Ultrasensitive plasma-based monitoring of tumor burden using machine-learning-guided signal enrichment.

In solid tumor oncology, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is poised to transform care through accurate assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) and therapeutic response monitoring. To overcome the sparsity of ctDNA fragments in low tumor fraction (TF) settings and increase MRD sensitivity, we previously leveraged genome-wide mutational integration through plasma whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Here we now introduce MRD-EDGE, a machine-learning-guided WGS ctDNA single-nucleotide variant (SNV) and copy-number variant (CNV) detection platform designed to increase signal enrichment. MRD-EDGESNV uses deep learning and a ctDNA-specific feature space to increase SNV signal-to-noise enrichment in WGS by ~300× compared to previous WGS error suppression. MRD-EDGECNV also reduces the degree of aneuploidy needed for ultrasensitive CNV detection through WGS from 1 Gb to 200 Mb, vastly expanding its applicability within solid tumors. We harness the improved performance to identify MRD following surgery in multiple cancer types, track changes in TF in response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy in lung cancer and demonstrate ctDNA shedding in precancerous colorectal adenomas. Finally, the radical signal-to-noise enrichment in MRD-EDGESNV enables plasma-only (non-tumor-informed) disease monitoring in advanced melanoma and lung cancer, yielding clinically informative TF monitoring for patients on immune-checkpoint inhibition.

Circulating tumour mutation detection in triple-negative breast cancer as an adjunct to tissue response assessment.

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) detection via liquid biopsy is an emerging alternative to tissue biopsy, but its potential in treatment response monitoring and prognosis in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is not yet well understood. Here we determined the prevalence of actionable mutations detectable in ctDNA using a clinically validated cancer gene panel assay in patients with TNBC, without recurrence at the time of study entry. Sequencing of plasma DNA and validation of variants from 130 TNBC patients collected within 7 months of primary treatment completion revealed that 7.7% had detectable residual disease with a hotspot panel. Among neoadjuvant treated patients, we observed a trend where patients with incomplete pathologic response and positive ctDNA within 7 months of treatment completion were at much higher risk of reduced progression free survival. We propose that a high risk subset of early TNBC patients treated in neoadjuvant therapy protocols may be identifiable by combining tissue response and sensitive ctDNA detection.

Breast conserving surgery combined with radiation therapy offers improved survival over mastectomy in early-stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Landmark trials established equivalent survival regardless of extent of breast surgery in early-stage breast cancer. However, recent studies suggest a survival advantage for breast conserving surgery (BCS) with radiotherapy (BCT). This study assesses the impact of type of surgery on overall survival (OS), breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and local recurrence (LR) in a modern population-based cohort. METHODS: Female patients aged ≥18, pT1-2pN0, who had surgery between 2006 and 2016 were identified from Breast Cancer Outcome Unit prospective database. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients were excluded. Multivariable Cox regression was used to assess the effect of surgical procedure on OS, BCSS, and LR on cohort with complete data. RESULTS: BCT was performed in 8422 patients and TM in 4034 patients. The baseline characteristics differed between the groups. Mean follow up was 8.3 years. BCT was associated with increased OS HR 1.37, p < 0.001, BCSS survival HR 1.49, p < 0.001, and similar LR HR 1.00, p > 0.90. CONCLUSION: This study supports that in early-stage breast cancer, BCT has improved BCSS compared to TM without an increased risk of LR.

Implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in oncology: DPYD-guided dosing to prevent fluoropyrimidine toxicity in British Columbia.

