Omission of Axillary Dissection Following Nodal Downstaging With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Importance: Data on oncological outcomes after omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in patients with breast cancer that downstages from node positive to negative with neoadjuvant chemotherapy are sparse. Additionally, the best axillary surgical staging technique in this scenario is unknown. Objective: To investigate oncological outcomes after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with dual-tracer mapping or targeted axillary dissection (TAD), which combines SLNB with localization and retrieval of the clipped lymph node. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study that was conducted at 25 centers in 11 countries, 1144 patients with consecutive stage II to III biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer were included between April 2013 and December 2020. The cumulative incidence rates of axillary, locoregional, and any invasive (locoregional or distant) recurrence were determined by competing risk analysis. Exposure: Omission of ALND after SLNB or TAD. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were the 3-year and 5-year rates of any axillary recurrence. Secondary end points included locoregional recurrence, any invasive (locoregional and distant) recurrence, and the number of lymph nodes removed. Results: A total of 1144 patients (median [IQR] age, 50 [41-59] years; 78 [6.8%] Asian, 105 [9.2%] Black, 102 [8.9%] Hispanic, and 816 [71.0%] White individuals; 666 SLNB [58.2%] and 478 TAD [41.8%]) were included. A total of 1060 patients (93%) had N1 disease, 619 (54%) had ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive illness, and 758 (66%) had a breast pathologic complete response. TAD patients were more likely to receive nodal radiation therapy (85% vs 78%; P = .01). The clipped node was successfully retrieved in 97% of TAD cases and 86% of SLNB cases (without localization). The mean (SD) number of sentinel lymph nodes retrieved was 3 (2) vs 4 (2) (P < .001), and the mean (SD) number of total lymph nodes removed was 3.95 (1.97) vs 4.44 (2.04) (P < .001) in the TAD and SLNB groups, respectively. The 5-year rates of any axillary, locoregional, and any invasive recurrence in the entire cohort were 1.0% (95% CI, 0.49%-2.0%), 2.7% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.1%), and 10% (95% CI, 8.3%-13%), respectively. The 3-year cumulative incidence of axillary recurrence did not differ between TAD and SLNB (0.5% vs 0.8%; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study showed that axillary recurrence was rare in this setting and was not significantly lower after TAD vs SLNB. These results support omission of ALND in this population.

Is the CTS5 a helpful decision-making tool in the extended adjuvant therapy setting?

PURPOSE: The Clinical Treatment Score post-5 years (CTS5) is an easy-to-use tool estimating the late distant recurrence (LDR) risk in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer after 5 years of endocrine therapy (ET). Apart from evaluating the prognostic value and calibration accuracy of CTS5, the aim of this study is to clarify if this score is able to identify patients at higher risk for LDR who will benefit from extended ET. METHODS: Prognostic power, calibration, and predictive value of the CTS5 was tested in patients of the prospective ABCSG-06 and -06a trials (n = 1254 and 860 patients, respectively). Time to LDR was analyzed with Cox regression models. RESULTS: Higher rates of LDR in the years five to ten were observed in high- and intermediate-risk patients compared to low-risk patients (HR 4.02, 95%CI 2.26-7.15, p < 0.001 and HR 1.93, 95%CI 1.05-3.56, p = 0.035). An increasing continuous CTS5 was associated with increasing LDR risk (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.74-2.85, p < 0.001). Miscalibration of CTS5 in high-risk patients could be observed. Although not reaching significance, high-risk patients benefitted the most from prolonged ET with an absolute reduction of the estimated 5-year LDR of - 6.1% (95%CI - 14.4 to 2.3). CONCLUSION: The CTS5 is a reliable prognostic tool that is well calibrated in the lower and intermediate risk groups with a substantial difference of expected versus observed LDR rates in high-risk patients. While a numerical trend in favoring prolonged ET for patients with a higher CTS5 was found, a significantly predictive value for the score could not be confirmed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ABCSG-06 trial (NCT00309491), ABCSG-06A7 1033AU/0001 (NCT00300508).

Impact of Imaging-Guided Localization on Performance of Tailored Axillary Surgery in Patients with Clinically Node-Positive Breast Cancer: Prospective Cohort Study Within TAXIS (OPBC-03, SAKK 23/16, IBCSG 57-18, ABCSG-53, GBG 101).

