Tumor circadian clock strength influences metastatic potential and predicts patient prognosis in luminal A breast cancer.

Studies in shift workers and model organisms link circadian disruption to breast cancer. However, molecular circadian rhythms in noncancerous and cancerous human breast tissues and their clinical relevance are largely unknown. We reconstructed rhythms informatically, integrating locally collected, time-stamped biopsies with public datasets. For noncancerous breast tissue, inflammatory, epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and estrogen responsiveness pathways show circadian modulation. Among tumors, clock correlation analysis demonstrates subtype-specific changes in circadian organization. Luminal A organoids and informatic ordering of luminal A samples exhibit continued, albeit dampened and reprogrammed rhythms. However, CYCLOPS magnitude, a measure of global rhythm strength, varied widely among luminal A samples. Cycling of EMT pathway genes was markedly increased in high-magnitude luminal A tumors. Surprisingly, patients with high-magnitude tumors had reduced 5-y survival. Correspondingly, 3D luminal A cultures show reduced invasion following molecular clock disruption. This study links subtype-specific circadian disruption in breast cancer to EMT, metastatic potential, and prognosis.

Capivasertib in Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: AKT pathway activation is implicated in endocrine-therapy resistance. Data on the efficacy and safety of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib, as an addition to fulvestrant therapy, in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer are limited. METHODS: In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we enrolled eligible pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who had had a relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive capivasertib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The dual primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with AKT pathway-altered (PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN) tumors. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 708 patients underwent randomization; 289 patients (40.8%) had AKT pathway alterations, and 489 (69.1%) had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously for advanced breast cancer. In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.6 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001). In the AKT pathway-altered population, the median progression-free survival was 7.3 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.1 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in patients receiving capivasertib-fulvestrant were rash (in 12.1% of patients, vs. in 0.3% of those receiving placebo-fulvestrant) and diarrhea (in 9.3% vs. 0.3%). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 13.0% of the patients receiving capivasertib and in 2.3% of those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Capivasertib-fulvestrant therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer whose disease had progressed during or after previous aromatase inhibitor therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the National Cancer Institute; CAPItello-291 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04305496.).

Pathogenic variant detection rate varies considerably in male breast cancer families and sporadic cases: minimal additional contribution beyond BRCA2, BRCA1 and CHEK2.

BACKGROUND: Male breast cancer (MBC) affects around 1 in 1000 men and is known to have a higher underlying component of high and moderate risk gene pathogenic variants (PVs) than female breast cancer, particularly in BRCA2. However, most studies only report overall detection rates without assessing detailed family history. METHODS: We reviewed germline testing in 204 families including at least one MBC for BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 c.1100DelC and an extended panel in 93 of these families. Individuals had MBC (n=118), female breast cancer (FBC)(n=80), ovarian cancer (n=3) or prostate cancer-(n=3). Prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 PV was assessed using the Manchester Scoring System (MSS). RESULTS: In the 204 families, BRCA2 was the major contributor, with 51 (25%) having PVs, followed by BRCA1 and CHEK2, with five each (2.45%) but no additional PVs identified, including in families with high genetic likelihood on MSS. Detection rates were 85.7% (12/14) in MSS ≥40 and 65.5% with MSS 30-39 but only 12.8% (6/47) for sporadic breast cancer. PV rates were low and divided equally between BRCA1/2 and CHEK2. CONCLUSION: As expected, BRCA2 PVs predominate in MBC families with rates 10-fold those in CHEK2 and BRCA1. The MSS is an effective tool in assessing the likelihood of BRCA1/2 PVs.

Germline testing of BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2 and CHEK2 c.1100delC in 1514 triple negative familial and isolated breast cancers from a single centre, with extended testing of ATM, RAD51C and RAD51D in over 400.