Background: Fluoropyrimidine toxicity is often due to variations in the gene (DPYD) encoding dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). DPYD genotyping can be used to adjust doses to reduce the likelihood of fluoropyrimidine toxicity while maintaining therapeutically effective drug levels. Methods: A multiplex QPCR assay was locally developed to allow genotyping for six DPYD variants. The test was offered prospectively for all patients starting on fluoropyrimidines at the BC Cancer Centre in Vancouver and then across B.C., Canada as well as retrospectively for patients suspected to have had an adverse reaction to therapy. Dose adjustments were made for variant carriers. The incidence of toxicity in the first three cycles was compared between DPYD variant allele carriers and non-variant carriers. Subsequent to an initial implementation phase, this test was made available province-wide. Results: In 9 months, 186 patients were tested and 14 were found to be heterozygous variant carriers. Fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was higher in DPYD variant carriers. Of 127 non-variant carriers who have completed chemotherapy, 18 (14%) experienced severe (grade ≥3, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0). Of note, 22% (3 patients) of the variant carriers experienced severe toxicity even after DPYD-guided dose reductions. For one of these carriers who experienced severe thrombocytopenia within the first week, DPYD testing likely prevented lethal toxicity. In DPYD variant carriers who tolerate reduced doses, a later 25% increase led to chemotherapy discontinuation. As a result, a recommendation was made to clinicians based on available literature and expert opinion specifying that variant carriers who tolerated two cycles without toxicity can have a dose escalation of only 10%. Conclusion: DPYD-guided dose reductions were a feasible and acceptable method of preventing severe toxicity in DPYD variant carriers. Even with dose reductions, there were variant carriers who still experienced severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity, highlighting the importance of adhering to guideline-recommended dose reductions. Following the completion of the pilot phase of this study, DPYD genotyping was made available province-wide in British Columbia.

Does age affect outcome with breast cancer?

Prior data about the influence of age at diagnosis of breast cancer on patient outcomes and survival has been conflicting. Using the Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit database at BC Cancer, this retrospective population-based study identified a cohort of 24,469 patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2005 and 2014. Median follow-up was 11.5 years. We analyzed clinical and pathological features at diagnosis and treatment specific variables compared across the following age cohorts: <35, 35-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80 years of age and older. We assessed the impact of age on breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) by age and subtype. There were distinct clinical-pathological and treatment pattern differences at both extremes of age at diagnosis. Patients <35 and 35-39 years old were more likely to present with higher risk features, HER2 positive or triple-negative biomarkers, and more advanced TNM stage at diagnosis. They were more likely to undergo treatment with mastectomy, axillary lymph node dissection, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Conversely, patients ≥80 years old were generally more likely to have hormone-sensitive HER2-negative disease, and lower TNM stage at diagnosis. They were less likely to undergo surgery or be treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Both younger and elderly age at breast cancer diagnosis were independent risk factors for poorer prognosis after controlling for subtype, LVI, stage, and treatment factors. This work will help clinicians to more accurately estimate patient outcomes, patterns of relapse, and provide evidence-based treatment recommendations.

Breast-Conserving Therapy is Associated with Improved Survival Without an Increased Risk of Locoregional Recurrence Compared with Mastectomy in Both Clinically Node-Positive and Node-Negative Breast Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized trials demonstrated equivalent survival between breast-conserving surgery combined with radiotherapy (BCT) and mastectomy alone. Contemporary retrospective studies using pathological stage have reported improved survival with BCT. However, pathological information is unknown before surgery. To mimic real-world surgical decision-making, this study assesses oncological outcomes by using clinical nodal status. METHODS: Female patients aged 18-69 years who were treated with upfront BCT or mastectomy between 2006 and 2016 for T1-3N0-3 breast cancer were identified by using prospective, provincial database. The patients were divided into clinically node-positive (cN+) and node-negative (cN0) strata. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of local treatment type on overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and locoregional recurrence (LRR). RESULTS: Of 13,914 patients, 8228 had BCT and 5686 had mastectomy. Mastectomy patients had higher-risk clinicopathological factors: pathologically positive axillary staging was 21% in BCT and 38% in mastectomy groups. Most patients received adjuvant systemic therapy. For cN0 patients, 7743 had BCT and 4794 had mastectomy. On multivariable analysis, BCT was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, p < 0.001) and BCSS (HR 1.32, p < 0.001), whereas LRR was not different between the groups (HR 0.84, p = 0.1). For cN+ patients, 485 had BCT and 892 had mastectomy. On multivariable analysis, BCT was associated with improved OS (HR 1.46, p = 0.002) and BCSS (HR 1.44, p = 0.008), whereas LRR was not different between the groups (HR 0.89, p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: In the era of contemporary systemic therapy, BCT was associated with better survival than mastectomy, without an increased risk of locoregional recurrence for both cN0 and cN+ presentations.

