Assessment of the prognostic role of a 94-single nucleotide polymorphisms risk score in early breast cancer in the SIGNAL/PHARE prospective cohort: no correlation with clinico-pathological characteristics and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have to date identified 94 genetic variants (single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)) associated with risk of developing breast cancer. A score based on the combined effect of the 94 risk alleles can be calculated to measure the global risk of breast cancer. We aimed to test the hypothesis that the 94-SNP-based risk score is associated with clinico-pathological characteristics, breast cancer subtypes and outcomes in early breast cancer. METHODS: A 94-SNP risk score was calculated in 8703 patients in the PHARE and SIGNAL prospective case cohorts. This score is the total number of inherited risk alleles based on 94 selected SNPs. Clinical data and outcomes were prospectively registered. Genotyping was obtained from a GWAS. RESULTS: The median 94-SNP risk score in 8703 patients with early breast cancer was 77.5 (range: 58.1-97.6). The risk score was not associated with usual prognostic and predictive factors (age; tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) status; Scarff-Bloom-Richardson grade; inflammatory features; estrogen receptor status; progesterone receptor status; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status) and did not correlate with breast cancer subtypes. The 94-SNP risk score did not predict outcomes represented by overall survival or disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective case cohort of 8703 patients, a risk score based on 94 SNPs was not associated with breast cancer characteristics, cancer subtypes, or patients' outcomes. If we hypothesize that prognosis and subtypes of breast cancer are determined by constitutional genetic factors, our results suggest that a score based on breast cancer risk-associated SNPs is not associated with prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PHARE cohort: NCT00381901 , Sept. 26, 2006 - SIGNAL cohort: INCa RECF1098, Jan. 28, 2009.

Assessment of care by breast cancer patients participating or not participating in a randomized controlled trial: a report with the Patients' Committee for Clinical Trials of the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not been found to have better clinical outcomes than other patients. Our objective was to assess the impact of RCTs on patients' satisfaction with care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study was carried out in a cohort of women with breast cancer (N = 455) divided into those invited to participate in an RCT (201 acceptances, 66 refusals) and a comparable control group not invited to participate (n = 188). All the patients underwent the same treatment (fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2 for six cycles). One and 7 months after the beginning of chemotherapy, self-administered satisfaction scores were used to compare the women's assessment of their care (Comprehensive Assessment of Satisfaction with Care validated scale). RESULTS: At the beginning of chemotherapy, women to whom RCT had been proposed rated the doctors' availability (average +/- standard deviation [SD]: RCT acceptance group, 3.60 +/- 0.78; RCT refusal group, 3.68 +/- 0.87; control group, 3.41 +/- 0.82; P < or = .02) and the doctors' communication (average +/- SD: RCT acceptance group, 3.56 +/- 0.88; RCT refusal group, 3.67 +/- 0.88; control group, 3.39 +/- 0.84; P .05) higher than those to whom the trial was not proposed. After the treatment, participants in the RCT felt that their doctor was more supportive (average +/- SD: RCT acceptance group, 3.04 +/- 0.92; control group, 2.77 +/- 0.85; P = .005) and more informative about their illness and treatment (average +/- SD: RCT acceptance group, 3.34 +/- 0.88; control group, 3.08 +/- 0.92; P = .006) than those in the control group. The general level of satisfaction was also higher in the RCT acceptance group. CONCLUSION: Women participating in an RCT have a more positive picture of their doctors' care than others, probably because of the structural effects of the informed consent and data collection processes.