Safety of pregnancy after breast cancer in young women with hormone receptor-positive disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing evidence on the safety of pregnancy after anticancer treatments in breast cancer survivors, many physicians and patients remain concerned about a potential risk of pregnancy specifically in the case of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 31 March 2023 was carried out. To be included, articles had to be retrospective and prospective case-control and cohort studies as well as clinical trials comparing survival outcomes of premenopausal women with or without a pregnancy after prior diagnosis of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were the outcomes of interest. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Study protocol is registered in PROSPERO (n. CRD42023394232). RESULTS: Out of 7796 screened studies, 8 were eligible to be included in the final analysis. A total of 3805 patients with hormone receptor-positive invasive early breast cancer were included in these studies, of whom 1285 had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis. Median follow-up time ranged from 3.8 to 15.8 years and was similar in the pregnancy and non-pregnancy cohorts. In three studies (n = 987 patients) reporting on DFS, no difference was observed between patients with and those without a subsequent pregnancy (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75-1.24, P = 0.781). In the six studies (n = 3504 patients) reporting on OS, patients with a pregnancy after breast cancer had a statistically significant better OS than those without a pregnancy (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.77, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies provides updated evidence that having a pregnancy in patients with prior history of hormone receptor-positive invasive early breast cancer appears safe without detrimental effect on prognosis.

Prognostic value of HER2-low status in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low expression in breast cancer has been recently identified as a new therapeutic target. However, it is unclear if HER2-low status has an independent impact on prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature research was carried out to identify studies comparing survival outcomes of patients affected by HER2-low versus HER2-zero breast cancer. Using random-effects models, pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the metastatic setting as well as disease-free survival (DFS), OS and pathological complete response (pCR) in the early setting. Subgroup analyses by hormone receptor (HoR) status were carried out. The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO (n.CRD42023390777). RESULTS: Among 1916 identified records, 42 studies including 1 797 175 patients were eligible. In the early setting, HER2-low status was associated with significant improved DFS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, P < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95, P < 0.001) when compared to HER2-zero status. Improved OS was observed for both HoR-positive and HoR-negative HER2-low populations, while DFS improvement was observed only in the HoR-positive subgroup. HER2-low status was significantly associated with a lower rate of pCR as compared to HER2-zero status both in the overall population (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, P = 0.001) and in the HoR-positive subgroup (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.90, P = 0.001). In the metastatic setting, patients with HER2-low breast cancers showed better OS when compared with those with HER2-zero tumours in the overall population (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98, P = 0.008), regardless of HoR status. No significant PFS differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with HER2-zero status, HER2-low status appears to be associated with a slightly increased OS both in the advanced and early settings, regardless of HoR expression. In the early setting, HER2-low tumours seem to be associated to lower pCR rates, especially if HoR-positive.

Influence of HER2 expression on prognosis in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer-results from an international, multicenter analysis coordinated by the AGMT Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with poor prognosis, and new treatment options are urgently needed. About 34%-39% of primary TNBCs show a low expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2-low), which is a target for new anti-HER2 drugs. However, little is known about the frequency and the prognostic value of HER2-low in metastatic TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included patients with TNBC from five European countries for this international, multicenter analysis. Triple-negativity had to be shown in a metastatic site or in the primary breast tumor diagnosed simultaneously or within 3 years before metastatic disease. HER2-low was defined as immunohistochemically (IHC) 1+ or 2+ without ERBB2 gene amplification. Survival probabilities were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by Cox regression models. RESULTS: In total, 691 patients, diagnosed between January 2006 and February 2021, were assessable. The incidence of HER2-low was 32.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 28.5% to 35.5%], with similar proportions in metastases (n = 265; 29.8%) and primary tumors (n = 425; 33.4%; P = 0.324). The median overall survival (OS) in HER2-low and HER2-0 TNBC was 18.6 and 16.1 months, respectively (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.83-1.19; P = 0.969). Similarly, in multivariable analysis, HER2-low had no significant impact on OS (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.79-1.13; P = 0.545). No difference in prognosis was observed between HER2 IHC 0/1+ and IHC 2+ tumors (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.69-1.17; P = 0.414). CONCLUSIONS: In this large international dataset of metastatic TNBC, the frequency of HER2-low was 32.0%. Neither in univariable nor in multivariable analysis HER2-low showed any influence on OS.

