Spatial transcriptomic analysis of tumour with high and low CAIX expression in TNBC tissue samples using GeoMx™ RNA assay.

PURPOSE: Prognostic significance and gene signatures associated with carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) was investigated in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for CAIX was performed in tissue microarrays (TMAs) of 136 TNBC patients. In a subset of 52 patients Digital Spatial Profiler (DSP) was performed in tumour (pan-cytokeratin+) and stroma (pan-cytokeratin-). Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) with P<0.05 and and log2 fold change (FC)>(±0.25 and ±0.3, for tumour and stromal compartment, respectively) were identified. Four genes were validated at the protein level. RESULT: Cytoplasmic CAIX expression was independently associated with poor recurrence free survival in TNBC patients [hazard ratio (HR)=6.59, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.47-29.58, P=0.014]. DEG analysis identified 4 up-regulated genes (CD68, HIF1A, pan-melanocyte, and VSIR) in the tumour region and 9 down-regulated genes in the stromal region (CD86, CD3E, MS4A1, BCL2, CCL5, NKG7, PTPRC, CD27, and FAS) when low versus high CAIX expression was explored. Employing IHC, high CD68 and HIF-1α was associated with poorer prognosis and high BCL2 and CD3 was associated with good prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: DSP technology identified DEGs in TNBC. Selected genes validated by IHC showed involvement of CD3 and BCL2 expression within stroma and HIF-1α, and CD68 expression within tumour. However, further functional analysis is warranted.

Prognostic role of preoperative circulating systemic inflammatory response markers in primary breast cancer: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Circulating markers of the systemic inflammatory response are prognostic in several cancers, but their role in operable breast cancer is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out. METHODS: A search of electronic databases up to August 2020 identified studies that examined the prognostic value of preoperative circulating markers of the systemic inflammatory response in primary operable breast cancer. A meta-analysis was carried out for each marker with more than three studies, reporting a HR and 95 per cent confidence interval for disease-free survival (DFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) or overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 57 studies were reviewed and 42 were suitable for meta-analysis. Higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was associated with worse overall survival (OS) (pooled HR 1.75, 95 per cent c.i. 1.52 to 2.00; P < 0.001), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.67, 1.50 to 1.87; P < 0.001), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) (HR 1.89, 1.35 to 2.63; P < 0.001). This effect was also seen with an arithmetically-derived NLR (dNLR). Higher platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) was associated with worse OS (HR 1.29, 1.10 to 1.50; P = 0.001) and DFS (HR 1.58, 1.33 to 1.88; P < 0.001). Higher lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) was associated with improved DFS (HR 0.65, 0.51 to 0.82; P < 0.001), and higher C-reactive protein (CRP) level was associated with worse BCSS (HR 1.22, 1.07 to 1.39; P = 0.002) and OS (HR 1.24, 1.14 to 1.35; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests a role for preoperative NLR, dNLR, LMR, PLR, and CRP as prognostic markers in primary operable breast cancer. Further work should define their role in clinical practice, particularly reproducible thresholds and molecular subtypes for which these may be of most value.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in breast cancer surgery (PAUS trial): randomised clinical double-blind parallel-group multicentre superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Participants were patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing primary surgery. The aim was to test whether a single dose of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid would reduce wound infection at 30 days postoperatively, and to identify risk factors for infection. METHODS: Participants were randomised to either a single bolus of 1.2 g intravenous amoxicillin-clavulanic acid after the induction of anaesthesia (intervention) or no antibiotic (control). The primary outcome was the incidence of wound infection at 30 days postoperatively. RESULTS: There were 871 evaluable patients. Of these, 438 received prophylactic antibiotic and 433 served as controls. Seventy-one (16.2 per cent) patients in the intervention group developed a wound infection by 30 days, while there were 83 (19.2 per cent) infections in the control group. This was not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95 per cent c.i. 0.58 to 1.15; P = 0.250). The risk of infection increased for every 5 kg/m2 of BMI (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.52; P = 0.003). Patients who were preoperative carriers of Staphylococcus aureus had an increased risk of postoperative wound infection; however, there was no benefit of preoperative antibiotics for patients with either a high BMI or who were carriers of S. aureus. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant or clinically meaningful reduction in wound infection at 30 days following breast cancer surgery in patients who received a single dose of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid preoperatively. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N0399145605 (National Research Register).

