Adjuvant Olaparib for Germline BRCA Carriers With HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer: Evidence and Controversies.

In the OlympiA study, 1 year of adjuvant olaparib significantly extended invasive disease-free survival and overall survival. The benefit was consistent across subgroups, and this regimen is now recommended after chemotherapy for germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCA1/2m) carriers with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer. However, the integration of olaparib in the landscape of agents currently available in the post(neo)adjuvant setting-ie, pembrolizumab, abemaciclib, and capecitabine-is challenging, as there are no data suggesting how to select, sequence, and/or combine these therapeutic approaches. Furthermore, it is unclear how to best identify additional patients who could benefit from adjuvant olaparib beyond the original OlympiA criteria. Since it is unlikely that new clinical trials will answer these questions, recommendations for clinical practice can be made through indirect evidence. In this article, we review available data that could help guide treatment decisions for gBRCA1/2m carriers with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer.

Pathogenic variants among females with breast cancer and a non-breast cancer reveal opportunities for cancer interception.

PURPOSE: Herein, we report the frequency and distribution of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) among females with breast cancer (BC) and at least one other non-BC who underwent multi-gene panel testing (MGPT). Among females with PVs diagnosed first with BC or ovarian cancer (OC), we sought to enumerate the frequency of subsequent PV-associated cancers. METHODS: Females with BC and cancer of ≥ 1 other site (multiple primary cancers, MPC) who underwent MGPT through Ambry Genetics from March 2012 to December 2016 were included if they had testing of at least 21 genes of interest (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53). Phenotypic data were abstracted from test requisition forms and clinical notes. RESULTS: Of 6,617 evaluable patients, most were White (70.8%) and median age at first cancer, second cancer, and MGPT was 49 (interquartile range [IQR]: 18), 59 (IQR: 16), and 63 (IQR: 16) years, respectively. PVs were found among 14.1% (932/6617) of the overall cohort and in 16.4% (440/2687) of females who were diagnosed first with BC. Among those, 55.2% (243/440) had an actionable PV associated with a subsequent cancer diagnosis including 150 OCs. Of the 2443 females with breast and ovarian cancer, few (n = 97, 9.5%) were diagnosed first with OC, limiting our analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Females with MPC, including BC, have a high frequency of germline PVs (14.1%). These data delineate the opportunities for intercepting subsequent cancers associated with genetic risk among females diagnosed first with BC.

Screening MRI Does Not Increase Cancer Detection or Result in an Earlier Stage at Diagnosis for Patients with High-Risk Breast Lesions: A Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend consideration of screening MRI for patients with high-risk breast lesions (HRLs), acknowledging limited data for this moderate-risk population. METHODS: This study identified patients with atypical ductal/lobular hyperplasia (ADH/ALH), lobular carcinoma in situ, (LCIS) or both evaluated at our high-risk clinic. Patients were categorized as having received screening mammography (MMG) alone vs. MMG and breast MRI (MMG+MRI). Inverse probability weighting based on propensity scores (PS) representing likelihood of MRI use was applied to Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to determine cancer detection and biopsy rates by screening group. RESULTS: Among 908 eligible patients, 699 (77%) patients with available follow-up data were analyzed (542 with ADH/ALH and 157 with LCIS). Of the 699 patients, 540 (77%) received MMG alone, and 159 (23%) received MMG + MRI. The median follow-up period was 25 months, during which a median of two MRIs were performed. After PS-weighting, the characteristics of each screening group were well-balanced with respect to age, race, body mass index (BMI), menopausal status, breast density, family history, HRL type, and chemoprevention use. The 4 year breast cancer detection rate was 3.6% with both MMG alone and MMG+MRI (p = 0.89). The breast biopsy rates were significantly higher with MMG+MRI (30.5% vs12.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.67; p < 0.001). All breast cancers were clinically node-negative and pathologic stage 0 or 1. Among five cancers in the MMG+MRI group, two were MRI-detected, two were MMG-detected, and one was detected on clinical exam. CONCLUSIONS: Screening MRI did not improve cancer detection, and cancer characteristics were favorable whether screened with MMG alone or MMG + MRI. These findings question the benefit of MRI for patients with HRL, although longer-term follow-up study is needed.