BACKGROUND: Tailored axillary surgery (TAS) is a novel surgical concept for clinical node-positive breast cancer. It consists of the removal of the sentinel lymph nodes (LNs), as well as palpably suspicious nodes. The TAS technique can be utilized in both the upfront and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) setting. This study assessed whether/how imaging-guided localization (IGL) influenced TAS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study preplanned in the randomized phase-III OPBC-03/TAXIS trial. IGL was performed at the surgeon's discretion for targeted removal of LNs during TAS. Immediate back-up axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) followed TAS according to TAXIS randomization. RESULTS: Five-hundred patients were included from 44 breast centers in six countries, 151 (30.2%) of whom underwent NACT. IGL was performed in 84.4% of all patients, with significant variation by country (77.6-100%, p < 0.001). No difference in the median number of removed (5 vs. 4, p = 0.3) and positive (2 vs. 2, p = 0.6) LNs by use of IGL was noted. The number of LNs removed during TAS with IGL remained stable over time (p = 0.8), but decreased significantly without IGL, from six (IQR 4-6) in 2019 to four (IQR 3-4) in 2022 (p = 0.015). An ALND was performed in 249 patients, removing another 12 (IQR 9-17) LNs, in which a median number of 1 (IQR 0-4) was positive. There was no significant difference in residual nodal disease after TAS with or without IGL (68.0% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: IGL did not significantly change either the performance of TAS or the volume of residual nodal tumor burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513614.

Emergence of immune-related adverse events correlates with pathological complete response in patients receiving pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer.

Based upon results of the KEYNOTE-522 trial and following approval by regulatory authorities, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is now the standard-of-care for the treatment of early triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) (Clinical stage II-III). Pembrolizumab is a programmed cell death protein 1 monoclonal antibody, known to cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in a significant subset of patients. Real-world data on incidence, type and treatment strategies of irAEs in the setting of eTNBC treatment are sparse. In this multicenterretrospective analysis, we characterized real-world incidence of irAEs and treatment outcomes such as pathological complete response (pCR) from the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment for eTNBC. We found a rate of irAEs of all grades of 63.9% and of 20% for irAEs of grade 3 or higher. In the overall population, a pCR rate of 57.1% was observed. The emergence of irAEs correlated significantly with pCR (72.2% versus 30.8%; p =.03). Discontinuation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before week 12 correlated significantly with a lower pCR rate. To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the real-world efficacy and safety of a neoadjuvant combination of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in eTNBC, demonstrating a significant correlation between irAEs and pCR. Early discontinuation of neoadjuvant therapy due to AEs resulted in a lower pCR rate.

Differential immunomodulatory effects of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EC) and docetaxel (D) are commonly used in a sequential regimen in the neoadjuvant treatment of early, high-risk or locally advanced breast cancer (BC). Novel approaches to increase the response rate combine this treatment with immunotherapies such as PD-1 inhibition. However, the expected stimulatory effect on lymphocytes may depend on the chemotherapy backbone. Therefore, we separately compared the immunomodulatory effects of EC and D in the setting of a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Tumor and blood samples of 154 patients from the ABCSG-34 trial were available (76 patients received four cycles of EC followed by four cycles of D; 78 patients get the reverse treatment sequence). Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, circulating lymphocytes and 14 soluble immune mediators were determined at baseline and at drug change. Furthermore, six BC cell lines were treated with E, C or D and co-cultured with immune cells. RESULTS: Initial treatment with four cycles of EC reduced circulating B and T cells by 94% and 45%, respectively. In contrast, no comparable effects on lymphocytes were observed in patients treated with initial four cycles of D. Most immune mediators decreased under EC whereas D-treatment resulted in elevated levels of CXCL10, urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its soluble receptor (suPAR). Accordingly, only the exposure of BC cell lines to D induced similar increases as compared to E. While treatment of BC cells with E was associated with cell shrinkage and apoptosis, D induced cell swelling and accumulation of cells in G2 phase. CONCLUSION: The deleterious effect of EC on lymphocytes indicates strong immunosuppressive properties of this combination therapy. D, in contrast, has no effect on lymphocytes, but triggers the secretion of stimulatory proteins in vivo and in vitro, indicating a supportive effect on the immune system. Underlying differences in the induced cell death might be causal. These divergent immunomodulatory effects of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel should be considered when planning future combinations with immunotherapies in breast cancer.

The Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Immediate Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) rates have increased in recent years owing to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, there is a lack of studies regarding complications rates following adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) among patients undergoing immediate prepectoral IBBR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective monocentric analysis of a cohort of consecutively treated patients who underwent NSM following immediate prepectoral IBBR at our institution between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, quality of life, complication rates, and oncological safety were evaluated in the RT and non-RT groups. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 24 (IMB Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: A total of 98 patients were examined: 70 were assigned to have prepectoral IBBR without RT and 28 to the group who had prepectoral IBBR with RT. There was a statistically significant difference in overall capsular contracture rate between the RT and non-RT group (18% vs. 4.3%, p=0.04). The total implant loss in the cohort was 4% (10.7% vs. 1.4%, p=0.05). We obtained a high percentages of all BREAST-Q categories in both groups; however, satisfaction with the breast and sexual well-being was higher in the non-RT group. The three-year overall survivals were 97.4% in the RT group and 98.5% in the non-RT group. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that patients in the RT group had a higher rate of capsular contracture and implant loss than those in the non-RT group. However, complication rates were within acceptable range and with accurate preoperative information patients have more benefits from immediate reconstruction showing excellent overall quality of life irrespectively of radiation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Association of Axillary Dissection With Systemic Therapy in Patients With Clinically Node-Positive Breast Cancer.

Importance: The role of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) to determine nodal burden to inform systemic therapy recommendations in patients with clinically node (cN)-positive breast cancer (BC) is currently unknown. Objective: To address the association of ALND with systemic therapy in cN-positive BC in the upfront surgery setting and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective, observational, cohort study conducted from August 2018 to June 2022. This was a preplanned study within the phase 3 randomized clinical OPBC-03/TAXIS trial. Included were patients with confirmed cN-positive BC from 44 private, public, and academic breast centers in 6 European countries. After NACT, residual nodal disease was mandatory, and a minimum follow-up of 2 months was required. Exposures: All patients underwent tailored axillary surgery (TAS) followed by ALND or axillary radiotherapy (ART) according to TAXIS randomization. TAS removed suspicious palpable and sentinel nodes, whereas imaging-guidance was optional. Systemic therapy recommendations were at the discretion of the local investigators. Results: A total of 500 patients (median [IQR] age, 57 [48-69] years; 487 female [97.4%]) were included in the study. In the upfront surgery setting, 296 of 335 patients (88.4%) had hormone receptor (HR)-positive and Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2; formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-negative disease: 145 (49.0%) underwent ART, and 151 (51.0%) underwent ALND. The median (IQR) number of removed positive lymph nodes without ALND was 3 (1-4) nodes compared with 4 (2-9) nodes with ALND. There was no association of ALND with the proportion of patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy (81 of 145 [55.9%] vs 91 of 151 [60.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.19-2.67) and type of systemic therapy. Of 151 patients with NACT, 74 (51.0%) underwent ART, and 77 (49.0%) underwent ALND. The ratio of removed to positive nodes was a median (IQR) of 4 (3-7) nodes to 2 (1-3) nodes and 15 (12-19) nodes to 2 (1-5) nodes in the ART and ALND groups, respectively. There was no observed association of ALND with the proportion of patients undergoing postneoadjuvant systemic therapy (57 of 74 [77.0%] vs 55 of 77 [71.4%]; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.43-1.70), type of postneoadjuvant chemotherapy (eg, capecitabine: 10 of 74 [13.5%] vs 10 of 77 [13.0%]; trastuzumab emtansine-DM1: 9 of 74 [12.2%] vs 11 of 77 [14.3%]), or endocrine therapy (eg, aromatase inhibitors: 41 of 74 [55.4%] vs 36 of 77 [46.8%]; tamoxifen: 8 of 74 [10.8%] vs 6 of 77 [7.8%]). Conclusion: Results of this cohort study suggest that patients without ALND were significantly understaged. However, ALND did not inform systemic therapy recommendations.

