Racial disparities in breast cancer risk factors and risk management.

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are well described across the spectrum of screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Breast cancer mortality is markedly elevated for Non-Hispanic Black women compared with other racial and ethnic groups, with multifactorial causes. Here, we aim to reduce this burden by identifying disparities in breast cancer risk factors, risk assessment, and risk management before breast cancer is diagnosed. We describe a reproductive profile and modifiable risk factors specific to the development of triple-negative breast cancer. We also propose that screening strategies should be both risk- and race-based, given the prevalence of early-onset triple-negative breast cancer in young Black women. We emphasize the importance of early risk assessment and identification of patients at hereditary and familial risk and discuss indications for a high-risk referral. We discuss the subtleties following genetic testing and highlight "uncertain" genetic testing results and risk estimation challenges in women who test negative. We trace aspects of the obesity epidemic in the Black community to infant feeding patterns and emphasize healthy eating and activity. Finally, we discuss building an environment of trust to foster adherence to recommendations, follow-up care, and participation in clinical trials. Addressing relevant social determinants of health; educating patients and clinicians on factors impacting disparities in outcomes; and encouraging participation in targeted, culturally sensitive research are essential to best serve all communities.

Disparities in Breast Cancer Care-How Factors Related to Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Drive Inequity.

Breast cancer survival has increased significantly over the last few decades due to more effective strategies for prevention and risk modification, advancements in imaging detection, screening, and multimodal treatment algorithms. However, many have observed disparities in benefits derived from such improvements across populations and demographic groups. This review summarizes published works that contextualize modern disparities in breast cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and presents potential strategies for reducing disparities. We conducted searches for studies that directly investigated and/or reported disparities in breast cancer prevention, detection, or treatment. Demographic factors, social determinants of health, and inequitable healthcare delivery may impede the ability of individuals and communities to employ risk-mitigating behaviors and prevention strategies. The disparate access to quality screening and timely diagnosis experienced by various groups poses significant hurdles to optimal care and survival. Finally, barriers to access and inequitable healthcare delivery patterns reinforce inequitable application of standards of care. Cumulatively, these disparities underlie notable differences in the incidence, severity, and survival of breast cancers. Efforts toward mitigation will require collaborative approaches and partnerships between communities, governments, and healthcare organizations, which must be considered equal stakeholders in the fight for equity in breast cancer care and outcomes.

Neoadjuvant Reirradiation for Radiation Therapy-Associated Angiosarcoma of the Breast.

PURPOSE: Radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast (RAASB) is a rare side effect after breast radiation and has been associated with poor outcomes. At this time, there is no consensus regarding management of RAASB, and the role of reirradiation remains controversial. We present our modern institutional outcomes in managing RAASB with incorporation of neoadjuvant hyperfractionated reirradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients identified were treated between 2016 and 2020 with inclusion of any histologically proven RAASB without metastatic disease at diagnosis, while excluding those with a history of radiation therapy outside of the breast/chest wall or other sarcoma histologies. Major wound complications were defined as requiring wound care and/or wound vacuum or return to the operating room for wound repair at any time after surgery. RESULTS: Eight patients were identified, and the median follow-up was 34 months. Median time to RAASB development was 8 years from initial radiation therapy. With respect to RAASB management, all underwent surgery and neoadjuvant reirradiation therapy, and all but 1 patient received taxol-based chemotherapy. At last follow-up, 7 patients remained free of disease, and 1 patient died with distant disease. With respect to acute toxicity after reirradiation, all patients developed at least acute grade 2 toxicities. Five of the 8 patients developed a major wound complication. CONCLUSIONS: Our institutional analysis suggests excellent local control and survival outcomes for RAASB treated with neoadjuvant hyperfractionated reirradiation, surgery, and taxol-based chemotherapy. However, major wound complications represent a major challenge with this approach. Future studies should consider how best to improve the therapeutic ratio while maintaining high rates of local control and survival.

