk factors.

PURPOSE: We previously described a combined risk score (CRS) that integrates a multiple-ancestry polygenic risk score (MA-PRS) with the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model to assess breast cancer (BC) risk. Here, we present a longitudinal validation of CRS in a real-world cohort. METHODS: This study included 130,058 patients referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing and negative for germline pathogenic variants in BC-associated genes. Data were obtained by linking genetic test results to medical claims (median follow-up 12.1 months). CRS calibration was evaluated by the ratio of observed to expected BCs. RESULTS: Three hundred forty BCs were observed over 148,349 patient-years. CRS was well-calibrated and demonstrated superior calibration compared with TC in high-risk deciles. MA-PRS alone had greater discriminatory accuracy than TC, and CRS had approximately 2-fold greater discriminatory accuracy than MA-PRS or TC. Among those classified as high risk by TC, 32.6% were low risk by CRS, and of those classified as low risk by TC, 4.3% were high risk by CRS. In cases where CRS and TC classifications disagreed, CRS was more accurate in predicting incident BC. CONCLUSION: CRS was well-calibrated and significantly improved BC risk stratification. Short-term follow-up suggests that clinical implementation of CRS should improve outcomes for patients of all ancestries through personalized risk-based screening and prevention.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Hydronephrosis on Prior Imaging-Unknown Cause.

Initial imaging evaluation of hydronephrosis of unknown etiology is a complex subject and is dependent on clinical context. In asymptomatic patients, it is often best conducted via CT urography (CTU) without and with contrast, MR urography (MRU) without and with contrast, or scintigraphic evaluation with mercaptoacetyltriglycine (MAG3) imaging. For symptomatic patients, CTU without and with contrast, MRU without and with contrast, MAG3 scintigraphy, or ultrasound of the kidneys and bladder with Doppler imaging are all viable initial imaging studies. In asymptomatic pregnant patients, nonionizing imaging with US of the kidneys and bladder with Doppler imaging is preferred. Similarly, in symptomatic pregnant patients, US of the kidneys and bladder with Doppler imaging or MRU without contrast is the imaging study of choice, as both ionizing radiation and gadolinium contrast are avoided in pregnancy. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

The Clinical Utility of a 7-Gene Biosignature on Radiation Therapy Decision Making in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following Breast-Conserving Surgery: An Updated Analysis of the DCISionRT® PREDICT Study.

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) is a standard treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). A low-risk patient subset that does not benefit from RT has not yet been clearly identified. The DCISionRT test provides a clinically validated decision score (DS), which is prognostic of 10-year in-breast recurrence rates (invasive and non-invasive) and is also predictive of RT benefit. This analysis presents final outcomes from the PREDICT prospective registry trial aiming to determine how often the DCISionRT test changes radiation treatment recommendations. METHODS: Overall, 2496 patients were enrolled from February 2018 to January 2022 at 63 academic and community practice sites and received DCISionRT as part of their care plan. Treating physicians reported their treatment recommendations pre- and post-test as well as the patient's preference. The primary endpoint was to identify the percentage of patients where testing led to a change in RT recommendation. The impact of the test on RT treatment recommendation was physician specialty, treatment settings, individual clinical/pathological features and RTOG 9804 like criteria. Multivariate logisitc regression analysis was used to estimate the odds ratio (ORs) for factors associated with the post-test RT recommendations. RESULTS: RT recommendation changed 38% of women, resulting in a 20% decrease in the overall recommendation of RT (p < 0.001). Of those women initially recommended no RT (n = 583), 31% were recommended RT post-test. The recommendation for RT post-test increased with increasing DS, from 29% to 66% to 91% for DS <2, DS 2-4, and DS >4, respectively. On multivariable analysis, DS had the strongest influence on final RT recommendation (odds ratio 22.2, 95% confidence interval 16.3-30.7), which was eightfold greater than clinicopathologic features. Furthermore, there was an overall change in the recommendation to receive RT in 42% of those patients meeting RTOG 9804-like low-risk criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The test results provided information that changes treatment recommendations both for and against RT use in large population of women with DCIS treated in a variety of clinical settings. Overall, clinicians changed their recommendations to include or omit RT for 38% of women based on the test results. Based on published clinical validations and the results from current study, DCISionRT may aid in preventing the over- and undertreatment of clinicopathological 'low-risk' and 'high-risk' DCIS patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03448926 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03448926 ).