BACKGROUND: The identification of germline pathogenic gene variants (PGVs) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is important to inform further primary cancer risk reduction and TNBC treatment strategies. We therefore investigated the contribution of breast cancer associated PGVs to familial and isolated invasive TNBC. METHODS: Outcomes of germline BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2_c.1100delC testing were recorded in 1514 women (743-isolated, 771-familial), and for PALB2 in 846 women (541-isolated, 305-familial), with TNBC and smaller numbers for additional genes. Breast cancer free controls were identified from Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening and BRIDGES (Breast cancer RIsk after Diagnostic GEne Sequencing) studies. RESULTS: BRCA1_PGVs were detected in 52 isolated (7.0%) and 195 (25.3%) familial cases (isolated-OR=58.9, 95% CI: 16.6 to 247.0), BRCA2_PGVs in 21 (2.8%) isolated and 67 (8.7%) familial cases (isolated-OR=5.0, 95% CI: 2.3 to 11.2), PALB2_PGVs in 9 (1.7%) isolated and 12 (3.9%) familial cases (isolated-OR=8.8, 95% CI: 2.5 to 30.4) and CHEK2_c.1100delC in 0 isolated and 3 (0.45%) familial cases (isolated-OR=0.0, 95% CI: 0.00 to 2.11). BRCA1_PGV detection rate was >10% for all familial TNBC age groups and significantly higher for younger diagnoses (familial: <50 years, n=165/538 (30.7%); ≥50 years, n=30/233 (12.9%); p<0.0001). Women with a G3_TNBC were more likely to have a BRCA1_PGV as compared with a BRCA2 or PALB2_PGV (p<0.0001). 0/743 isolated TNBC had the CHEK2_c.1100delC PGV and 0/305 any ATM_PGV, but 2/240 (0.83%) had a RAD51D_PGV. CONCLUSION: PGVs in BRCA1 are associated with G3_TNBCs. Familial TNBCs and isolated TNBCs <30 years have a >10% likelihood of a PGV in BRCA1. BRCA1_PGVs are associated with younger age of familial TNBC. There was no evidence for any increased risk of TNBC with CHEK2 or ATM PGVs.

A novel preclinical model of the normal human breast.

Improved screening and treatment have decreased breast cancer mortality, although incidence continues to rise. Women at increased risk of breast cancer can be offered risk reducing treatments, such as tamoxifen, but this has not been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality. New, more efficacious, risk-reducing agents are needed. The identification of novel candidates for prevention is hampered by a lack of good preclinical models. Current patient derived in vitro and in vivo models cannot fully recapitulate the complexities of the human tissue, lacking human extracellular matrix, stroma, and immune cells, all of which are known to influence therapy response. Here we describe a normal breast explant model utilising a tuneable hydrogel which maintains epithelial proliferation, hormone receptor expression, and residency of T cells and macrophages over 7 days. Unlike other organotypic tissue cultures which are often limited by hyper-proliferation, loss of hormone signalling, and short treatment windows (< 48h), our model shows that tissue remains viable over 7 days with none of these early changes. This offers a powerful and unique opportunity to model the normal breast and study changes in response to various risk factors, such as breast density and hormone exposure. Further validation of the model, using samples from patients undergoing preventive therapies, will hopefully confirm this to be a valuable tool, allowing us to test novel agents for breast cancer risk reduction preclinically.

Capivasertib and fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (CAPItello-291): patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects. INTERPRETATION: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Breast cancer after ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes: Lower rates for 5 years post chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: The identification of germline BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PV) infer high remaining lifetime breast/ovarian cancer risks, but there is paucity of studies assessing breast cancer risk after ovarian cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We reviewed the history of breast cancer in 895 PV heterozygotes (BRCA1 = 541). Cumulative annual breast cancer incidence was assessed at 2, 5, 10, and >10 years after ovarian cancer diagnosis date. RESULTS: Breast cancer annual rates were evaluated in 701 assessable women with no breast cancer at ovarian diagnosis (BRCA1 = 425). Incidence was lower at 2 years (1.18%) and 2 to 5 years (1.13%) but rose thereafter for BRCA1 with incidence post 10 years in excess of 4% annually. Breast cancer pathology in BRCA1 PV heterozygotes showed less high-grade triple-negative breast cancer and more lower-grade hormone-receptor-positive cancer than women with no prior ovarian cancer. In the prospective cohort from ovarian cancer diagnosis, <4% of all deaths were caused by breast cancer, although 50% of deaths in women with breast cancer after ovarian cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Women can be reassured that incidence of breast cancer after ovarian cancer diagnosis is relatively low. It appears likely that this effect is due to platinum-based chemotherapy. Nonetheless women need to be aware that incidence increases thereafter, especially after 10 years.