Locoregional Recurrence and Survival Outcomes in Breast Cancer Treated With Modern Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Contemporary Population-based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data guiding radiotherapy (RT) decisions after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is largely retrospective, based on older treatment approaches without molecular subtype information. This study evaluated outcomes in breast cancer patients treated with modern NAC by molecular subtype and locoregional treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were 949 patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2016 treated with NAC followed by surgery ± locoregional radiotherapy (LRRT). Outcomes were 7-year locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.5 years, 92% had cT2-4 and 72% cN1-3 disease. Subtypes were: 21% Luminal A, 18% Luminal B, 35% Her2+, and 21% triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Combined taxane and anthracycline-based NAC was used in 91.7% of cases. All patients with Her2+ disease received anti-Her2 therapy. After NAC, the majority (84.9%) underwent mastectomy, and received LRRT (86.1%). Only 11% had mastectomy without RT. Pathologic complete response (pCR) rates were 2.5% for Luminal A, 14.4% Luminal B, 27% TNBC, and 35.1% Her2+. Overall, adjuvant LRRT was associated with improved outcomes but was most significant for improved LRRFS in TNBC (92.5% vs. 68.5%, P < .001; Her2+ 95.4% vs. 93.6%, P = .81; Luminal A 97.4% vs. 100%, P = .49; Luminal B 89.7% vs. 100%, P = .17). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with reduced LRRFS were grade 3 histology (HR 4.96, P = .009) and no pCR (HR 7.0, P = .0008). Predictors of lower BCSS and OS were age >50, grade 3, cT3-4, lack of pCR, LRRT omission, and TNBC and Her2+ subtypes. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of patients treated with modern NAC, pCR rates varied by molecular subtype. Patients who did not receive LRRT, particularly those with TNBC, had lower survival compared to those treated with LRRT. These findings support the need for prospective studies to evaluate the safety of de-escalating RT after NAC.

Risk of recurrence and pregnancy outcomes in young women with breast cancer who do and do not undergo fertility preservation.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of fertility preservation (FP) requiring ovarian stimulation on breast cancer outcomes and pregnancy after breast cancer. METHODS: Women aged ≤ 40 years diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2007 and 2018 and referred for FP consultation prior to systemic therapy were identified from a British Columbia fertility center database. The primary endpoint was invasive breast cancer-free survival (iBCFS) and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and achievement of pregnancy. Survival and pregnancy endpoints were compared using Cox and logistic regression analyses, respectively, for patients who did and did not undergo FP. RESULTS: The study included 153 patients, with 71 (46%) in the FP group and 82 (54%) in the non-FP group. Patients who underwent FP were more likely to be ECOG 0 (99% vs. 88%, p = 0.011) and receive chemotherapy (93% vs. 67%, p < 0.001), but had similar ER positivity status to non-FP patients (70% vs. 79%, p = 0.21). Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years, there were no differences in iBCFS (HR 1.006, 95% CI 0.416-2.438, p = 0.988) or OS (HR 0.789, 95% CI 0.210-2.956, p = 0.725) between FP and non-FP groups. Patients who underwent FP had higher odds of conceiving at least once (OR 3.024, 95% CI 1.312-6.970, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: At a median follow-up of 4.1 years, FP did not impact iBCFS or OS, supporting its safety in young women with breast cancer. In addition, patients who underwent FP were more likely to become pregnant after breast cancer, highlighting the value of pre-oncologic treatment FP in survivorship family planning.

Personalizing Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Early-Stage Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

Endocrine therapy has undergone major changes in the past few years, and is no longer a "one- size- fits- all" prescription. This article discussed some of the new developments and directions.

pN0(i+) and pN1mi Breast Cancer: Treatment and Outcomes in Comparison With pN0 and pN1a in the Modern Era.

