Outcomes in breast cancer-does ethnicity matter?

Ethnic or racial differences in breast cancer (BC) survival outcomes have been reported, but current data are largely restricted to comparisons between African Americans and non-Hispanic whites. Most analyses have traditionally been based on self-reported race which may not always be accurate, or are oversimplified in their classification. With increasing globalization, quantification of the genetic ancestry from genomic data may offer a solution to infer the complex makeup from admixture of races. Focusing on the larger and the latest studies, we will discuss recent findings on the differing host and tumor biology that may be driving these disparities, in addition to the extrinsic environmental or lifestyle factors. Socioeconomic disparities with lower cancer literacy may lead to late presentation, poorer adherence to treatment, and other lifestyle factors such as unhealthy diet, obesity, and inadequate physical activity. These hardships may also result in greater allostatic load, which is in turn associated with aggressive BC features in disadvantaged populations. Epigenetic reprogramming may mediate the effects of the environment or lifestyle factors on gene expression, with ensuing differences in BC characteristics and outcome. There is increasing evidence that germline genetics can influence somatic gene alterations or expression, as well as modulate the tumor or immune microenvironment. Although the precise mechanisms remain elusive, this may account for the varying distribution of different BC subtypes across ethnicities. These gaps in our knowledge highlight the need to interrogate the multiomics landscape of BC in diverse populations, ideally in large-scale collaborative settings with standardized methodology for the comparisons to be statistically robust. Together with improving BC awareness and access to good quality health care, a holistic approach with insights of the biological underpinnings is much needed to eradicate ethnic disparities in BC outcomes.

Clinical efficacy of capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer--how low can you go?

Sixty-three patients received capecitabine at 1000 mg/m2 twice daily every 2 out of 3 weeks as first-line treatment for advanced disease at our institution. Forty-five patients (71%) had previously received adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median number of capecitabine cycles administered was 5(1-40). Forty-eight patients had measurable disease with response rate (RR) of 29%. The median time to progression (TTP) was 18(2-122) weeks. Seven patients (11%) had TTP of >1 yr, four of whom received more than 10(24-40) cycles of capecitabine. Thirty-seven percent of patients still needed dose reductions. Our retrospective audit is consistent with a previously published study which used a higher starting dose of capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy. For a subgroup of patients, capecitabine can result in a long TTP with minimal toxicity. The benefit of continuing capecitabine beyond a fixed number of cycles should be investigated further. Schedules using even lower doses of capecitabine for longer periods may also be of interest.