Prevalence and spectrum of pathogenic variants among patients with multiple primary cancers evaluated by clinical characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Multiple primary cancers (MPCs) are a hallmark of cancer predisposition syndromes. Here the frequency of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) among patients with MPCs is reported. METHODS: Patients with MPCs who underwent multigene panel testing from March 2012 to December 2016 were studied. Eligible patients had an analysis of 21 genes: ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53. The frequencies of PVs by sex, number of cancers, and age at diagnosis were compared with 2-sided χ2 tests or Fisher exact tests when the number was <10. RESULTS: Among the 9714 patients analyzed, most were female (91.1%) and White (71.0%); the median age at testing was 63 years, and the median ages at first and second cancer diagnoses were 49 and 58 years, respectively. Overall, 1320 (13.6%) had PVs. The prevalence of PVs increased with the number of primary cancers (PCs): 13.1% with 2 PCs, 15.9% with 3 PCs, and 18.0% with ≥4 PCs (P = .00056). Differences in the prevalence of PVs by age at diagnosis were significant: 14.7% with 2 PCs at an age < 50 years, 15.8% with 1 PC at an age < 50 years, and 12.0% with all PCs at an age ≥ 50 years (P = 2.07E-05). PVs by the age at second cancer diagnosis were also significant: 14.7% at an age < 50 years, 13.9% at an age of 50 to 69 years, and 11.4% at an age ≥ 70 years (P for trend = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with MPCs, there is a high frequency of germline PVs, with a higher frequency found among patients with a higher number of PCs. These findings suggest that genetic testing should be considered even among patients who are older at the diagnosis of an additional primary malignancy.

Initiation and tolerance of chemoprevention among women with high-risk breast lesions: the potential of low-dose tamoxifen.

PURPOSE: High-risk lesions (HRLs) of the breast are an indication for chemoprevention, yet uptake is low, largely due to concerns about side effects. In 2019, low-dose (5 mg) tamoxifen was demonstrated to reduce breast cancer risk with improved tolerance. We describe chemoprevention uptake in an academic clinic before and after the introduction of low-dose tamoxifen. METHODS: Females age ≥ 35 with HRLs who established care from April 2017 through January 2020 and eligible for chemoprevention were included. Rates of chemoprevention initiation before and after the introduction of low-dose tamoxifen (pre-2019 vs. post-2019) were compared with chi-squared tests. Logistic regression identified demographic and clinical factors associated with chemoprevention initiation. Kaplan-Meier methods determined the rates of discontinuation. RESULTS: Among 660 eligible females with HRLs, 22.7% initiated chemoprevention. Median time from first visit to chemoprevention initiation was 54 days (interquartile range (IQR): 0-209); 31.0% (46/150) started chemoprevention > 6 months after their initial visit. Chemoprevention uptake was not significantly different pre-2019 vs. post-2019 (21.2% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.16); however, post-2019, low-dose tamoxifen became the most popular option (41.5%, 34/82). On multivariable analyses, age and breast cancer family history were significantly associated with chemoprevention initiation. Discontinuation rates at 1 year were lowest for low-dose tamoxifen (6.7%) vs. tamoxifen 20 mg (15.0%), raloxifene (20.4%), or an aromatase inhibitor (20.0%). CONCLUSION: In this modern cohort, 22.7% of females with HRLs initiated chemoprevention with 31.0% initiating chemoprevention > 6 months after their first visit. Low-dose tamoxifen is now the most popular choice for chemoprevention, with low discontinuation rates at 1 year.

Cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean: recent advances and opportunities to move forward.

The increasing burden of cancer represents a substantial problem for Latin America and the Caribbean. Two Lancet Oncology Commissions in 2013 and 2015 highlighted potential interventions that could advance cancer care in the region by overcoming existing challenges. Areas requiring improvement included insufficient investment in cancer control, non-universal health coverage, fragmented health systems, inequitable concentration of cancer services, inadequate registries, delays in diagnosis or treatment initiation, and insufficient palliative services. Progress has been made in key areas but remains uneven across the region. An unforeseen challenge, the COVID-19 pandemic, strained all resources, and its negative effect on cancer control is expected to continue for years. In this Series paper, we summarise progress in several aspects of cancer control since 2015, and identify persistent barriers requiring commitment of additional resources to reduce the cancer burden in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Customized breast cancer risk assessment in an ambulatory clinic: a portal for identifying women at risk.