Intraoperative Radiation Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Updated Outcomes from a Single-Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, data have supported the use of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) for low-risk patients after breast-conserving surgery, with techniques allowing for completion of treatment in 1-3 weeks. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an alternative to PBI. Our institution had used low-energy photon IORT (TARGIT) for more than a decade. The initial results demonstrated a 2% local recurrence rate with a short follow-up period of 2 years. This report presents updated outcomes during with 5-year follow-up. METHODS: A review of an institutional review board (IRB)-approved institutional registry was performed. The review identified 215 patients with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0-IIA) who received IORT. At the time of surgery, IORT was delivered with 20 Gy in a single fraction, with 5.1% (n = 11) of patients receiving additional whole-breast irradiation (WBI). RESULTS: The mean age at diagnosis was 71 years (range, 49-98 years), and the median follow-up was 5.7 years (interquartile range [IQR], 4.2-7.0 years). Of the 215 patients, 2.8% (n = 6) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 90.7% (n = 195) had T1 disease, and 6.5% (n = 14) had T2 disease. Endocrine therapy was prescribed for 79% and chemotherapy for 1.4% of the patients. The 5-year rates were 5.3% for local recurrence, 6.4% for locoregional recurrence, and 2.7% for distant metastases. At 5 years, 93% of the patients were alive. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year outcomes with TARGIT IORT demonstrated high rates of local recurrence, exceeding those seen with alternative modern approaches. The local recurrence outcomes with IORT are more consistent with studies omitting radiation following breast-conserving surgery, using endocrine therapy alone. Consistent with current guidelines and previous data, TARGIT IORT should not be used as monotherapy outside prospective clinical trials.

Five Fraction Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Versus Intraoperative Radiation Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): Accelerated partial breast irradiation (PBI) delivered in 5 fractions with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been shown to have comparable clinical outcomes to whole breast irradiation with reduced toxicity profiles. In contrast, intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) offers patients the potential to complete adjuvant radiation therapy in a single treatment. While early data were promising, concerns exist regarding long-term rates of local recurrence after IORT. We present a comparison of 5 fraction PBI versus IORT. MATERIALS/METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 473 patients with early-stage breast cancer treated at a single institution from 2011 to 2021 with 258 receiving PBI and 215 receiving IORT. PBI patients received 30 Gy in 5 fractions delivered with IMRT. IORT patients received 20 Gy in 1 fraction prescribed to the applicator surface at surgery using the low-energy TARGIT technique. RESULTS: Mean age was 71 years old (IQR:67-74) for IORT patients and 67 years old (IQR:62-72) for PBI patients. Median follow up was 5.7 years (IQR:4.2-7.0) for IORT patients and 2.4 years (IQR:1.8-3.3) for PBI patients (P < .001). Recurrence at any time (locoregional and distant) was seen in 7.9% (n = 17) of patients receiving IORT as compared to 0.8% (n = 2) of patients receiving PBI. IORT was associated with reduced rates of locoregional relapse free survival at 5 years (93.6% vs. 99.4%, P = .05) with no difference in overall survival(92.8% vs. 95.1%, P = .99). CONCLUSION: Low-energy TARGIT IORT was associated with higher rates of locoregional recurrence compared to PBI. These outcomes, consistent with other series and current guidelines, suggest a limited role for low-energy IORT as monotherapy.

Perioperative genetic testing and time to surgery in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Time to treatment has been identified as a quality metric, with longer time to treatment associated with poorer outcomes. Genetic evaluation is an integral part of treatment counseling for patients with breast cancer. With expanding indications for genetic testing and consideration of expansion of genetic testing to all patients with a personal history of breast cancer, this study aims to evaluate the effect of genetic evaluation on the time interval from initial surgical visit to surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing upfront surgery for stage 0-3 breast cancer from June 2022 to December 2022. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for genetic testing, and results were obtained. RESULTS: The study included 492 patients (489 females). Eighty-one (16.2%) were ≤50 years of age at diagnosis. In total, 281 patients (57.1%) met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for genetic testing and 199 consulted with a genetic counselor (72.4%). Seventy-six patients (27.6%) not meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria pursued genetic counseling. In total, 218 patients (79.3%) referred for genetic counseling completed testing. Mean turnaround time to genetic testing result was 11 days (range, 6-66 days). Twenty-six patients (11.9%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Twenty-four of these patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network testing criteria (92.3%) and 2 did not (7.7%). The time to treatment for patients undergoing genetic testing was 33 vs 34 days in those without testing (P = .45). Three patients (11.5%) with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants altered their initial surgical plan due to their genetic testing results. Seven patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant results returning postoperatively did not undergo additional surgery. CONCLUSION: Hereditary breast cancer evaluation and genetic testing did not appear to delay time to treatment for patients with breast cancer in our study cohort.