A plain language summary of the CAPItello-291 study: Capivasertib in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the article discussing the results of the CAPItello-291 study. In the study, participants had advanced breast cancer that could not be completely removed with surgery, and that was diagnosed as a type of breast cancer where tumor cells had hormone receptors (HR-positive) but did not have HER2 receptors (HER2-negative). All participants were also required to have previously received treatment with a type of therapy called an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor), but over time their cancer cells had still grown or spread. The CAPItello-291 study researchers wanted to find out if a treatment combination of the medications capivasertib plus fulvestrant worked better than placebo plus fulvestrant. Capivasertib is a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called AKT, which is found inside breast cancer cells. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: The main finding was that participants who took capivasertib plus fulvestrant lived longer without their disease getting worse (progressing) compared with those treated with placebo plus fulvestrant. This is called progression-free survival. This result was seen across all participants (median progression-free survival of 7.2 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.6 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). It was also seen in participants whose tumors had detectable genetic alterations in genes called PIK3CA, AKT1, and/ or PTEN (median progression-free survival of 7.3 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.1 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). The most common side effects experienced by participants included diarrhea and different types of rash. These were as expected (given how capivasertib works). The CAPItello-291 study is still ongoing, and more results are expected to be released in the future. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Results from the CAPItello-291 study showed that capivasertib plus fulvestrant compared with placebo plus fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in participants with HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose cancer had grown or spread despite hormone therapy (with/without a CDK4/6 inhibitor).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04305496 (CAPItello-291) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Detection of pathogenic variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes in bilateral breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the frequency of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in women with bilateral breast cancer. METHODS: We undertook BRCA1/2 and CHEK2 c.1100delC molecular analysis in 764 samples and a multigene panel in 156. Detection rates were assessed by age at first primary, Manchester Score, and breast pathology. Oestrogen receptor (ER) status of the contralateral versus first breast cancer was compared on 1081 patients with breast cancer with BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs. RESULTS: 764 women with bilateral breast cancer have undergone testing of BRCA1/2 and CHEK2; 407 were also tested for PALB2 and 177 for ATM. Detection rates were BRCA1 11.6%, BRCA2 14.0%, CHEK2 2.4%, PALB2 1.0%, ATM 1.1% and, for a subset of mainly very early onset tumours, TP53 4.6% (9 of 195). The highest PV detection rates were for triple negative cancers for BRCA1 (26.4%), grade 3 ER+HER2 for BRCA2 (27.9%) and HER2+ for CHEK2 (8.9%). ER status of the first primary in BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV heterozygotes was strongly predictive of the ER status of the second contralateral tumour since ~90% of second tumours were ER- in BRCA1 heterozygotes, and 50% were ER- in BRCA2 heterozygotes if the first was ER-. CONCLUSION: We have shown a high rate of detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs in triple negative and grade 3 ER+HER2- first primary diagnoses, respectively. High rates of HER2+ were associated with CHEK2 PVs, and women ≤30 years were associated with TP53 PVs. First primary ER status in BRCA1/2 strongly predicts the second tumour will be the same ER status even if unusual for PVs in that gene.

Differential involvement of germline pathogenic variants in breast cancer genes between DCIS and low-grade invasive cancers.

PURPOSE: To investigate frequency of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and grade 1 invasive breast cancer (G1BC). METHODS: We undertook BRCA1/2 analysis in 311 women with DCIS and 392 with G1BC and extended panel testing (non-BRCA1/2) in 176/311 with DCIS and 156/392 with G1BC. We investigated PV detection by age at diagnosis, Manchester Score (MS), DCIS grade and receptor status. RESULTS: 30/311 (9.6%) with DCIS and 16/392 with G1BC (4.1%) had a BRCA1/2 PV (p=0.003), and 24/176-(13.6%) and 7/156-(4.5%), respectively, a non-BRCA1/2 PV (p=0.004). Increasing MS was associated with increased likelihood of BRCA1/2 PV in both DCIS and G1BC, although the 10% threshold was not predictive for G1GB. 13/32 (40.6%) DCIS and 0/17 with G1BC <40 years had a non-BRCA1/2 PV (p<0.001). 0/16 DCIS G1 had a PV. For G2 and G3 DCIS, PV rates were 10/98 (BRCA1/2) and 9/90 (non-BRCA1/2), and 8/47 (BRCA1/2) and 8/45 (non-BRCA1/2), respectively. 6/9 BRCA1 and 3/26 BRCA2-associated DCIS were oestrogen receptor negative-(p=0.003). G1BC population testing showed no increased PV rate (OR=1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.80). CONCLUSION: DCIS is more likely to be associated with both BRCA1/2 and non-BRCA1/2 PVs than G1BC. Extended panel testing ought to be offered in young-onset DCIS where PV detection rates are highest.

