A bio-behavioral model of systemic inflammation at breast cancer diagnosis and fatigue of clinical importance two years later.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to generate a model of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) of clinical importance two years after diagnosis of breast cancer building on clinical and behavioral factors and integrating pre-treatment markers of systemic inflammation. METHODS: Women with stage I-III HR+/HER2- breast cancer were included from the multimodal, prospective CANTO cohort (NCT01993498). The primary outcome was global CRF of clinical importance (EORTC QLQ-C30≥40/100) two years after diagnosis (year-2). Secondary outcomes included physical, emotional, and cognitive CRF (EORTC QLQ-FA12). All pre-treatment candidate variables were assessed at diagnosis, including inflammatory markers (interleukin [IL]-1a, IL-1b, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, interferon gamma, IL-1 receptor antagonist, TNF-α, and C-reactive protein), and were tested in multivariable logistic regression models implementing multiple imputation and validation by 100-fold bootstrap resampling. RESULTS: Among 1208 patients, 415 (34.4%) reported global CRF of clinical importance at year-2. High pre-treatment levels of IL-6 (Quartile 4 vs.1) were associated with global CRF at year-2 (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]: 2.06 [95% Confidence Interval 1.40-3.03]; p=0.0002; AUC=0.74). Patients with high pre-treatment IL-6 had unhealthier behaviors, including being frequently either overweight or obese (62.4%; mean BMI 28.0 [SD 6.3] Kg/m2) and physically inactive (53.5% did not meet WHO recommendations). Clinical and behavioral associations with CRF at year-2 included pre-treatment CRF (aOR vs no: 3.99 [2.81-5.66]), younger age (per 1-year decrement: 1.02 [1.01-1.03]), current smoking (vs never: 1.81 [1.26-2.58]), and worse insomnia or pain (per 10-unit increment: 1.08 [1.04-1.13], and 1.12 [1.04-1.21], respectively). Secondary analyses indicated additional associations of IL-2 (aOR per log-unit increment:1.32 [CI 1.03-1.70]) and IL-10 (0.73 [0.57-0.93]) with global CRF and of C-reactive protein (1.42 [1.13-1.78]) with cognitive CRF at year-2. Emotional distress was consistently associated with physical, emotional, and cognitive CRF. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes a bio-behavioral framework linking pre-treatment systemic inflammation with CRF of clinical importance two years later among a large prospective sample of survivors of breast cancer.

Incidence and outcome of brain and/or leptomeningeal metastases in HER2-low metastatic breast cancer in the French ESME cohort.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is the second most common cancer that metastasizes to the brain. Particularly up to half of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may develop brain metastases over the course of the disease. Nevertheless, little is known about the prevalence and the outcome of brain and leptomeningeal metastases (BLMM) in HER2-low BC. We compared the cumulative incidence of BLMM and associated outcomes among patients with HER2-low, HER2-negative (HER2-) and HER2+ mBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cohort study was conducted from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) mBC database and included patients treated for mBC between 2012 and 2020 across 18 French comprehensive cancer centers and with known HER2 and hormone receptor (HR) status. The cumulative incidence of BLMM after metastatic diagnosis was estimated using a competing risk methodology with death defined as a competing event. RESULTS: 19 585 patients were included with 6118 (31.2%), 9943 (50.8%) and 3524 (18.0%) being HER2-low, HER2- and HER2+ mBC, respectively. After a median follow-up of 48.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 47.7-49.3 months], BLMM were reported in 4727 patients: 1192 (25.2%) were diagnosed with BLMM at first metastatic diagnosis and 3535 (74.8%) after metastatic diagnosis. Multivariable analysis adjusted for age, histological grade, metastases-free interval and HR status showed that the risk of BLMM at metastatic diagnosis was similar in patients with HER2- compared to HER2-low mBC [odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) 1.00 (0.86-1.17)] and higher in those with HER2+ compared to HER2-low [OR (95% CI) 2.23 (1.87-2.66)]. Similar results were found after metastatic diagnosis; the risk of BLMM was similar in HER2- compared to HER2-low [subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) (95% CI) 1.07 (0.98-1.16)] and higher in the HER2+ group [sHR (95% CI) 1.56 (1.41-1.73)]. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and evolution of BLMM in HER2-low mBC are similar to those in patients with HER2- tumors. In contrast to patients with HER2+ mBC, the prognosis of BLMM remains dismal in this population.