PURPOSE: Locoregional recurrence risk and the role of locoregional radiation therapy (LRRT) in pN0(i+) and pN1mi breast cancer are unclear. This study compares locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS) in patients with pN0(i+) and pN1mi relative to pN0 and pN1a disease and evaluates LRRFS according to locoregional treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We studied 10,271 patients referred between 2006 and 2011 with newly diagnosed pT1-T2, pN0, pN0(i+), pN1mi, or pN1a, M0 breast cancer. Outcomes were 10-year Kaplan-Meier LRRFS, relapse-free survival (RFS), distant relapse-free survival, and breast cancer-specific survival. Multivariable analysis of LRRFS and RFS was performed in pN0(i+) and pN1mi cohorts. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 9.3 years. In patients with pN0 (n = 7492), pN0(i+) (n = 305), pN1mi (n = 619), and pN1a (n = 1855) disease, LRRT was used in 1.1%, 24.3%, 45.7%, and 71.1%, respectively. Ten-year outcomes were LRRFS 96%, 92%, 97%, and 96% (P < .001), distant RFS 94%, 91%, 90%, and 84% (P < .001), and breast cancer-specific survival 95%, 90%, 93%, and 87% (P < .001), respectively. Ten-year LRRFS for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery alone, with breast RT, and with LRRT were 81%, 93%, and 91% for patients with pN0(i+) (P = .16) and 94%, 96%, and 100% for patients with pN1mi (P = .02), respectively. Among patients treated with mastectomy, 10-year LRRFS with surgery alone and with LRRT were 93% and 100% for patients with pN0(i+) (P = .12) and 95% and 99% for patients with pN1mi (P = .09). On multivariable analysis of patients with pN0(i+) and pN1mi, systemic therapy was associated with improved LRRFS in patients with pN0(i+) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.2; [0.06-0.6]; P = .005) and patients with pN1mi (HR, 0.1; [0.03-0.5]; P = .006). In patients with pN1mi, LRRT was associated with a trend toward increased LRRFS (HR, 0.2; [0.03-1.1]; P = .07). LRRT was not significantly associated with improved RFS in pN0(i+) or pN1mi disease. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of sentinel node staging and modern systemic therapy, patients with pN0(i+) and PN1mi treated with LRRT experienced 10-year LRR risks ≤10% after breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and RT. LRRT was associated with a trend toward increased LRRFS in pN1mi but not pN0(i+) disease.

Breast Tangent Beam Energy, Surgical Bed-to-Skin Distance and Local Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Treatment.

PURPOSE: Higher energy (>6 MV) photons reduce dose inhomogeneity with breast tangent beams, thereby reducing late breast toxicity, but skin and superficial tissue sparing by higher energy beams raises concerns about local recurrence (LR) risk. This study aimed to determine whether beam energy and surgical bed-to-skin distance affect LR. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This population-based study included newly diagnosed invasive breast cancers without skin involvement (pT1-4a, any-N, M0) treated with breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant whole breast radiation therapy without bolus or beam spoilers. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of LR (CILR). Multivariable analysis (MVA) included mean beam energy, age, T-stage, nodal status, overall stage, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), grade, margin status, extensive intraductal component (EIC), breast cancer subtype, hormone therapy, and chemotherapy. In a subgroup with contoured surgical beds, another MVA included surgical bed-to-skin distance. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 10,083 women treated from 2002 to 2011: 327 with 4 MV, 6006 with 6 MV, 2083 with >6 to 10 MV, and 1667 with >10 MV tangents. The median follow-up time was 11.1 years. The 10-year CILR was 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-5.4) with 4 MV, 2.8% (2.4-3.3) with 6 MV, 4.2% (3.4-5.3) with >6 to 10 MV, and 2.6% (1.9-3.5) with >10 MV. On MVA of the entire cohort, LR risk was increased with positive margins, LVI, EIC, and lack of hormone therapy, but was not associated with beam energy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05; P = .8). On MVA of 3359 patients with contoured surgical beds, LR risk was not associated with surgical bed-to-skin distance (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02; P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: Use of higher breast tangent beam energies is not associated with increased risk of LR, including in cases with surgical beds that are close to the skin.

Impact of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay on the Treatment of Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Breast Cancer Patients With 1-3 Positive Nodes: A Prospective Clinical Utility Study.

PURPOSE: The use of the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay is emerging in node-positive estrogen receptor (ER)+ HER2-negative breast cancer (BC), particularly as initial data from the RxPONDER trial are now available. We investigated the impact of the RS result on adjuvant treatment decisions in such patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, multi-center study enrolled patients with ER+, HER2-negative BC and 1 to 3 positive nodes (microscopic [N1mi] or macroscopic [N1]). Treating oncologists documented treatment recommendations/plan before and after knowing the RS result. Sample size was determined assuming an overall treatment change rate (from chemohormonal therapy [CHT] to hormone therapy [HT] and vice-versa) of ≥30%. RESULTS: The study included 84 patients across 5 regional cancer centers, of whom 82 underwent 21-gene testing (77%, N1 disease; 63% grade 2 tumors). Of the RS-tested patients, 60%, 33%, and 7% had RS 0 to 17, 18 to 30, and 31 to 100, respectively. In 43 patients (52%), treatment changed post-RS: 40 patients (49%) from CHT to HT and 3 patients (4%) from HT to CHT. The net change was a 45% reduction in chemotherapy use. Treatment recommendation changes were consistent with the RS result. In RS 0 to 17 patients, the only documented change was from CHT to HT (27 patients). In RS 18-30 patients, change was noted in both directions (CHT-to-HT, 13 patients; HT-to-CHT, 3 patients). No treatment change was reported for the RS 31 to 100 patients, all of whom were recommended CHT pre-testing. CONCLUSION: Our results support the clinical utility of the RS assay in ER+ HER2-negative BC with 1 to 3 positive nodes.