PURPOSE: Existing high-risk clinic models focus on patients with known risk factors, potentially missing many high-risk patients. Here we describe our experience implementing universal risk assessment in an ambulatory breast center. METHODS: Since May 2017, all breast center patients completed a customized intake survey addressing known breast cancer risk factors and lifestyle choices. Patient characteristics, family history, risk scores, and lifestyle factors were examined; patients with high-risk breast lesions were excluded. Patients were considered at increased risk by model thresholds Gail 5-year risk > 1.7% (35-59 years), Gail 5-year risk > 5.5% (≥ 60 years), or Tyrer-Cuzick (T-C) v7 lifetime risk > 20% (any age). RESULTS: From May 2017-April 2018, there were 874 eligible patients-420 (48%) referred for risk assessment (RA) and 454 (52%) for non-specific breast complaints (NSBC). Overall, 389 (45%) were at increased risk of breast cancer. Gail 5-year risks were similar between RA and NSBC patients. However, RA patients more frequently met criteria by T-C score (P = 0.02). Of all patients at increased risk, 149 (39%) were overweight (BMI > 25) or obese (BMI > 30) and only 159 (41%) met recommended exercise standards. NSBC patients who met criteria were more frequently smokers (8% vs 1%, P < 0.01); all other demographic/lifestyle factors were similar among high-risk patients regardless of referral reason. CONCLUSIONS: Universal risk assessment in a comprehensive breast health center identified 45% of our population to be at increased risk of breast cancer. This clinical care model provides a unique opportunity to identify and address modifiable risk factors among women at risk.

Are rare cancer survivors at elevated risk of subsequent new cancers?

BACKGROUND: Although rare cancers account for 27% of cancer diagnoses in the US, there is insufficient research on survivorship issues in these patients. An important issue cancer survivors face is an elevated risk of being diagnosed with new primary cancers. The primary aim of this analysis was to assess whether a history of rare cancer increases the risk of subsequent cancer compared to survivors of common cancers. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 16,630 adults with personal and/or family history of cancer who were recruited from cancer clinics at 14 geographically dispersed US academic centers of the NIH-sponsored Cancer Genetics Network (CGN). Participants' self-reported cancer histories were collected at registration to the CGN and updated annually during follow-up. At enrollment, 14% of participants reported a prior rare cancer. Elevated risk was assessed via the cause-specific hazard ratio on the time to a subsequent cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 7.9 years, relative to the participants who were unaffected at enrollment, those with a prior rare cancer had a 23% higher risk of subsequent cancer (95% CI: -1 to 52%), while those with a prior common cancer had no excess risk. Patients having two or more prior cancers were at a 53% elevated risk over those with fewer than two (95% CI: 21 to 94%) and if the multiple prior cancers were rare cancers, risk was further elevated by 47% (95% CI: 1 to 114%). CONCLUSION: There is evidence suggesting that survivors of rare cancers, especially those with multiple cancer diagnoses, are at an increased risk of a subsequent cancer. There is a need to study this population more closely to better understand cancer pathogenesis.

Cervical cancer control in Latin America: A call to action.

Cervical cancer (CC) is second most common cause of cancer in Latin America and is a leading cause of cancer mortality among women. In 2015, an estimated 74,488 women will be diagnosed with CC in Latin America and 31,303 will die of the disease. CC mortality is projected to increase by 45% by 2030 despite human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and screening efforts. In this setting, the goal was of the current study was to examine CC control efforts in Latin America and identify deficiencies in these efforts that could be addressed to reduce CC incidence and mortality. The authors found that HPV vaccination has been introduced in the majority of Latin American countries, and there is now a need to monitor the success (or shortcomings) of these programs and to ensure that these programs are sustainable. This topic was also reviewed in light of emerging data demonstrating that visual inspection with acetic acid and HPV DNA testing without Papanicolaou tests have efficacy from a screening perspective and are good alternatives to cytology-based screening programs. Overall, there is a need to build capacity for CC control in Latin America and the best strategy will depend on the country/region and must be tailored to meet the needs of the population as well as available resources.