Phase II Clinical Trial of Pembrolizumab and Chemotherapy Reveals Distinct Transcriptomic Profiles by Radiologic Response in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: A single arm, phase II trial of carboplatin, nab-paclitaxel, and pembrolizumab (CNP) in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) was designed to evaluate overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), safety/tolerability, overall survival (OS), and identify pathologic and transcriptomic correlates of response to therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ≤2 prior therapies for metastatic disease were treated with CNP regardless of tumor programmed cell death-ligand 1 status. Core tissue biopsies were obtained prior to treatment initiation. ORR was assessed using a binomial distribution. Survival was analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method. Bulk RNA sequencing was employed for correlative studies. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled. The ORR was 48.0%: 2 (7%) complete responses (CR), 11 (41%) partial responses (PR), and 8 (30%) stable disease (SD). The median DOR for patients with CR or PR was 6.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4-8.5 months]. For patients with CR, DOR was >24 months. Overall median PFS and OS were 5.8 (95% CI, 4.7-8.5 months) and 13.4 months (8.9-17.3 months), respectively. We identified unique transcriptomic landscapes associated with each RECIST category of radiographic treatment response. In CR and durable PR, IGHG1 expression was enriched. IGHG1high tumors were associated with improved OS (P = 0.045) and were concurrently enriched with B cells and follicular helper T cells, indicating IGHG1 as a promising marker for lymphocytic infiltration and robust response to chemo-immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment tissue sampling in mTNBC treated with CNP reveals transcriptomic signatures that may predict radiographic responses to chemo-immunotherapy.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Pre-test Genetic Counseling Using an Artificial Intelligence Automated Chatbot and Traditional In-person Genetic Counseling in Women Newly Diagnosed with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Alternative service delivery models are critically needed to address the increasing demand for genetics services and limited supply of genetics experts available to provide pre-test counseling. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of women with stage 0-III breast cancer not meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Patients were randomized to pre-test counseling with a Chatbot or a certified genetic counselor (GC). Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge of breast cancer genetics and a survey assessing satisfaction with their decision regarding pre-test counseling. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were enrolled and 37 were randomized to genetic counseling with an automated Chatbot or a GC; 19 were randomized to Chatbot and 18 to traditional genetic counseling, and 13 (38.2%) had a family member with breast cancer but did not meet NCCN criteria. All patients opted to undergo genetic testing. Testing revealed six pathogenic variants in five patients (13.5%): CHEK2 (n = 2), MSH3 (n = 1), MUTYH (n = 1), and BRCA1 and HOXB13 (n = 1). No patients had a delay in time-to-treatment due to genetic testing turnaround time, nor did any patients undergo additional risk reducing surgery. There was no significant difference in median knowledge score between Chatbot and traditional counseling (11 vs. 12, p = 0.09) or in median patient satisfaction score (30 vs. 30, p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: Satisfaction and comprehension in patients with breast cancer undergoing pre-test genetic counseling using an automated Chatbot is comparable to in-person genetic testing. Utilization of this technology can offer improved access to care and a much-needed alternative for pre-test counseling.