Impact of TAILORx on chemotherapy prescribing and 21-gene recurrence score-guided treatment costs in a population-based cohort of patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx) (TAILORx) confirmed the predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay in hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer and established thresholds for chemotherapy benefit in younger and older patients. Real-world chemotherapy use and RS-guided treatment costs in British Columbia post-TAILORx were examined. METHODS: The authors assembled 3 cohorts of HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative patients with breast cancer defined by diagnosis: before RS funding (cohort 1 [C1]: January 2013-December 2013), after introduction of public RS funding (cohort 2 [C2]: July 2015-June 2016), and after TAILORx results (cohort 3 [C3]: July 2018-June 2019). Chemotherapy use was compared between cohorts by age and RS. Budgetary impacts of RS testing on chemotherapy costs were evaluated pre- and post-TAILORx. RESULTS: Among the 2066 patients included, chemotherapy use declined by 19% after RS funding was introduced and by an additional 23% after TAILORx publication (P = .001). Reduction in chemotherapy use was significant for RS 11-20 tumors (C3 vs C2, P = .004). There was no significant change in chemotherapy use in patients >50 years old (C2:12% vs C3:10%, P = .22). RS testing was associated with higher cost savings post-TAILORx, except in patients 70 to 80 years old, where testing led to excess costs when adjusting for the low rate of RS-concordant chemotherapy prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: TAILORx has had population-based impacts on chemotherapy prescribing in intermediate RS tumors and patients ≤50 years old. The lower clinical use of RS and increased spending in patients 70-80 years old highlights the importance of careful selection of older candidates for high-cost genomic testing. LAY SUMMARY: The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) test helps predict whether patients with hormone-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative breast cancer are likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The recent trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx) (TAILORx) found that patients with intermediate RS tumors did not benefit from chemotherapy. The authors assessed whether TAILORx results translated to real-world changes in chemotherapy prescribing patterns. In this study, chemotherapy use decreased by 23% after TAILORx, with the greatest reductions seen among intermediate RS tumors and younger patients. In contrast, RS testing had lower clinical value and increased treatment costs in elderly patients, which requires further study to ensure optimal care for this age group.

Association Between Regional Nodal Irradiation and Breast Cancer Recurrence-Free Interval for Patients With Low-Risk, Node-Positive Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Randomized clinical trials have shown that regional nodal irradiation (RNI) in patients with unselected N1 breast cancer improves breast cancer-specific survival. However, the benefit of RNI in women with biologically low-risk N1 breast cancer is uncertain. We conducted a population-based study to determine whether RNI is associated with improved breast cancer recurrence-free interval (BCRFI) in this population. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients aged 40 to 79 years with pT1-2 pN1 (node-positive) breast cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 were identified. The inclusion criteria were modeled off of the TAILOR RT study, which is a randomized noninferiority clinical trial designed to assess the value of RNI in patients with low-risk N1 disease. Eligible patients had breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection with 1 to 3 positive nodes, breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy with 1 to 2 positive nodes, or mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy with 1 positive node. Additionally, patients had luminal A breast cancers, as approximated by estrogen receptor positive (Allred 6-8/8), progesterone receptor (PR) positive (Allred 6-8/8), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, and grade 1 to 2 immunohistochemical testing. All patients were prescribed hormonal treatment. The primary endpoint of BCRFI, the time to any breast cancer recurrence or breast cancer-related death, was analyzed using a multivariate competing risks analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 1169 women with a median follow-up of 9.2 years. Radiation treatments were not performed in 151 women treated with mastectomy alone, were delivered to the breast only in 133 women, and were delivered locoregionally in 885 women. Patients undergoing RNI were younger (median age: 58 vs 62 years), more likely to have 2 to 3 macroscopic lymph nodes involved, and more often received chemotherapy (all P < .05). The 10-year estimate of BCRFI was 90% without RNI versus 90% with RNI (P = .5). On multivariable analysis, RNI was not a significant predictor of BCRFI (hazard ratio: 1.0; P = .9). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, RNI was not associated with improved BCRFI for women with biologically low-risk N1 breast cancer. We advocate accrual to the ongoing TAILOR RT study.