Trends in use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer in Europe: prospective TAXIS study (OPBC-03, SAKK 23/16, IBCSG 57-18, ABCSG-53, GBG 101).

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical practice heterogeneity in use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer in Europe. METHODS: The study was preplanned in the international multicenter phase-III OPBC-03/TAXIS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513614) to include the first 500 randomized patients with confirmed nodal disease at the time of surgery. The TAXIS study's pragmatic design allowed both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting according to the preferences of the local investigators who were encouraged to register eligible patients consecutively. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients were included at 44 breast centers in six European countries from August 2018 to June 2022, 165 (33%) of whom underwent NST. Median age was 57 years (interquartile range [IQR], 48-69). Most patients were postmenopausal (68.4%) with grade 2 and 3 hormonal receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer with a median tumor size of 28 mm (IQR 20-40). The use of NST varied significantly across the countries (p < 0.001). Austria (55.2%) and Switzerland (35.8%) had the highest percentage of patients undergoing NST and Hungary (18.2%) the lowest. The administration of NST increased significantly over the years (OR 1.42; p < 0.001) and more than doubled from 20 to 46.7% between 2018 and 2022. CONCLUSION: Substantial heterogeneity in the use of NST with HR+/HER2-breast cancer exists in Europe. While stringent guidelines are available for its use in triple-negative and HER2+ breast cancer, there is a need for the development of and adherence to well-defined recommendations for HR+/HER2-breast cancer.

Uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of patients with breast cancer.

The aims of this Oncoplastic Breast Consortium and European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists initiative were to identify uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of early breast cancer and to recommend appropriate strategies to address them. By use of Delphi methods, 15 questions were prioritized by more than 250 breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists from 60 countries. Subsequently, a global virtual consensus panel considered available data, ongoing studies and resource utilization. It agreed that research should no longer be prioritized for standardization of axillary imaging, de-escalation of axillary surgery in node-positive cancer and risk evaluation of modern surgery and radiotherapy. Instead, expert consensus recommendations for clinical practice should be based on current evidence and updated once results from ongoing studies become available. Research on de-escalation of radiotherapy and identification of the most relevant endpoints in axillary management should encompass a meta-analysis to identify knowledge gaps, followed by a Delphi process to prioritize and a consensus conference to refine recommendations for specific trial designs. Finally, treatment of residual nodal disease after surgery was recommended to be assessed in a prospective register.

Ptotic versus Nonptotic Breasts in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

In recent years, nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity due to improved cosmetic and psychological benefits. However, patients with ptotic breasts remain the main challenge for surgeons, owing to the potential risk of postoperative complications. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction between March 2017 and November 2021. Patient demographics, incidence of complications, and quality of life assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire were compared between the two different incisions [inverted-T for ptotic versus inframammary fold (IMF) for nonptotic breasts]. Results: A total of 98 patients were examined: 62 in the IMF cohort and 36 in the inverted-T cohort. The results demonstrated equivalence in the safety metrics between the two groups, including hematoma (p=0.367), seroma (p=0.552), infection (P = 1.00), skin necrosis (P = 1.00), local recurrence (P = 1.00), implant loss (P = 0.139), capsular contracture (P = 1.00), and nipple-areolar complex necrosis (P = 0.139). The BREAST-Q scores were equally high in both groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest that inverted-T incision for ptotic breasts is a safe modality with similar complication rates and high aesthetic results compared with IMF incision for nonptotic breasts. A higher rate of nipple-areolar complex necrosis in the inverted-T group, although not significant, should be considered during careful preoperative planning and patient selection.

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) remains the standard and most popular option for women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy worldwide. Recently, prepectoral IBBR has resurged in popularity, despite limited data comparing prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2021, was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, data were extracted by independent reviewers. Studies that compared prepectoral with subpectoral IBBR for breast cancer were included. RESULTS: Overall, 15 studies with 3,101 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that patients receiving prepectoral IBBR experienced fewer capsular contractures (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.92; P = 0.02), animation deformity (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.25; P = 0.002), and prosthesis failure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR in overall complications (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.09; P = 0.19), seroma (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.59-2.51; P = 0.60), hematoma (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18; P = 0.22), infection (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.63-1.20; P = 0.39), skin flap necrosis (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.45-1.08; P = 0.11), and recurrence (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.52-3.39; P = 0.55). Similarly, no significant difference was found in Breast-Q scores between the prepectoral and subpectoral IBBR groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that prepectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction is a safe modality and has similar outcomes with significantly lower rates of capsular contracture, prosthesis failure, and animation deformity compared with subpectoral, implant-based, breast reconstruction.

