Impact of non-adherence to endocrine therapy on recurrence risk in older women with stage I breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

PURPOSE: We examined the impact of non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) on the risk and site of recurrence among older women with early stage, hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer (EBC). METHODS: A population-based cohort of women age ≥ 65 years with T1N0 HR + EBC who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 and treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) + ET was identified. Treatment and outcomes were ascertained through linkage with administrative databases. ET non-adherence was examined as a time-dependent covariate in multivariable cause-specific Cox regression models to evaluate its effect on the risks of ipsilateral local recurrence (LR), contralateral breast cancer, and distant metastases. RESULTS: The population cohort includes 2637 women; 73% (N = 1934) received radiation (RT) + ET and 27% (N = 703) received ET alone. At a median follow-up of 8.14 years, the first event was LR in 3.6% of women treated with ET alone and 1.4% for those treated with RT + ET (p < 0.001); the risk of distant metastases was < 1% in both groups. The proportion of time adherent to ET was 69.0% among those treated with RT + ET and 62.8% for those treated with ET alone. On multivariable analysis, increasing proportion of time non-adherent to ET was associated with increased risk of LR ((HR = 1.52 per 20% increase in time; 95%CI 1.25, 1.85; p < 0.001), contralateral BC (HR = 1.55; 95%CI 1.30, 1.84; p < 0.001), and distant metastases (HR = 1.44; 95%CI 1.08, 1.94; p = 0.01) but absolute risks were low. CONCLUSION: Non-adherence to adjuvant ET was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, but absolute recurrence rates were low.

The Association Between Surgical Axillary Staging, Adjuvant Treatment Use and Survival in Older Women with Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely guidelines recommend against surgical axillary staging (AS) in women ≥70 years with ER+/HER2- early stage breast cancer (BC). This study examined the impact of AS omission on survival in older patients with BC. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. We identified women aged 65-95 years who underwent surgery for Stage I/II BC between 2010 and 2016. Patients were weighted by propensity scores for receipt of AS that included patient and disease characteristics using overlap weights. Association with overall survival (OS) was calculated using weighted Cox models, and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) was calculated using weighted Fine and Gray models, adjusting for biomarkers and adjuvant treatments. Adjuvant treatment receipt was modelled with weighted log-binomial models. RESULTS: Among 17,370 older women, the 1771 (10.2%) who did not undergo AS were older, more comorbid, and less likely to undergo mastectomy. Women who did not undergo AS were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57-0.82), endocrine therapy (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89) or radiotherapy (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.74). After weighting and adjustment, there was no significant difference in BCSS (sdHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77-1.25), but women who did not undergo AS had worse OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25). The results among 6215 ER+/HER2- women ≥70 years undergoing SLNB vs no AS were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The omission of AS in older women with early stage BC was not associated with adverse BCSS, although OS was worse.

Long-term outcomes of women with large DCIS lesions treated with breast-conserving therapy.

PURPOSE: The paucity of data on women with large (≥ 40 mm) DCIS tumors lead to uncertainty on the safety of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for these patients. We evaluated the impact of large tumor size on local recurrence (LR) among women with DCIS treated with BCS ± radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Treatment and outcomes were ascertained through administrative databases for all women with DCIS in Ontario from 1994 to 2003 treated with BCS ± RT with negative margins; 82% had pathology review. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the impact of tumor size on LR. 10- and 15-year LR-free survival (LRFS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The cohort includes 2049 women treated by BCS (N = 1073 with RT). Median follow-up is 14 years (IQR 9-17 years). Referenced to tumors ≤ 10 mm, the risk of LR following BCS was significantly higher for larger tumors: HR ≥ 40 mm = 3.67 (95% CI 2.13, 6.33; p < 0.001), HR 26-39 mm = 2.27 (95% CI 1.47, 3.50, p < 0.001), and HR 11-25 mm = 1.42 (95% CI 1.06, 1.92, p = 0.02). However, for individuals with BCS + RT, large tumor size was not associated with a significantly increased risk of LR (HR ≥ 40 mm = 1.92 (95% CI 0.97, 3.79); HR 26-39 mm = 1.81 (95% CI 1.09-2.99)). For women with tumors ≥ 40 mm, 10-year LRFS risk for those treated by BCS alone, BCS + RT without boost, and BCS + RT with boost was 58.9%, 82.8%, and 83.9%. CONCLUSION: Large DCIS lesions ≥ 40 mm are associated with higher risks of LR following BCS, but high long-term LRFS rates can be achieved with the addition of breast RT.

Molecular Expression Assays Improve the Prediction of Local and Invasive Local Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

PURPOSE: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is routinely treated with adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). The inability to accurately estimate an individual's risk of local recurrence (LR) and invasive LR using clinicopathologic factors (CPF) contributes to the overtreatment of DCIS. We examined the impact of the 12-gene DCIS Score (DS) and the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) on the accuracy of predicting LR and invasive LR. METHODS: A population-based cohort diagnosed with pure DCIS treated with BCS ± RT from 1994 to 2003 was used. All patients had expert pathology review and assessment of the DS and RS. Predictive models (CPF alone, DS + CPF, and RS + CPF) were developed using multivariable Cox regression analyses to predict 10-year LR and invasive LR risks. Models were evaluated on the basis of c-statistic, -2log likelihood estimate (-2LLE), and Akaike information criterion. Calibration was performed using bootstrap resamples, with replacement. RESULTS: The cohort includes 1,226 women treated with BCS; 712 received RT. 194 women (15.8%) experienced ipsilateral LR as a first event; 112 were invasive. Models including the DS or RS performed better in predicting the 10-year risk of LR compared with models on the basis of CPF alone with excellent calibration. The two molecular-based models also performed better in predicting invasive LR compared with the CPF model but the model incorporating the RS did not perform better in the prediction of invasive LR compared with the DS-based model. CONCLUSION: Models incorporating the DS or RS more accurately predicted the 10-year risk of LR and invasive LR after BCS compared with models on the basis of CPF alone. Inclusion of the RS, compared with DS, did not improve the prediction of the 10-year risk of invasive LR.

Can Molecular Biomarkers Help Reduce the Overtreatment of DCIS?

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), especially in the era of mammographic screening, is a commonly diagnosed breast tumor. Despite the low breast cancer mortality risk, management with breast conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) is the prevailing treatment approach in order to reduce the risk of local recurrence (LR), including invasive LR, which carries a subsequent risk of breast cancer mortality. However, reliable and accurate individual risk prediction remains elusive and RT continues to be standardly recommended for most women with DCIS. Three molecular biomarkers have been studied to better estimate LR risk after BCS-Oncotype DX DCIS score, DCISionRT Decision Score and its associated Residual Risk subtypes, and Oncotype 21-gene Recurrence Score. All these molecular biomarkers represent important efforts towards improving predicted risk of LR after BCS. To prove clinical utility, these biomarkers require careful predictive modeling with calibration and external validation, and evidence of benefit to patients; on this front, further research is needed. Most trials do not incorporate molecular biomarkers in evaluating de-escalation of therapy for DCIS; however, one-the Prospective Evaluation of Breast-Conserving Surgery Alone in Low-Risk DCIS (ELISA) trial-incorporates the Oncotype DX DCIS score in defining a low-risk population and is an important next step in this line of research.