An app promoting weight gain prevention via healthy behaviours amongst young women with a family history of breast cancer: Acceptability and usability assessment.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most frequent female malignancy in the UK. Around 20% of cases are linked to weight gain, excess weight and health behaviours. We designed a weight gain prevention, health behaviour intervention for young women at increased risk. METHODS: The study comprised a single arm observational study over 2 months testing acceptability and usability of the intervention: online group welcome event, app and private Facebook group. Females aged 18-35 years at moderate or high risk of breast cancer (>17% lifetime risk) were recruited via invite letters and social media posts. The app included behaviour change techniques and education content. Online questionnaires were completed at baseline, as well as at 1 and 2 months. We also assessed feasibility of study procedures. RESULTS: Both recruitment methods were successful. Thirty-five women were recruited, 26% via social media posts. Median age was 33 (interquartile range = 28.2-34.5) years, the majority (94.1%) were of White ethnicity. Thirty-four participants were included in the analyses, of which 94% downloaded the app. Median self-monitoring logs per participant during the study period was 10.0 (interquartile range = 4.8-28.8). App quality mean (SD) score was 3.7 (0.6) at 1 and 2 months (scale: 1-5). Eighty-nine per cent rated the app at average or above at 1 month and 75.0% at 2 months. Nineteen women (55.9%) joined the Facebook group and there were 61 comments and 83 reactions and votes from participants during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This first iteration of the app and intervention was well received and is suitable to progress to the next stage of refining and further testing.

Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) could provide a better balance of benefits and harms. We developed BC-Predict, to offer women when invited to the NHSBSP, which collects standard risk factor information; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS). METHODS: Risk prediction was estimated primarily from self-reported questionnaires and mammographic density using the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model. Women eligible for NHSBSP were recruited. BC-Predict produced risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5-<8% 10-year) to have appointments to discuss prevention and additional screening. RESULTS: Overall uptake of BC-Predict in screening attendees was 16.9% with 2472 consenting to the study; 76.8% of those received risk feedback within the 8-week timeframe. Recruitment was 63.2% with an onsite recruiter and paper questionnaire compared to <10% with BC-Predict only (P < 0.0001). Risk appointment attendance was highest for those at high risk (40.6%); 77.5% of those opted for preventive medication. DISCUSSION: We have shown that a real-time offer of breast cancer risk information (including both mammographic density and PRS) is feasible and can be delivered in reasonable time, although uptake requires personal contact. Preventive medication uptake in women newly identified at high risk is high and could improve the cost-effectiveness of risk stratification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).

CDK4/6 inhibitors versus weekly paclitaxel for treatment of ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer with impending or established visceral crisis.

PURPOSE: ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) with visceral crisis (VC) or impending VC (IVC) is commonly treated with chemotherapy instead of CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). However, there is little evidence to confirm which treatment is superior. This study compared outcomes of patients with ER+/HER2- ABC and IVC/VC treated with CDK4/6i or weekly paclitaxel. METHODS: Patients with ER+/HER2- ABC receiving first line treatment at a large tertiary UK cancer centre from 1-Mar-2017 to 30-Jun-2021 were retrospectively identified. Hospital records were screened for IVC/VC affecting the liver, lungs/mediastinum, gastrointestinal tract and/or bone marrow. Baseline demographics, clinical data and survival outcomes were recorded up to 30-Jul-2022. RESULTS: 27/396 (6.8%) patients with ABC who received CDK4/6i and 32/86 (37.2%) who received paclitaxel had IVC/VC. Median time to treatment failure (TTF), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in the CDK4/6i compared to paclitaxel cohort: TTF 17.3 vs. 3.5 months (HR 0.33, 95%CI 0.17-0.61, p = 0.0002), PFS 17.8 vs. 4.5 months (HR 0.38, 95%CI 0.21-0.67, p = 0.002), OS 24.6 vs. 6.7 months (HR 0.37, 95%CI 0.20-0.68, p = 0.002). The median time to first improvement in IVC/VC was similar in patients receiving CDK4/6i compared to paclitaxel (3.9 vs. 3.6 weeks, p = 0.773). Disease control at 4 months was not significantly different in the CDK4/6i and paclitaxel cohorts (77.8% vs. 59.4%, p = 0.168). In multivariate analysis, treatment with CDK4/6i was independently associated with a longer PFS compared to paclitaxel (HR 0.31, 95%CI 0.12-0.78, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, patients with ER+/HER2- ABC and IVC/VC treated with CDK4/6i had a significantly better survival compared to those treated with weekly paclitaxel. Further prospective studies that minimise possible selection bias are recommended.