Sentinel Node Biopsy Should Not be Routine in Older Patients with ER-Positive HER2-Negative Breast Cancer Who Are Willing and Able to Take Hormone Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The SSO Choosing Wisely campaign recommended selective sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in clinically node-negative women aged ≥ 70 years with ER+ breast cancer. We sought to assess the association of SLNB positivity, adjuvant treatment, and survival in a population-based cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women aged ≥ 70 years treated for ER+ HER2- breast cancer between 2010 and 2016 were identified in our prospective provincial database. Overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of SLNB positivity with use of adjuvant treatments and survival outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 2662 patients who met study criteria. SLNB was positive in 25%. Increased use of chemotherapy (ChT), hormone therapy (HT), and radiotherapy (RT) was significantly associated with SLNB positivity. Five-year OS was 86%, and BCSS was 96% with median follow-up of 4.3 years. BCSS was worse with grade 3 disease (HR 4.1, 95% CI 2.1-8.1, p < 0.0001) and better with HT (HR 0.5 95% CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.01). Patients with a positive SLNB treated without adjuvant therapy had lower BCSS (HR 3.2 95% CI 1.2-8.4, p = 0.017) than those with a negative SLNB, but patients with a positive SLNB treated with any combination of ChT, HT, and/or RT, had similar BCSS to those with a negative SLNB. CONCLUSIONS: BCSS in this population was excellent at 96%, and BCSS was similar with negative and positive SLNB when patients received HT. SLNB can be omitted in elderly patients willing to take HT.

The cost-effectiveness of adding tomosynthesis to mammography-based breast cancer screening: an economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies show that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) can reduce recall rates and increases rates of breast cancer detection. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of DBT plus DM versus DM alone in British Columbia and to identify parameters that can improve the efficiency of breast cancer screening programs. METHODS: We conducted an economic analysis based on data from a cohort of screening participants in the BC Cancer Breast Screening Program. The decision model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes for participants in breast cancer screening who were aged 40-74 years between 2012 and 2017. We analyzed rates of health care resource utilization, health state costs and estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), to measure incremental cost differences per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from the addition of DBT to DM-based screening, from the government payer's perspective. RESULTS: The model simulated economic outcomes for 112 249 screening participants. We found that the ICER was highly sensitive to recall rate reductions and insensitive to parameters related to cancer detection. If DBT plus DM can reduce absolute recall rates by more than 2.1%, the base-case scenario had an ICER of $17 149 per QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, more than 95% of the probabilistic simulations favoured the adoption of DBT plus DM versus DM alone. The ICER depended heavily on the ability of DBT plus DM to reduce recall rates. INTERPRETATION: The addition of DBT to DM would be considered cost-effective owing to the low positive predictive value of screening with DM alone. Reductions in false-positive recall rates should be monitored closely.

The Effect of Bolus on Local Control for Patients Treated With Mastectomy and Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Bolus use during postmastectomy radiation therapy doubles the risk of grade 2 and 3 skin toxicity. Despite its unknown benefit, bolus is often prescribed during postmastectomy radiation therapy for patients without skin involvement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For women with breast cancer receiving photon 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, bolus was used routinely for chest walls but was omitted for breast reconstructions by about half of radiation oncologists from 2007 to 2011. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed invasive breast cancers without skin involvement (pT1-4a, any-N, M0) treated with adjuvant or neoadjuvant radiation therapy. For the bolus and no-bolus groups, we compared the cumulative incidence of local recurrence (LR) and locoregional recurrence (LRR) with distant recurrence and death as competing risks and breast cancer mortality (BCM). Multivariable analysis of LR and BCM included stage, subtype, lymphovascular invasion, grade, margin status, beam energy, bolus use, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and reconstruction. RESULTS: Systemic therapy was used for 98% of the 1887 patients. The bolus group had 1569 patients and the no-bolus group had 318 patients. Bolus was used in 51% (281/550) of patients treated with reconstruction and 96% (1288/1337) of patients treated without reconstruction. The 10-year outcomes (95% confidence interval) in patients treated with and without bolus were, respectively: LR 1.9% (1.3-2.7) versus 0.9% (0.3-2.6), LRR 3.1% (2.3-4.0) versus 3.2% (1.6-5.5), and BCM 19.4% (17.3-21.6) versus 18.3% (13.9-23.2). On multivariable analysis, bolus use was not associated with better LR (hazard ratio = 1.4 [0.3-6.4]) or BCM (hazard ratio = 0.8 [0.5-1.2]). CONCLUSIONS: For patients treated with mastectomy, radiation therapy, and modern systemic therapy, the cumulative incidence of LR was low, with or without bolus. Because bolus use increases toxicity and does not reduce LR or BCM, it should no longer be used routinely for patients without skin involvement who receive systemic therapy.