Investigating sexual health after breast cancer by longitudinal assessment of patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Sexual concerns are a major unaddressed need among survivors of breast cancer (BC) with significant negative effects on quality of life. We longitudinally analyzed sexual health over time, using patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients with stage I-III BC prospectively included from the CANcer TOxicity cohort (CANTO) provided data at diagnosis, then 1, 2, and 4 years afterward. Sexual concerns outcomes included poor body image (score ≤91/100), poor sexual functioning (≤16/100), poor sexual enjoyment (≤66/100), and sexual inactivity (EORTC QLQ-B23). Multivariate generalized estimating equation models assessed associations with sexual concerns after diagnosis, adjusting for age, sociodemographic, tumor, treatment, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Nearly 78.1% among 7895 patients reported at least one sexual concern between diagnosis and 4 years' follow-up. Over time, the proportion of patients reporting sexual concerns either increased or remained constant with diagnosis. Less than half (46%, range 11.4-57) of the patients with sexual concerns reported the use of supportive care strategies, including gynecological or psychological consultations (range 11.4-57.4). Factors consistently associated with sexual concerns up to 4 years after diagnosis included already reporting the same concern at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR)poor body image 3.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.11-3.89]; ORsexual inactivity 9.94 (95% CI 8.84-11.18), ORpoor sexual function 9.75 (95% CI 8.67-10.95), ORpoorsexual enjoyment 3.96 (95% CI 3.34-4.69)], endocrine therapy use [ORpoor body image 1.15 (95% CI 1.01-1.31); ORsexual inactivity 1.19 (95% CI 1.02-1.39), ORpoor sexual function 1.17 (95% CI 1.01-1.37), ORpoor sexual enjoyment 1.23 (95% CI 1.00-1.53)], and depression [ORpoor body image 2.00 (95% CI 1.72-2.34); ORsexual inactivity 1.66 (95% CI 1.40-1.97), ORpoor sexual function 1.69 (95% CI 1.43-2.00), ORpoor sexual enjoyment 1.94 (95% CI 1.50-2.51)]. Outcome-specific associations were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual concerns seem frequent, persistent, and insufficiently addressed. Pretreatment concerns, endocrine therapy, and emotional distress are commonly associated factors. A proactive evaluation of sexual health across the care continuum is needed, to promptly identify patients suitable for multidisciplinary counseling, referral, and supportive interventions.

Is controlled ovarian stimulation safe in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

INTRODUCTION: Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation is the method of choice for fertility preservation (FP) in young patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (eBC). Nevertheless, some challenges still question its role, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting, where concerns arise about potential delay in the onset of anticancer treatment, and in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) disease, as cancer cells may proliferate under the estrogenic peak associated with stimulation. Therefore, this review aims to examine the available evidence on the safety of COS in eBC patients eligible for neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), particularly in HR+ disease. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies evaluating the feasibility and safety of COS in eBC and including patients referred to NAT and/or with HR+ disease. Time to NAT and survival outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of the three matched cohort studies assessing the impact of COS on time to start NAT, only one reported a significant small delay in the cohort undergoing COS compared with the control group, whereas the other studies found no difference. Regarding survival outcomes, overall, no increased risk of recurrence or death was found, either in patients undergoing COS in the neoadjuvant setting regardless of HR expression or in HR+ disease regardless of the timing of COS relative to surgery. However, there are no data on the safety of COS in the specific combined scenario of HR+ disease undergoing NAT. CONCLUSION: Neither the indication to NAT nor the HR positivity constitutes per se an a priori contraindication to COS. Shared decision making between clinicians and patients is essential to carefully weigh the risks and benefits in each individual case. Prospective studies designed to specifically investigate this issue are warranted.