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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pretreatment Detection, Surveillance, and Staging of Prostate Cancer: 2022 Update.

Prostate cancer is second leading cause of death from malignancy after lung cancer in American men. The primary goal during pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer is disease detection, localization, establishing disease extent (both local and distant), and evaluating aggressiveness, which are the driving factors of patient outcomes such as recurrence and survival. Prostate cancer is typically diagnosed after the recognizing elevated serum prostate-specific antigen level or abnormal digital rectal examination. Tissue diagnosis is obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or MRI-targeted biopsy, commonly with multiparametric MRI without or with intravenous contrast, which has recently been established as standard of care for detecting, localizing, and assessing local extent of prostate cancer. Although bone scintigraphy and CT are still typically used to detect bone and nodal metastases in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer, novel advanced imaging modalities including prostatespecific membrane antigen PET/CT and whole-body MRI are being more frequently utilized for this purpose with improved detection rates. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Bioimpedance spectroscopy for breast cancer-related lymphedema assessment: clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) represents a significant concern for patients following breast cancer treatment, and assessment for BCRL represents a key component of survivorship efforts. Growing data has demonstrated the benefits of early detection and treatment of BCRL. Traditional diagnostic modalities are less able to detect reversible subclinical BCRL while newer techniques such as bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) have shown the ability to detect subclinical BCRL, allowing for early intervention and low rates of chronic BCRL with level I evidence. We present updated clinical practice guidelines for BIS utilization to assess for BCRL. METHODS AND RESULTS: Review of the literature identified a randomized controlled trial and other published data which form the basis for the recommendations made. The final results of the PREVENT trial, with 3-year follow-up, demonstrated an absolute reduction of 11.3% and relative reduction of 59% in chronic BCRL (through utilization of compression garment therapy) with BIS as compared to tape measurement. This is in keeping with real-world data demonstrating the effectiveness of BIS in a prospective surveillance model. For optimal outcomes patients should receive an initial pre-treatment measurement and subsequently be followed at a minimum quarterly for first 3 years then biannually for years 4-5, then annually as appropriate, consistent with previous guidelines; the target for intervention has been changed from a change in L-Dex of 10 to 6.5. The lack of pre-operative measure does not preclude inclusion in the prospective surveillance model of care. CONCLUSION: The updated clinical practice guidelines present a standardized approach for a prospective model of care using BIS for BCRL assessment and supported by evidence from a randomized controlled trial as well as real-world data.

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.

Combined 70- and 80-gene signatures identify tumors with genomically luminal biology responsive to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy and are prognostic of 5-year outcome in early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: As more patients with early-stage breast cancer receive neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET), there is a need for reliable biomarkers that can identify patients with HR+ HER2- tumors who are likely to benefit from NET. NBRST (NCT01479101) compared the prognostic value of the 70-gene risk classification and 80-gene molecular subtyping signatures with conventional pathological classification methods in response to neoadjuvant therapy. We evaluated the association of these signatures with clinical response and 5-year outcome of patients treated with NET. METHODS: 1091 patients with early-stage breast cancer scheduled to receive neoadjuvant therapy were prospectively enrolled into NBRST, and a sub-analysis of 67 patients treated with NET was performed. Patients received standard of care genomic testing using the 70-gene and 80-gene signatures and were treated with NET, per physician's discretion. The primary endpoint was pathologic partial response (pPR) and secondary endpoints were distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). Clinical benefit was defined as having a pPR or stable disease (SD) with NET. RESULTS: Overall, 94.4% of patients with genomically (g) Luminal A-Type (50.0% pPR and 44.4% SD) and 95.0% with Luminal B-Type tumors (55.0% pPR and 40.0% SD) exhibited clinical benefit. At 5 years, patients with gLuminal B tumors had significantly worse DMFS (75.6%, 95% CI 50.8-89.1) than patients with gLuminal A (91.1%; 95% CI 74.8-97.1; p = 0.047), with a similar trend for OS, albeit not significant (81.0%, 95% CI 56.9-92.4 and 91.1%, 95% CI 74.8-97.1, respectively; p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Genomic assays offer a broader understanding of the underlying tumor biology, which adds precision to pathology as a preoperative risk classifier. Patients with 70-gene signature Low Risk, gLuminal A tumors treated with endocrine therapy alone have excellent 5-year outcomes. Most patients with genomically-defined Luminal A- and B-Type tumors respond well to NET, suggesting these patients may be safely treated with NET, while those with gLuminal B tumors will also require post-operative chemotherapy or CDK4/6 inhibitors to improve long-term outcomes. Overall, these findings demonstrate that genomic classification, defined by the combined 70- and 80-gene signatures, is associated with tumor response and prognostic of long-term outcomes.