Breast cancer polygenic risk scores derived in White European populations are not calibrated for women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent.

PURPOSE: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are a major component of accurate breast cancer (BC) risk prediction but require ethnicity-specific calibration. Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) population is assumed to be of White European (WE) origin in some commercially available PRSs despite differing effect allele frequencies (EAFs). We conducted a case-control study of WE and AJ women from the Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening Study. The Breast Cancer in Northern Israel Study provided a separate AJ population-based case-control validation series. METHODS: All women underwent Illumina OncoArray single-nucleotide variation (SNV; formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism [SNP]) analysis. Two PRSs were assessed, SNV142 and SNV78. A total of 221 of 2243 WE women (discovery: cases = 111; controls = 110; validation: cases = 651; controls = 1772) and 221 AJ women (cases = 121; controls = 110) were included from the UK study; the Israeli series consisted of 2045 AJ women (cases = 1331; controls = 714). EAFs were obtained from the Genome Aggregation Database. RESULTS: In the UK study, the mean SNV142 PRS demonstrated good calibration and discrimination in WE population, with mean PRS of 1.33 (95% CI 1.18-1.48) in cases and 1.01 (95% CI 0.89-1.13) in controls. In AJ women from Manchester, the mean PRS of 1.54 (1.38-1.70) in cases and 1.20 (1.08-1.32) in controls demonstrated good discrimination but overestimation of BC relative risk. After adjusting for EAFs for the AJ population, mean risk was corrected (mean SNV142 PRS cases = 1.30 [95% CI 1.16-1.44] and controls = 1.02 [95% CI 0.92-1.12]). This was recapitulated in the larger Israeli data set with good discrimination (area under the curve = 0.632 [95% CI 0.607-0.657] for SNV142). CONCLUSION: AJ women should not be given BC relative risk predictions based on PRSs calibrated to EAFs from the WE population. PRSs need to be recalibrated using AJ-derived EAFs. A simple recalibration using the mean PRS adjustment ratio likely performs well.

Uptake and efficacy of bilateral risk reducing surgery in unaffected female BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.

BACKGROUND: Women testing positive for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants have high lifetime risks of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer. The effectiveness of risk reducing surgery (RRS) has been demonstrated in numerous previous studies. We evaluated long-term uptake, timing and effectiveness of risk reducing mastectomy (RRM) and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in healthy BRCA1/2 carriers. METHODS: Women were prospectively followed up from positive genetic test (GT) result to censor date. χ² testing compared categorical variables; Cox regression model estimated HRs and 95% CI for BC/ovarian cancer cases associated with RRS, and impact on all-cause mortality; Kaplan-Meier curves estimated cumulative RRS uptake. The annual cancer incidence was estimated by women-years at risk. RESULTS: In total, 887 women were included in this analysis. Mean follow-up was 6.26 years (range=0.01-24.3; total=4685.4 women-years). RRS was performed in 512 women, 73 before GT. Overall RRM uptake was 57.9% and RRSO uptake was 78.6%. The median time from GT to RRM was 18.4 months, and from GT to RRSO-10.0 months. Annual BC incidence in the study population was 1.28%. Relative BC risk reduction (RRM versus non-RRM) was 94%. Risk reduction of ovarian cancer (RRSO versus non-RRSO) was 100%. CONCLUSION: Over a 24-year period, we observed an increasing number of women opting for RRS. We showed that the timing of RRS remains suboptimal, especially in women undergoing RRSO. Both RRM and RRSO showed a significant effect on relevant cancer risk reduction. However, there was no statistically significant RRSO protective effect on BC.