Comprehensive Care of Women With Genetic Predisposition to Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

Women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes are frequently seen in primary care and gynecology clinics. They present with a distinctive set of clinical and emotional needs that revolve around complex risk management discussions and decision making. The care of these women calls for the creation of individualized care plans that facilitate adjustment to the mental and physical changes associated with their choices. This article provides an update on comprehensive evidence-driven care of women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The aim of this review is to aid clinicians in identifying those at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes and provide practical advice on patient-centered medical and surgical risk management. Topics of discussion include enhanced surveillance, preventive medications, risk-reducing mastectomy and reconstruction, risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, fertility, sexuality, and menopausal management, with attention to the importance of psychological support. High-risk patients may benefit from a multidisciplinary team that provides realistic expectations with consistent messaging. The primary care provider must be aware of the special needs of these patients and the consequences of their risk management interventions.

Young Black Women May be More Likely to Have First Mammogram Cancers: A New Perspective in Breast Cancer Disparities.

INTRODUCTION: Black women are diagnosed with breast cancer at earlier ages and are 42% more likely to die from the disease than White women. Recommendations for commencement of screening mammography remain discordant. This study sought to determine the frequency of first mammogram cancers among Black women versus other self-reported racial groups. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, clinical and mammographic data were obtained from 738 women aged 40-45 years who underwent treatment for breast cancer between 2010 and 2019 within a single hospital system. First mammogram cancers were defined as those with tissue diagnoses within 3 months of baseline mammogram. Multivariate logistic regression was applied to assess variables associated with first mammogram cancer detection. RESULTS: Black women were significantly more likely to have first mammogram cancer diagnoses (39/82, 47.6%) compared with White women (162/610, 26.6%) and other groups (16/46, 34.8%) [p < 0.001]. Black women were also more likely to have a body mass index > 30 (p < 0.001), higher clinical T categories (p = 0.02), and present with more advanced clinical stages (p = 0.03). Every month delay in mammographic screening beyond age 40 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.07; p < 0.0001), Black race (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.10-4.53; p = 0.03), and lack of private insurance (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.22-4.73; p = 0.01) were associated with an increased likelihood of cancer detection on first mammogram. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggests that Black women aged 40-45 years may be more likely to have cancer detected on their first mammogram and would benefit from starting screening mammography no later than age 40 years, and for those with elevated lifetime risk, even sooner.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ultra-Hypofractionated Whole Breast Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Hormone Therapy Alone or Combined Treatment for Low-Risk ER-Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer in Women Aged 65 Years and Older.

PURPOSE: The optimal management of early-stage, low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer in older women remains controversial. Recent trials have shown that 5-fraction ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (U-WBI) has similar outcomes to longer courses, reducing the cost and inconvenience of treatment. We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare U-WBI to hormone therapy alone or their combination. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We simulated 3 different treatment approaches for women age 65 years or older with pT1-2N0 ER-positive invasive ductal carcinoma treated with lumpectomy with negative margins using a Markov microsimulation model. The strategies were U-WBI performed with a 3-dimensional conformal technique over 5 fractions without a boost ("radiation therapy [RT] alone"), adjuvant hormone therapy (anastrozole for 5 years) without RT ("aromatase-inhibitor [AI] alone"), or the combination of the 2. The combination strategy was calibrated to match trial results, and the relative effectiveness of the RT alone and AI alone strategies were inferred from previous randomized trials. The primary endpoint was the cost-effectiveness of the 3 strategies over a lifetime horizon as measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a value of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year deemed "cost-effective." RESULTS: The model results compared with the prespecified target outcomes. On average, RT alone was the least expensive strategy ($14,775), with AI alone slightly more ($14,998), and combination therapy the costliest ($19,802). RT alone dominated AI alone (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] -$5089). Combination therapy, compared with RT alone, was slightly more expensive than our definition of cost-effective (ICER $113,468) but was cost-effective compared with AI alone (ICER $54,451). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated RT alone to be cost-effective in 50% of trials, with combination therapy in 36% and AI alone in 14%. CONCLUSIONS: U-WBI alone appears the more cost-effective de-escalation strategy for these low-risk patients, compared with AI alone. Combining U-WBI and AI appears more costly but may be preferred by some patients.

Reducing the risk of breast cancer.