Development and Validation of a Breast Cancer Polygenic Risk Score on the Basis of Genetic Ancestry Composition.

PURPOSE: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for breast cancer (BC) risk stratification have been developed primarily in women of European ancestry. Their application to women of non-European ancestry has lagged because of the lack of a formal approach to incorporate genetic ancestry and ancestry-dependent variant frequencies and effect sizes. Here, we propose a multiple-ancestry PRS (MA-PRS) that addresses these issues and may be useful in the development of equitable PRSs across other cancers and common diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women referred for hereditary cancer testing were divided into consecutive cohorts for development (n = 189,230) and for independent validation (n = 89,126). Individual genetic composition as fractions of three reference ancestries (African, East Asian, and European) was determined from ancestry-informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms. The MA-PRS is a combination of three ancestry-specific PRSs on the basis of genetic ancestral composition. Stratification of risk was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression models controlling for family cancer history. Goodness-of-fit analysis compared expected with observed relative risks by quantiles of the MA-PRS distribution. RESULTS: In independent validation, the MA-PRS was significantly associated with BC risk in the full cohort (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.40 to 1.46; P = 8.6 × 10-308) and within each major ancestry. The top decile of the MA-PRS consistently identified patients with two-fold increased risk of developing BC. Goodness-of-fit tests showed that the MA-PRS was well calibrated and predicted BC risk accurately in the tails of the distribution for both European and non-European women. CONCLUSION: The MA-PRS uses genetic ancestral composition to expand the utility of polygenic risk prediction to non-European women. Inclusion of genetic ancestry in polygenic risk prediction presents an opportunity for more personalized treatment decisions for women of varying and mixed ancestries.

Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer.

Importance: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration. Objective: To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022. Exposure: New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported. Results: Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast cancer.

Genomic Classification of HER2-Positive Patients With 80-Gene and 70-Gene Signatures Identifies Diversity in Clinical Outcomes With HER2-Targeted Neoadjuvant Therapy.

PURPOSE: The prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial compared the 80-gene molecular subtyping signature with clinical assessment by immunohistochemistry and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization in predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) and 5-year outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Standard-of-care neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with trastuzumab or trastuzumab plus pertuzumab was given to patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors (n = 295). pCR was the primary end point, with secondary end points of distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival at 5 years. RESULTS: Among clinically defined HER2-positive (cHER2) tumors, the 80-gene assay identified 29.5% (87 of 295) as Luminal-Type (cHER2/gLuminal), 14.9% (44 of 295) as Basal-Type (cHER2/gBasal), and 55.6% (164 of 295) as HER2-Type (cHER2/genomically classified as HER2 [gHER2]). Patients with cHER2/gHER2 tumors had a higher pCR rate (61.6%) compared with non-gHER2 tumors (26.7%; P < .001). Dual targeting for cHER2/gHER2 tumors yielded a higher pCR rate (75%) compared with those treated with single HER2-targeted therapy (54%; P = .006). For cHER2/gBasal tumors, the 42.9% pCR rate observed with dual targeting was not different from that with trastuzumab alone (46.4%; P = .830). Among those with cHER2/gBasal tumors, 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (68.6%; 95% CI, 49.1 to 81.9) was significantly worse than in patients with cHER2/gLuminal tumors (88.9%; 95% CI, 78.0 to 94.6) and cHER2/gHER2 tumors (87.4%; 95% CI, 80.2 to 92.2; P = .010), with similar corresponding overall survival differences. CONCLUSION: The 80-gene assay identified meaningful genomic diversity in patients with cHER2 disease. Patients with cHER2/gHER2 tumors, who benefitted most from dual HER2-targeted therapy, accounted for approximately half of the cHER2 cohort. Genomically Luminal tumors had low pCR rates but good 5-year outcomes. cHER2/gBasal tumors derived no benefit from dual therapy and had significantly worse 5-year prognosis; these patients merit special consideration in future trials.

Safety and effectiveness of a novel nonpneumatic active compression device for treating breast cancer-related lymphedema: A multicenter randomized, crossover trial (NILE).