"I don't know what I'm feeling for": young women's beliefs about breast cancer risk and experiences of breast awareness.

BACKGROUND: Younger women are often diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. Beliefs about risk are instrumental in motivating many health protective behaviours, but there may be confusion around which behaviour is appropriate to detect breast cancer earlier. Breast awareness, defined as an understanding of how the breasts look and feel so changes can be identified early, is widely recommended. In contrast, breast self-examination involves palpation using a specified method. We aimed to investigate young women's beliefs about their risk and experiences of breast awareness. METHODS: Thirty-seven women aged 30-39 years residing in a North West region of England with no family or personal history of breast cancer participated in seven focus groups (n = 29) and eight individual interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated. "Future me's problem" describes why women perceive breast cancer as an older woman's disease. Uncertainty regarding checking behaviours highlights how confusion about self-checking behaviour advice has resulted in women infrequently performing breast checks. Campaigns as a missed opportunity highlights the potential negative effects of current breast cancer fundraising campaigns and the perceived absence of educational campaigning about breast cancer for this demographic. CONCLUSIONS: Young women expressed low perceived susceptibility to developing breast cancer in the near future. Women did not know what breast self-checking behaviours they should be performing and expressed a lack of confidence in how to perform a breast check appropriately due to limited knowledge about what to look and feel for. Consequently, women reported disengagement with breast awareness. Defining and clearly communicating the best strategy for breast awareness and establishing whether it is beneficial or not are essential next steps.

Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (FAKTION): overall survival, updated progression-free survival, and expanded biomarker analysis from a randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Capivasertib, an AKT inhibitor, added to fulvestrant, was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in women with aromatase inhibitor-resistant oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The benefit appeared to be independent of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) pathway alteration status of tumours, as ascertained using assays available at the time. Here, we report updated progression-free survival and overall survival results, and a prespecified examination of the effect of PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway alterations identified by an expanded genetic testing panel on treatment outcomes. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial recruited postmenopausal adult women aged at least 18 years with ER-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor, from across 19 hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a 500 mg loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off, starting on cycle 1 day 15. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment was allocated by an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints shown in this Article were overall survival and safety in the intention-to-treat population, and the effect of tumour PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway status identified by an expanded testing panel that included next-generation sequencing assays. Recruitment is complete. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 participants were screened for eligibility and 140 (77%) were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up at the data cut-off of Nov 25, 2021, was 58·5 months (IQR 45·9-64·1) for participants treated with fulvestrant plus capivasertib and 62·3 months (IQR 62·1-70·3) for fulvestrant plus placebo. Updated median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0-13·4) in the group receiving fulvestrant plus capivasertib compared with 4·8 months (3·1-7·9) for fulvestrant plus placebo (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·56 [95% CI 0·38-0·81]; two-sided p=0·0023). Median overall survival in the capivasertib versus placebo groups was 29·3 months (95% CI 23·7-39·0) versus 23·4 months (18·7-32·7; adjusted HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·45-0·97]; two-sided p=0·035). The expanded biomarker panel identified an expanded pathway-altered subgroup that contained 76 participants (54% of the intention-to-treat population). Median progression-free survival in the expanded pathway-altered subgroup for participants receiving capivasertib (n=39) was 12·8 months (95% CI 6·6-18·8) compared with 4·6 months (2·8-7·9) in the placebo group (n=37; adjusted HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·26-0·72]; two-sided p=0·0014). Median overall survival for the expanded pathway-altered subgroup receiving capivasertib was 38·9 months (95% CI 23·3-50·7) compared with 20·0 months (14·8-31·4) for those receiving placebo (adjusted HR 0·46 [95% CI 0·27-0·79]; two-sided p=0·0047). By contrast, there were no statistically significant differences in progression-free or overall survival in the expanded pathway non-altered subgroup treated with capivasertib (n=30) versus placebo (n=34). One additional serious adverse event (pneumonia) in the capivasertib group had occurred subsequent to the primary analysis. One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. INTERPRETATION: Updated FAKTION data showed that capivasertib addition to fulvestrant extends the survival of participants with aromatase inhibitor-resistant ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The expanded biomarker testing suggested that capivasertib predominantly benefits patients with PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway-altered tumours. Phase 3 data are needed to substantiate the results, including in patients with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor exposure who were not included in the FAKTION trial. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

The importance of ethnicity: Are breast cancer polygenic risk scores ready for women who are not of White European origin?