There is little research about antibiotics in breast cancer surgery. Surgeons are not certain whether or not to use antibiotics for their patients. The aim of the Prophylactic Antibiotic Use in Surgery (PAUS) trial was to ask a question, 'Do preoperative antibiotics have any benefit for patients having surgery for breast cancer?' In the PAUS trial patients were given information to decide whether they wished to take part in the trial or not. Participants were randomly placed in one of two groups. Half were given one dose of the amoxicillin­clavulanic acid antibiotic at the time of their operation. The other half had no antibiotic. Neither the patient nor the surgeon knew which group the patient was in. Patients were carefully checked until 30 days after their operation for signs of wound infection. Altogether, 871 patients agreed to take part in the PAUS trial. Of these, 438 patients had the antibiotic and 433 had no antibiotic. The PAUS trial showed that there was no difference in the number of wound infections when comparing the two groups. Seventy-one patients (16.2 per cent) who had been given the antibiotic developed a wound infection by 30 days versus 83 (19.2 per cent) in the group who had not been given the antibiotic. This trial shows that antibiotics may not be needed for breast cancer surgery. PAUS may help to cut down on unnecessary antibiotic use.

Extreme Oncoplasty: Breast Conservation in Patients with Large, Multifocal, and Multicentric Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Extreme Oncoplastic Breast Conservation Surgery (EOBCS) is offered in selected patients with multifocal or multicentric breast cancer (MFMC). Recent evidence has suggested that EOBCS may be a valuable resource for patients with MFMC who may avoid the risk associated with mastectomy in favour of the benefits of breast conservation without risking their oncological outcomes. Our study examined the practice of EOBCS in two regional breast units in Glasgow, United Kingdom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively collected database of 50 patients treated with EOBC in two breast units in Glasgow between 2007 and 2018 were evaluated, and clinical outcomes were observed. RESULTS: Fifty patients (median age 55) underwent EOBCS, of which 43 (86%) had invasive disease. Median tumour size was 55mm (50-90) and multifocal disease was identified in 22 (44%) patients. Nine patients (18%) were found to have positive margins and underwent a second procedure, with 6 (12%) proceeding to mastectomy. Five-year disease free survival rate was 91.5%, while cancer-specific survival was 95.7%. CONCLUSION: EOBCS is oncologically safe in short-term follow-up. Large scale studies are required to confirm these preliminary results, in order to offer EOBCS as a valid option to patients with advanced or multifocal breast cancer.

A prospective cohort study of the safety of breast cancer surgery during COVID-19 pandemic in the West of Scotland.

INTRODUCTION: In order to minimise the risk of breast cancer patients for COVID-19 infection related morbidity and mortality prioritisation of care has utmost importance since the onset of the pandemic. However, COVID-19 related risk in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery has not been studied yet. We evaluated the safety of breast cancer surgery during COVID-19 pandemic in the West of Scotland region. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of patients having breast cancer surgery was carried out in a geographical region during the first eight weeks of the hospital lockdown and outcomes were compared to the regional cancer registry data of pre-COVID-19 patients of the same units (n = 1415). RESULTS: 188 operations were carried out in 179 patients. Tumour size was significantly larger in patients undergoing surgery during hospital lockdown than before (cT3-4: 16.8% vs. 7.4%; p < 0.001; pT2 - pT4: 45.5% vs. 35.6%; p = 0.002). ER negative and HER-2 positive rate was significantly higher during lockdown (ER negative: 41.3% vs. 17%, p < 0.001; HER-2 positive: 23.4% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.004). While breast conservation rate was lower during lockdown (58.6% vs. 65%; p < 0.001), level II oncoplastic conservation was significantly higher in order to reduce mastectomy rate (22.8% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001). No immediate reconstruction was offered during lockdown. 51.2% had co-morbidity, and 7.8% developed postoperative complications in lockdown. There was no peri-operative COVID-19 infection related morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: breast cancer can be safely provided during COVID-19 pandemic in selected patients.