Use and Yield of Baseline Imaging and Laboratory Testing in Stage II Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite guideline recommendations, baseline laboratory testing and advanced imaging are widely ordered in clinical practice to stage asymptomatic patients with clinical stage II breast cancer (BC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study at two academic centers in Boston, Massachusetts, between 2006 and 2007 explored the use, results, and implications of laboratory tests, tumor markers, and imaging in patients with clinical stage II BC. RESULTS: Among 411 patients, 233 (57%) had liver function testing, 134 (33%) had tumor marker tests, and 237 (58%) had computed tomography (CT) as part of their initial diagnostic workup. Median age was 52 (range, 23-90 years). On multivariable analysis, young age, more advanced stage, and tumor subtype (human epidermal growth receptor-positive [HER2+] and triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]) were significantly associated with baseline CT. The rate of detection of true metastatic disease with use of baseline staging imaging was 2.1% (95% confidence interval, 0.7%-5%). It was 2.2% (3 of 135) for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-positive disease, 1.9% (1 of 54) for HER2+ disease, and 2.1% (1 of 48) for TNBC. At 5 years of follow-up, 46 of 406 patients were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Thirty-four of 46 (73.9%) who developed recurrent disease had imaging at their initial diagnosis, and of these, five had abnormalities on their initial imaging that was correlated with where they developed metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of women with stage II BC, staging imaging at diagnosis had a low yield in detecting distant metastases (2.1%). The detection rate was not higher with HER2+ disease or TNBC, despite the trend that patients with these subtypes were more likely to undergo imaging. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite guideline recommendations, asymptomatic patients with stage II breast cancer (BC) often undergo staging imaging with computed tomography, bone scanning, or positron emission tomography. Physicians have often reported that they order imaging despite recommendations because they believe that younger patients or patients with more aggressive BC phenotypes, such as human epidermal receptor 2-positive BC or triple-negative BC, benefit from staging imaging. In this cohort of women younger than those in prior studies, the yield of detecting distant metastatic disease in patients with clinical stage II BC was very low and the detection rate was not higher in the presence of HER2-positive or triple-negative BC.

Systemic Therapies for Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer: The Role of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Chemotherapy and the Use of Endocrine Therapy.

Breast cancer is a heterogenous disease, comprised of at least 3 major subtypes: hormone receptor-positive/HER2-(HR+), HER2+, and HR-/HER2-(triple negative) breast cancers. The medical management of each subype is distinct. In this article, we review contemporary data supporting the use of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy and biologic therapies, especially HER2-directed agents, in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting in patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic (stage I-III) breast cancer.

Progress and remaining challenges for cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide, and an increasing threat in low-income and middle-income countries. Our findings in the 2013 Commission in The Lancet Oncology showed several discrepancies between the cancer landscape in Latin America and more developed countries. We reported that funding for health care was a small percentage of national gross domestic product and the percentage of health-care funds diverted to cancer care was even lower. Funds, insurance coverage, doctors, health-care workers, resources, and equipment were also very inequitably distributed between and within countries. We reported that a scarcity of cancer registries hampered the design of credible cancer plans, including initiatives for primary prevention. When we were commissioned by The Lancet Oncology to write an update to our report, we were sceptical that we would uncover much change. To our surprise and gratification much progress has been made in this short time. We are pleased to highlight structural reforms in health-care systems, new programmes for disenfranchised populations, expansion of cancer registries and cancer plans, and implementation of policies to improve primary cancer prevention.

Challenges to effective cancer control in China, India, and Russia.

Cancer is one of the major non-communicable diseases posing a threat to world health. Unfortunately, improvements in socioeconomic conditions are usually associated with increased cancer incidence. In this Commission, we focus on China, India, and Russia, which share rapidly rising cancer incidence and have cancer mortality rates that are nearly twice as high as in the UK or the USA, vast geographies, growing economies, ageing populations, increasingly westernised lifestyles, relatively disenfranchised subpopulations, serious contamination of the environment, and uncontrolled cancer-causing communicable infections. We describe the overall state of health and cancer control in each country and additional specific issues for consideration: for China, access to care, contamination of the environment, and cancer fatalism and traditional medicine; for India, affordability of care, provision of adequate health personnel, and sociocultural barriers to cancer control; and for Russia, monitoring of the burden of cancer, societal attitudes towards cancer prevention, effects of inequitable treatment and access to medicine, and a need for improved international engagement.