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for disease risk stratification show great promise for application in general populations, but most are based on data from individuals of White European origin. We assessed two well validated PRS (SNP18, SNP143) in the Predicting-Risk-of-Cancer-At-Screening (PROCAS) study in North-West England for breast cancer prediction based on ethnicity. Overall, 9475 women without breast cancer at study entry, including 645 who subsequently developed invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ provided DNA. All were genotyped for SNP18 and a subset of 1868 controls were genotyped for SNP143. For White Europeans both PRS discriminated well between individuals with and without cancer. For n = 395 Black (n = 112), Asian (n = 119), mixed (n = 44) or Jewish (n = 120) women without cancer both PRS overestimated breast cancer risk, being most marked for women of Black and Jewish origin (P < .001). SNP143 resulted in a potential mean 40% breast cancer risk overestimation in the combined group of non-White/non-European origin. SNP-PRS that has been normalized based on White European ethnicity for breast cancer should not be used to predict risk in women of other ethnicities. There is an urgent need to develop PRS specific for other ethnicities, in order to widen access of this technology.

Randomised controlled trial of intermittent vs continuous energy restriction during chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Excess adiposity at diagnosis and weight gain during chemotherapy is associated with tumour recurrence and chemotherapy toxicity. We assessed the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) vs continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight control and toxicity reduction during chemotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-two women were randomised to follow IER or CER throughout adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were weight and body fat change. Secondary endpoints included chemotherapy toxicity, cardiovascular risk markers, and correlative markers of metabolism, inflammation and oxidative stress. RESULTS: Primary analyses showed non-significant reductions in weight (-1.1 (-2.4 to +0.2) kg, p = 0.11) and body fat (-1.0 (-2.1 to +0.1) kg, p = 0.086) in IER compared with CER. Predefined secondary analyses adjusted for body water showed significantly greater reductions in weight (-1.4 (-2.5 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.024) and body fat (-1.1 (-2.1 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.046) in IER compared with CER. Incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities were comparable overall (IER 31.0 vs CER 36.5%, p = 0.45) with a trend to fewer grade 3/4 toxicities with IER (18%) vs CER (31%) during cycles 4-6 of primarily taxane therapy (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: IER is feasible during chemotherapy. The potential efficacy for weight control and reducing toxicity needs to be tested in future larger trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04156504.

Average duration of prior treatment lines predicts clinical benefit to eribulin chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treated with eribulin in a real-world setting, to improve information provision in those considering treatment. METHODS: Patients treated with eribulin for MBC at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK, between August 2011 and December 2018 were included (n = 439). Data were collected by retrospective review of medical records and electronic prescribing systems. Factors such as biological subtype, distant recurrence-free interval, previous lines of chemotherapy and the 'average duration of previous treatment lines' (ADPT) (calculated as: (date of initiation of eribulin-date of MBC) / the number of previous treatment lines in the metastatic setting) were evaluated for prognostic impact using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: In the full cohort, the median PFS and OS were 4.1 months (95% CI 3.7-4.4) and 8.6 months (95% CI 7.4-9.8), respectively. Outcomes were significantly inferior for those with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (n = 92); PFSTNBC: 2.4 months (95% CI 2.1-3.0), p = < 0.001 and OSTNBC: 5.4 months (95% CI 4.6-6.6), p = < 0.001. ADPT was the only factor other than subtype significantly associated with PFS and OS. Longer ADPT was also significantly associated with PFS and OS in those with TNBC. For example, women in the lowest ADPT tertile (< 5.0 months) achieved a median OS of only 4.3 months, whereas those in the upper ADPT tertile (> 8.7 months) had a median OS of 12.1 months (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the ADPT lines is an important factor when predicting the outcome with eribulin chemotherapy in a palliative setting and that quantitative guidance on the likely PFS and OS with treatment can be provided using ADPT. Validation in additional cohorts is warranted.