OBJECTIVE: Advanced pneumatic compression devices (APCDs) have been shown to be an effective intervention for lymphedema when used as part of a self-care maintenance treatment regimen. However, adherence to self-care has been poor, and APCDs require patients to be immobile during treatment. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a novel nonpneumatic compression device (NPCD) for treating lymphedema vs an APCD. METHODS: A randomized, crossover head-to-head investigation was performed at five U.S. sites in 2021. The patients had been randomized to either the NPCD or a commercially available APCD. The patients used the randomly assigned initial device for 28 days with a 4-week washout period before a comparable 28-day use of the second device. RESULTS: Data from 50 adult women with unilateral breast cancer-related lymphedema were analyzed. Compared with the APCD, the NPCD was associated with a greater mean reduction in the limb edema volume (64.6% vs 27.7%; P < .001), significantly greater mean improvements in quality of life scores, greater adherence (95.6% vs 49.8%; P < .001), and greater satisfaction with the device (90% vs 14%; P < .001). The patients indicated that use of the NPCD facilitated exercise and was convenient for travel. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The results have shown that the novel NPCD is an effective maintenance treatment for reducing the limb volume in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. The NPCD device was more effective than an APCD and resulted in greater adherence to self-care interventions and greater patient satisfaction.

Reducing rates of chronic breast cancer-related lymphedema with screening and early intervention: an update of recent data.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) represents a dreaded complication of breast cancer treatment that can lead to morbidity, diminished quality of life, and psychosocial harm and is associated with increased costs of care. Increasingly, data has supported the concept of prospective BCRL surveillance coupled with early intervention to mitigate these effects. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature searching for published randomized and prospective data evaluating prospective BCRL surveillance with early intervention. RESULTS: We identified 12 studies (2907 patients) including 4 randomized trials (1203 patients) and 8 prospective studies (1704 patients). Randomized data consistently demonstrate that early intervention reduces rates of progression to chronic BCRL with multiple paradigms and diagnostic modalities utilized; the strongest data comes from the randomized PREVENT trial, which demonstrated early detection with bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), coupled with early intervention with a compression garment applied for 12 h a day over 4 weeks, significantly reduced the rate of chronic BCRL compared to tape measurement coupled with early intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Current data support the role of prospective BCRL surveillance with early detection and intervention to reduce rates of chronic BCRL. Breast cancer patients at risk for BCRL should undergo prospective surveillance as part of survivorship. Because level 1 data demonstrate that BIS is superior to conventional tape measure, it should be included as the standard BCRL diagnostic modality unless an equally effective modality is employed. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Breast cancer survivor should undergo prospective BCRL screening with BIS.

Distinct Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response and 5-Year Outcome in Patients With Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Tumors That Reclassify as Basal-Type by the 80-Gene Signature.

PURPOSE: The 80-gene molecular subtyping signature (80-GS) reclassifies a proportion of immunohistochemistry (IHC)-defined luminal breast cancers (estrogen receptor-positive [ER+], human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative [HER2-]) as Basal-Type. We report the association of 80-GS reclassification with neoadjuvant treatment response and 5-year outcome in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST; NCT01479101) is an observational, prospective study that included 1,069 patients with early-stage breast cancer age 18-90 years who received neoadjuvant therapy. Pathologic complete response (pCR) and 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed in 477 patients with IHC-defined ER+, HER2- tumors and in a reference group of 229 patients with IHC-defined triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). RESULTS: 80-GS reclassified 15% of ER+, HER2- tumors (n = 73) as Basal-Type (ER+/Basal), which had similar pCR compared with TNBC/Basal tumors (34% v 38%; P = .52), and significantly higher pCR than ER+/Luminal A (2%; P < .001) and ER+/Luminal B (6%; P < .001) tumors. The 5-year DMFS (%, [95% CI]) was significantly lower for patients with ER+/Basal tumors (66% [52.6 to 77.3]), compared with those with ER+/Luminal A tumors (92.3% [85.2 to 96.1]) and ER+/Luminal B tumors (73.5% [44.5 to 79.3]). Importantly, patients with ER+/Basal or TNBC/Basal tumors that had a pCR exhibited significantly improved DMFS and OS compared with those with residual disease. By contrast, patients with ER+/Luminal B tumors had comparable 5-year DMFS and OS whether or not they achieved pCR. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in chemosensitivity and 5-year outcome suggest patients with ER+/Basal molecular subtype may benefit from neoadjuvant regimens optimized for patients with TNBC/Basal tumors compared with patients with ER+/Luminal subtype. These data highlight the importance of identifying this subset of patients to improve treatment planning and long-term survival.