Breast Cancer Molecular Subtype as a Predictor of Radiation Therapy Fractionation Sensitivity.

PURPOSE: The predictive benefit of breast cancer molecular subtypes for systemic therapy approaches has been well established; yet, there is a paucity of data regarding their use as a predictor of radiation therapy fractionation sensitivity. The purpose of this study was to determine whether rates of local recurrence (LR) for patients treated with hypofractionated (HF) radiation therapy, in comparison to conventional fractionation, differ across breast cancer molecular subtypes in a large, prospectively collected cohort treated with modern systemic therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients who received a diagnosis of stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2009 were identified. Molecular subtype was determined using the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification system (luminal-A, luminal-B, HER2+, triple negative [TN]). Multivariable Cox regression modeling was used to identify predictors of LR. LR-free-survival (LRFS) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 5868 cases were identified with a median follow-up of 10.8 years. Patients with luminal-A subtype composed 45% of the cohort (n = 2628), compared with 30% luminal-B (n = 1734), 15% HER2+ (n = 903), and 10% TN (n = 603). A total of 76% (n = 4429) of patients were treated with HF. The 10-year LRFS was 97.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.6-97.6) for the whole cohort. The 10-year LRFS based on molecular subtypes was 98.3% (95% CI, 97.6-98.7) luminal-A, 96.6% (95% CI, 95.5-97.4) luminal-B, 97.0% (95% CI, 95.5-98.0) HER2+, and 93.5% (95% CI, 91.1-95.3) TN (P < .001). There was no difference in the 10-year LRFS between patients treated with HF versus conventional fractionation among those with luminal-A (98.2% vs 98.4%; P = .42), luminal-B (96.6% vs 96.8%; P = .90), HER2+ (97.5% vs 95.8%; P = .12), or TN (93.9% vs 92.2%; P = .47). There was no significant interaction between subtype and fractionation regimen. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the routine use of hypofractionated radiation therapy regimens across all breast cancer subtypes.

Hypofractionated Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Is Effective for Patients With Lymph Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated long-term, population-based, breast cancer-specific outcomes in patients treated with radiation therapy (RT) to the breast/chest wall plus regional nodes using hypofractionated (HF) (40-42.5 Gy/16 fractions) versus conventionally fractionated (CF) regimens (50-50.4 Gy/25-28 fractions). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prospective provincial database was used to identify patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer treated with curative-intent breast/chest wall + regional nodal RT from 1998 to 2010. The effect of RT fractionation on locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) was assessed for the entire cohort and for high-risk subgroups: grade 3, ER-/HER2-, HER2+, and ≥4 positive nodes. Multivariable analysis and 2:1 case-match comparison of HF versus CF were also performed. RESULTS: A total of 5487 patients met the inclusion criteria (4006 HF and 1481 CF). Median age was 55 years, and median follow-up was 12.7 years. On multivariable analysis, no statistically significant differences were identified in 10-year LRRFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.27; P = .46), DRFS (HR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76-1.06; P = .19), or BCSS (HR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.10; P = .36) between the HF and CF cohorts. There was no statistical difference in breast cancer-specific outcomes in the high-risk subgroups. On analysis of 2962 HF cases matched to 1481 CF controls, no statistical difference was observed in LRRFS (HR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.71-1.33; P = .87), DRFS (HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85-1.11; P = .68), or BCSS (HR 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.16; P = .92). CONCLUSIONS: This large, population-based analysis with long-term follow-up after locoregional RT demonstrated that modest HF provides similar breast cancer-specific outcomes compared with CF. HF is an effective option for patients with stage I to III breast cancer receiving nodal RT.