Breast cancer remains the most common female malignancy in the United States. Reducing this cancer burden involves identification of high-risk individuals and personalized risk management. Because coronary artery disease remains the primary cause of death for women, any intervention to reduce breast cancer risk must be weighed against comorbidities and interventions affecting cardiovascular risk reduction. For select women at increased risk for breast cancer, preventive medication can greatly decrease risk and is vastly underutilized. Women's health clinicians are poised to evaluate risk, promote breast cancer risk reduction, and manage overall health.

Oncologic safety of axillary lymph node dissection with immediate lymphatic reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) at the time of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) can reduce the incidence of lymphedema in patients with breast cancer. The oncologic safety of ILR is unknown and has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if ILR is associated with increased breast cancer recurrence rates. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer who underwent ALND with ILR from September 2016 to December 2020 were identified from a prospective institutional database. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and operative details were recorded. Follow-up included the development of local recurrence as well as distant metastasis. Oncologic outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients underwent ALND with ILR. At cancer presentation, 122 patients (89%) had clinically node positive primary breast cancer, 10 patients (7.3%) had recurrent breast cancer involving the axillary lymph nodes, 3 patients (2.2%) had recurrent breast cancer involving both the breast and axillary nodes, and 2 patients (1.5%) presented with axillary disease/occult breast cancer. For surgical management, 103 patients (75.2%) underwent a mastectomy, 22 patients (16%) underwent lumpectomy and 12 patients (8.8%) had axillary surgery only. The ALND procedure, yielded a median of 15 lymph nodes pathologically identified (range 3-41). At a median follow-up of 32.9 months (range 6-63 months), 17 patients (12.4%) developed a local (n = 1) or distant recurrence (n = 16), however, no axillary recurrences were identified. CONCLUSION: Immediate lymphatic reconstruction in patients with breast cancer undergoing ALND is not associated with short term axillary recurrence and appears oncologically safe.

Axillary lymph node dissection can be omitted in patients with limited clinically node-positive breast cancer: a National Cancer Database analysis.

BACKGROUND: De-escalation of axillary surgery in breast cancer has progressively taken place when appropriate. Data supporting surgical de-escalation in patients with clinically node-positive (cN+) disease remains scarce. Here, survival among patients with cN+ T1-2 tumours undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) was investigated and compared with that among patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) with or without RNI. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was used to identify three groups of patients with cN+ tumours according to axillary management among those treated between 2010 and 2016: patients who underwent SLNB and RNI (cN+ SLNB/RNI group); those who had ALND and RNI (cN+ ALND/RNI group); and those who had ALND alone (cN+ ALND/no RNI group). Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and those who had stage IV breast cancer or pN2-3 disease were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 12 560 patients met the inclusion criteria: 3030 in the cN+ SLNB/RNI, 5446 in the cN+ ALND/RNI, and 4084 in the cN+ ALND/no RNI group. The sizes of cN + SLNB/RNI and cN+ ALND/RNI groups increased over the study interval, whereas the cN+ ALND/no RNI group decreased in size (P < 0.001). There was a median of one positive node in the cN+ SLNB/RNI group and two nodes in the cN+ ALND/RNI and cN+ ALND/no RNI groups. The median number of nodes examined was three, 14, and 14, respectively (P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 57.9 (range 0.8-114) months. The overall survival rate was 97, 97, and 92 per cent respectively at two years, and 88, 86, and 78 per cent at five years (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with limited cN+ T1-2 breast cancer undergoing upfront SLNB and RNI have favourable survival outcomes that are not inferior to those of patients undergoing ALND with or without RNI. Prospective studies are warranted to assess locoregional control and long-term outcomes.

The surgical management of lymph node metastases in patients with breast cancer continues to change. To minimize the complications of extensive removal of axillary lymph nodes (axillary dissection), more limited surgery is now the standard of care when the cancer has not spread to the axillary lymph nodes. This study examined data from a large national cancer database in the USA. The results showed that patients with minimal lymph node metastases can also undergo less extensive axillary surgery without affecting survival, if surgery is combined with radiation therapy.