Age-Independent Preoperative Chemosensitivity and 5-Year Outcome Determined by Combined 70- and 80-Gene Signature in a Prospective Trial in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Neoadjuvant Breast Symphony Trial (NBRST) demonstrated the 70-gene risk of distant recurrence signature, MammaPrint, and the 80-gene molecular subtyping signature, BluePrint, precisely determined preoperative pathological complete response (pCR) in breast cancer patients. We report 5-year follow-up results in addition to an exploratory analysis by age and menopausal status. METHODS: The observational, prospective NBRST (NCT01479101) included 954 early-stage breast cancer patients aged 18-90 years who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and had clinical and genomic data available. Chemosensitivity and 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. In a post hoc subanalysis, results were stratified by age (≤ 50 vs. > 50 years) and menopausal status in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) tumors. RESULTS: MammaPrint and BluePrint further classified 23% of tumors to a different subtype compared with immunohistochemistry, with more precise correspondence to pCR rates. Five-year DMFS and OS were highest in MammaPrint Low Risk, Luminal A-type and HER2-type tumors, and lowest in MammaPrint High Risk, Luminal B-type and Basal-type tumors. There was no significant difference in chemosensitivity between younger and older patients with Low-Risk (2.2% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.64) or High-Risk tumors (14.5% vs. 11.5%; p = 0.42), or within each BluePrint subtype; this was similar when stratifying by menopausal status. The 5-year outcomes were comparable by age or menopausal status for each molecular subtype. CONCLUSION: Intrinsic preoperative chemosensitivity and long-term outcomes were precisely determined by BluePrint and MammaPrint regardless of patient age, supporting the utility of these assays to inform treatment and surgical decisions in early-stage breast cancer.

High concordance of 70-gene recurrence risk signature and 80-gene molecular subtyping signature between core needle biopsy and surgical resection specimens in early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With increased neoadjuvant therapy recommendations for early-stage breast cancer patients due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative that molecular diagnostic assays provide reliable results from preoperative core needle biopsies (CNB). The study objective was to determine the concordance of MammaPrint and BluePrint results between matched CNB and surgical resection (SR) specimens. METHODS: Matched tumor specimens (n = 121) were prospectively collected from women enrolled in the FLEX trial (NCT03053193). Concordance is reported using overall percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient. Correlation is reported using Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: We found good concordance for MammaPrint results between matched tumor samples (90.9%, κ = 0.817), and a very strong correlation of MammaPrint indices (r = 0.94). The concordance of BluePrint subtyping in matched samples was also excellent (98.3%). CONCLUSIONS: CNB samples demonstrated high concordance with paired SR samples for MammaPrint risk classification and BluePrint molecular subtyping, suggesting that physicians are provided with accurate prognostic information that can be used to guide therapy decisions.

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.

The Clinical Utility of DCISionRT® on Radiation Therapy Decision Making in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The role of radiation therapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. Trials have not identified a low-risk cohort, based on clinicopathologic features, who do not benefit from RT. A biosignature (DCISionRT®) that evaluates recurrence risk has been developed and validated. We evaluated the impact of DCISionRT on clinicians' recommendations for adjuvant RT. METHODS: The PREDICT study is a prospective, multi-institutional, observational registry in which patients underwent DCISionRT testing. The primary endpoint was to identify the percentage of patients where testing led to a change in RT recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, 539 women were included in this study. Pre DCISionRT testing, RT was recommended to 69% of patients; however, post-testing, a change in the RT recommendation was made for 42% of patients compared with the pre-testing recommendation; the percentage of women who were recommended RT decreased by 20%. For women initially recommended not to receive an RT pre-test, 35% had their recommendation changed to add RT following testing, while post-test, 46% of patients had their recommendation changed to omit RT after an initial recommendation for RT. When considered in conjunction with other clinicopathologic factors, the elevated DCISionRT score risk group (DS > 3) had the strongest association with an RT recommendation (odds ratio 43.4) compared with age, grade, size, margin status, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS: DCISionRT provided information that significantly changed the recommendations to add or omit RT. Compared with traditional clinicopathologic features used to determine recommendations for or against RT, the factor most strongly associated with RT recommendations was the DCISionRT result, with other factors of importance being patient preference, tumor size, and grade.