ViBiBa: Virtual BioBanking for the DETECT multicenter trial program - decentralized storage and processing.

BACKGROUND: Liquid Biopsy (LB) in the form of e.g., circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is a promising non-invasive approach to support current therapeutic cancer management. However, the proof of clinical utility of CTCs in informing therapeutic decision-making for e.g., breast cancer in clinical trials and associated translational research projects is facing the issues of low CTC positivity rates and low CTC numbers - even in the metastasized situation. To compensate for this dilemma, clinical CTC trials are designed as large multicenter endeavors with decentralized sample collection, processing and storage of products, making data management highly important to enable high-quality translational CTC research. AIM: In the DETECT clinical CTC trials we aimed at developing a custom-made, browser-based virtual database to harmonize and organize both decentralized processing and storage of LB specimens and to enable the collection of clinically meaningful LB sample. METHODS: ViBiBa processes data from various sources, harmonizes the data and creates an easily searchable multilayered database. RESULTS: An open-source virtual bio-banking web-application termed ViBiBa was created, which automatically processes data from multiple non-standardized sources. These data are automatically checked and merged into one centralized databank and are providing the opportunity to extract clinically relevant patient cohorts and CTC sample collections. SUMMARY: ViBiBa, which is a highly flexible tool that allows for decentralized sample storage of liquid biopsy specimens, facilitates a solution which promotes collaboration in a user-friendly, federalist and highly structured way. The source code is available under the MIT license from https://vibiba.com or https://github.com/asperciesl/ViBiBa.

To which extent do breast cancer survivors feel well informed about disease and treatment 5 years after diagnosis?

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated to which extent patients feel well informed about their disease and treatment, which areas they wish more or less information and which variables are associated with a need for information about the disease, medical tests and treatment. METHODS: In a German multi-centre prospective study, we enrolled 759 female breast cancer patients at the time of cancer diagnosis (baseline). Data on information were captured at 5 years after diagnosis with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Information Module (EORTC QLQ-INFO24). Good information predictors were analysed using linear regression models. RESULTS: There were 456 patients who participated at the 5-year follow-up. They reported to feel well informed about medical tests (mean score 78.5) and the disease itself (69.3) but relatively poorly about other services (44.3) and about different places of care (31.3). The survivors expressed a need for more information concerning: side effects and long-term consequences of therapy, more information in general, information about aftercare, prognosis, complementary medicine, disease and therapy. Patients with higher incomes were better informed about medical tests (ß 0.26, p 0.04) and worse informed with increasing levels of fear of treatment (ß - 0.11, p 0.02). Information about treatment was reported to be worse by survivors > 70 years old (ß -0.34, p 0.03) and by immigrants (ß -0.11, p 0.02). Survivors who had received additional written information felt better informed about disease, medical tests, treatment and other services (ß 0.19/0.19/0.20/0.25; each p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Health care providers have to reconsider how and what kind of information they provide. Providing written information, in addition to oral information, may improve meeting those information needs.

The HER2 phenotype of circulating tumor cells in HER2-positive early breast cancer: A translational research project of a prospective randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: HER2 is one of the predominant therapeutic targets in breast cancer. The metastatic selection process may lead to discrepancies between the HER2 status of the primary tumor and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). This study analyzed the HER2 status of CTCs in patients with HER2-positive primary breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Aim of the study was to assess potential discordance of HER2 status between primary tumor and CTCs, as this may have important implications for the use of HER2-targeted therapy. METHODS: The number and HER2 status of CTCs out of 30ml peripheral blood were assessed in 642 patients using the CellSearch System (Janssen Diagnostics, USA). The cutoff for CTC positivity was the presence of at least 1 CTC, and the cutoff for HER2 positivity of CTCs was the presence of at least 1 CTC with a strong HER2 staining. RESULTS: 258 (40.2%) of the 642 patients were positive for CTCs (median 2; range 1-1,689). 149 (57.8%) of these 258 patients had at least 1 CTC with strong HER2 staining. The presence of HER2-positive CTCs was not associated with tumor size (p = 0.335), histopathological grading (p = 0.976), hormone receptor status (ER: p = 0.626, PR: p = 0.263) or axillary lymph node involvement (p = 0.430). Overall, 83 (32.2%) of the CTC-positive patients exclusively had CTCs with strong HER2 staining, whereas 31 (12.0%) had only CTCs with negative HER2 staining. Within-sample variation in the HER2 status of CTCs was found in 86 (57.8%) of the 149 patients with more than 1 CTC. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that discordance between the HER2 expression of CTCs and that of the primary tumor frequently occurs in early breast cancer. Future follow-up evaluation will assess whether this discrepancy may contribute to trastuzumab resistance.

Evaluation of two different analytical methods for circulating tumor cell detection in peripheral blood of patients with primary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is accumulating that circulating tumor cells (CTC) out of peripheral blood can serve as prognostic marker not only in metastatic but also in early breast cancer (BC). Various methods are available to detect CTC. Comparisons between the different techniques, however, are rare. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluate two different methods for CTC enrichment and detection in primary BC patients: the FDA-approved CellSearch System (CSS; Veridex, Warren, USA) and a manual immunocytochemistry (MICC). The cut-off value for positivity was ≥1 CTC. RESULTS: The two different nonoverlapping patient cohorts evaluated with one or the other method were well balanced regarding common clinical parameters. Before adjuvant CHT 21.1% (416 out of 1972) and 20.6% (247 out of 1198) of the patients were CTC-positive, while after CHT 22.5% (359 out of 1598) and 16.6% (177 out of 1066) of the patients were CTC-positive using CSS or MICC, respectively. CTC positivity rate before CHT was thus similar and not significantly different (P = 0.749), while CTC positivity rate immediately after CHT was significantly lower using MICC compared to CSS (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using CSS or MICC for CTC detection, we found comparable prevalence of CTC before but not after adjuvant CHT.