Safety of fertility preservation techniques before and after anticancer treatments in young women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Is it safe to perform controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation before starting anticancer therapies or ART after treatments in young breast cancer patients? SUMMARY ANSWER: Performing COS before, or ART following anticancer treatment in young women with breast cancer does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in terms of breast cancer recurrence, mortality or event-free survival (EFS). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: COS for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before starting chemotherapy is standard of care for young women with breast cancer wishing to preserve fertility. However, some oncologists remain concerned on the safety of COS, particularly in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, even when associated with aromatase inhibitors. Moreover, limited evidence exists on the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors for achieving pregnancy after the completion of anticancer treatments. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The present systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by three blinded investigators using the keywords 'breast cancer' and 'fertility preservation'; keywords were combined with Boolean operators. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 30 June 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: To be included in this meta-analysis, eligible studies had to be case-control or cohort studies comparing survival outcomes of women who underwent COS or ART before or after breast cancer treatments compared to breast cancer patients not exposed to these strategies. Survival outcomes of interest were cancer recurrence rate, relapse rate, overall survival and number of deaths. Adjusted relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI were extracted. When the number of events for each group were available but the above measures were not reported, HRs were estimated using the Watkins and Bennett method. We excluded case reports or case series with <10 patients and studies without a control group of breast cancer patients who did not pursue COS or ART. Quality of data and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 1835 records were retrieved. After excluding ineligible publications, 15 studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis (n = 4643). Among them, 11 reported the outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent COS for fertility preservation before starting chemotherapy, and 4 the safety of ART following anticancer treatment completion. Compared to women who did not receive fertility preservation at diagnosis (n = 2386), those who underwent COS (n = 1594) had reduced risk of recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73) and mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76). No detrimental effect of COS on EFS was observed (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.06). A similar trend of better outcomes in terms of EFS was observed in women with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent COS (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20-0.65). A reduced risk of recurrence was also observed in patients undergoing COS before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.80). Compared to women not exposed to ART following completion of anticancer treatments (n = 540), those exposed to ART (n = 123) showed a tendency for better outcomes in terms of recurrence ratio (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) and EFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-1.11). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This meta-analysis is based on abstracted data and most of the studies included are retrospective cohort studies. Not all studies had matching criteria between the study population and the controls, and these criteria often differed between the studies. Moreover, rate of recurrence is reported as a punctual event and it is not possible to establish when recurrences occurred and whether follow-up, which was shorter than 5 years in some of the included studies, is adequate to capture late recurrences. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results demonstrate that performing COS at diagnosis or ART following treatment completion does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in young women with breast cancer, including among patients with hormone receptor-positive disease and those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Partially supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; grant number MFAG 2020 ID 24698) and the Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds 2017 (no grant number). M.L. acted as consultant for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Ipsen, Takeda, Libbs, Knight, Sandoz outside the submitted work. F.S. acted as consultant for Novartis, MSD, Sun Pharma, Philogen and Pierre Fabre and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for Roche, has received research grants from Roche and Ferring, has received reagents for academic clinical trial from Roche diagnostics, speaker's fees from Novartis, and support for congresses from Theramex and Ferring outside the submitted work. L.D.M. reported honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis and had an advisory role for Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Safety of assisted reproductive techniques in young women harboring germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 with a pregnancy after prior history of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge is growing on the safety of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in cancer survivors. No data exist, however, for the specific population of breast cancer patients harboring germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study across 30 centers worldwide including women diagnosed at ≤40 years with stage I-III breast cancer, between January 2000 and December 2012, harboring known germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Patients included in this analysis had a post-treatment pregnancy either achieved through use of ART (ART group) or naturally (non-ART group). ART procedures included ovulation induction, ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and embryo transfer under hormonal replacement therapy. RESULTS: Among the 1424 patients registered in the study, 168 were eligible for inclusion in the present analysis, of whom 22 were in the ART group and 146 in the non-ART group. Survivors in the ART group conceived at an older age compared with those in the non-ART group (median age: 39.7 versus 35.4 years, respectively). Women in the ART group experienced more delivery complications compared with those in the non-ART group (22.1% versus 4.1%, respectively). No other apparent differences in obstetrical outcomes were observed between cohorts. The median follow-up from pregnancy was 3.4 years (range: 0.8-8.6 years) in the ART group and 5.0 years (range: 0.8-17.6 years) in the non-ART group. Two patients (9.1%) in the ART group experienced a disease-free survival event (specifically, a locoregional recurrence) compared with 40 patients (27.4%) in the non-ART group. In the ART group, no patients deceased compared with 10 patients (6.9%) in the non-ART group. CONCLUSION: This study provides encouraging safety data on the use of ART in breast cancer survivors harboring germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2, when natural conception fails or when they opt for ART in order to carry out preimplantation genetic testing.

Concurrent versus sequential adjuvant chemo-endocrine therapy in hormone-receptor positive early stage breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although in clinical practice adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and endocrine therapy (ET) are administered sequentially in patients with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer, the optimal timing, i.e. concurrent or sequential administration, of these treatments has been scarcely investigated. To better clarify this issue we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing these two modalities of administrations in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Knowledge and the proceedings of the major conferences with no date restriction up to March 2016. The summary risk estimates (pooled hazard ratio [HR] and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) for DFS and OS were calculated using random effect models (DerSimonian and Laird method). RESULTS: A total of three randomized studies were eligible including 2021 breast cancer patients. Overall, 755 DFS events were observed, 365 in the sequential arm and 390 in the concomitant arm, with a pooled HR of 0.95 (95% CI = 0.76 to 1.18, P = 0.643). No association between timing of treatment and OS was observed (HR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.12, P = 0.529). CONCLUSION: Our pooled analysis showed no association between the timing of administration of adjuvant CT and ET and DFS and OS in breast cancer patients candidates for both adjuvant treatments. Because of the small number of published trials, the lack of data on the timing with modern adjuvant treatments, i.e. taxane-containing CT and aromatase inhibitors, this topic remain still controversial and requires further studies to be clarified.