Older women's experience with breast cancer treatment decisions.

The purpose of this study was to better understand older women's experience with breast cancer treatment decisions. We conducted a longitudinal study of non-demented, English-speaking women ≥ 65 years recruited from three Boston-based breast imaging centers. We interviewed women at the time of breast biopsy (before they knew their results) and 6 months later. At baseline, we assessed intention to accept different breast cancer treatments, sociodemographic, and health characteristics. At follow-up, we asked women about their involvement in treatment decisions, to describe how they chose a treatment, and influencing factors. We assessed tumor characteristics through chart abstraction. We used quantitative and qualitative analyses. Seventy women (43 ≥ 75 years) completed both interviews and were diagnosed with breast cancer; 91 % were non-Hispanic white. At baseline, women 75+ were less likely than women 65-74 to report that they would accept surgery and/or take a medication for ≥ 5 years if recommended for breast disease. Women 75+ were ultimately less likely to receive hormonal therapy for estrogen receptor positive tumors than women 65-74. Women 75+ asked their surgeons fewer questions about their treatment options and were less likely to seek information from other sources. A surgeon's recommendation was the most influential factor affecting older women's treatment decisions. In open-ended comments, 17 women reported having no perceived choice about treatment and 42 stated they simply followed their physician's recommendation for at least one treatment choice. In conclusion, to improve care of older women with breast cancer, interventions are needed to increase their engagement in treatment decision-making.

Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

In breast cancer (BC) pathogenesis models, normal cells acquire somatic mutations and there is a stepwise progression from high-risk lesions and ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive cancer. The precancer biology of mammary tissue warrants better characterization to understand how different BC subtypes emerge. Primary methods for BC prevention or risk reduction include lifestyle changes, surgery, and chemoprevention. Surgical intervention for BC prevention involves risk-reducing prophylactic mastectomy, typically performed either synchronously with the treatment of a primary tumor or as a bilateral procedure in high-risk women. Chemoprevention with endocrine therapy carries adherence-limiting toxicity.

TP53-associated early breast cancer: new observations from a large cohort.

BACKGROUND: A large well-annotated recent international cohort of Li-Fraumeni (LFS) patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) was examined for shared features. METHODS: This multicentre cohort study included females with a germline TP53 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant and nonmetastatic BC diagnosed between 2002-2022. Clinical and genetic data were obtained from institutional registries and clinical charts. Descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize proportions and differences were assessed by Chi square or Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Metachronous contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, radiation-induced sarcoma risk, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: Among 227 females who met study criteria, the median age of first BC diagnosis was 37 years (range 21-71), 11.9% presented with bilateral synchronous BC and 18.1% had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) only. In total, 166 (73.1%) underwent mastectomies including 67 bilateral mastectomies as first BC surgery. Among those with retained breast tissue, CBC rate was 25.3% at 5-years. Among 186 invasive tumors, 72.1% were stages I-II, 48.9% node-negative, and the most common subtypes were HR+/HER2- (40.9%) and HR+/HER2 + (34.4%). At a median follow-up of 69.9 months (IQR 32.6-125.9), invasive HR+/HER2- disease had the highest recurrence risk among the subtypes (5-year RFS 61.1%, p = .0012). Among those who received radiation therapy (n = 79), the 5-year radiation-induced sarcoma rate was 4.8%. CONCLUSION: We observed high rates of DCIS, HR+ and HER2+ breast cancers, with a worse outcome in the HR+/HER2- luminal tumors despite appropriate treatment. Confirmation of these findings in further studies could have implications for BC care in LFS.

Clinicopathological characteristics and eligibility for adjuvant olaparib of germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with HER2-negative early breast cancer.

Following the survival benefit demonstrated in the OlympiA trial, one year of adjuvant olaparib is now recommended for all patients with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV) and high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer after chemotherapy. However, optimal identification of high-risk patients who may derive benefit from this genomically-directed therapy is debated. In this study, we sought to characterize the real-world proportion of gBRCA1/2 PV carriers eligible for adjuvant olaparib according to the OlympiA criteria, and to compare clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes between eligible and ineligible patients.