Local Treatment of the Primary Tumor for Patients With Metastatic Cancer (PRIME-TX): A Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Local treatment of the primary tumor for patients with metastases is controversial, and prospective data across many disease sites have conflicting conclusions regarding benefits. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the past 50 years. Inclusion criteria were multi-institutional RCTs of patients with metastatic disease receiving systemic therapy randomized to addition of local treatment to the primary tumor. Two primary outcome measures, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), were quantitatively assessed using random effects, and meta-analyses were conducted using the inverse variance method for pooling. Secondary endpoints were qualitatively assessed and included toxicity and patient-reported quality of life. Exploratory analyses were performed by treatment type and volume of disease. RESULTS: Eleven studies comprising 4952 patients were included (1558 patients received radiation therapy and 913 patients received surgery as primary tumor treatment). OS and PFS were not significantly improved from treatment of the primary (OS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.05; PFS: HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). Assessment of primary local treatment modality demonstrated a significant difference in summary effect size on PFS between trials using surgery (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.99-1.33) compared with radiation therapy (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96) as the local treatment modality (P = .005). In low metastatic burden patients, radiation therapy was associated with significantly improved OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.85), but surgery was not associated with improved OS compared with no local treatment (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: In RCTs conducted to date enrolling a variety of cancer types with variable metastatic burden, there is no consistent improvement in PFS or OS from the addition of local therapy to the primary tumor in unselected patients with metastatic disease. Carefully selected patients may derive oncologic benefit and should be discussed in tumor boards. Future prospective studies should aim to further optimize patient selection and the optimal systemic and local therapy treatment types.

The iTOP trial: Comparing immediate techniques of oncoplastic surgery with conventional breast surgery in women with breast cancer - A prospective, controlled, single-center study.

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic techniques allow resection of larger tumors, permitting breast conservation in cases otherwise requiring mastectomy. We sought to prospectively compare quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing oncoplastic surgery as compared to conventional breast conservation (CBC) or mastectomy is lacking. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with BIRADS IV-VI lesion were eligible if resection of ≥10% of the breast volume was planned. Patients were allowed to decide whether they wanted to undergo CBC or oncoplastic breast conservation (OBC). Patients who underwent mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) were also included for comparison. The primary endpoint was breast self-esteem using the Breast Image Scale (BIS) at 12 months, secondary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and QoL using the BREAST-Q questionnaire. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2016, 205 patients were included in the study. 116 patients (56.6%) received CBC, 46 (22.4%) OBC and 43 (21%) MIBR. Women in the OBC group were more likely to have tumors ≥ 2 cm than those in the CBC group (34.7% vs. 17.5%, respectively). Women who underwent MIBR were more likely to have tumors > 5 cm than those in the CBC and OBC groups (23% vs 1% and 10%, respectively). The BIS and BREAST-Q improved in each group after 12 months but did not differ significantly between groups at any time point. Surgical complications (seroma, bleeding, infection, necrosis) were numerically more likely in the OBC and MIBR groups. CONCLUSION: OBC and the MIBR allow for resection of larger tumors with a similar quality of life as CBC.

Influence of Height on Risk and Outcome of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 4,925 Patients from 5 Randomized Trials of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG).

Background: Associations between height, cancer risk and worse outcome have been reported for several cancers including breast cancer. We hypothesized that in breast cancer clinical trials, tall women should be overrepresented and might have worse prognosis. Methods: Data of 4,935 women, included from 1990 to 2010 in 5 trials of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG), were analyzed retrospectively. The primary objective was to determine differences in height distribution between the ABCSG cohort and the Austrian female population according to a cross-sectional health survey conducted by the Austrian Statistic Center in 2006 and 2007. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in different height classes and differences of body mass index (BMI) distribution. Results: Breast cancer patients in the ABCSG cohort were only slightly but statistically significantly smaller compared to unselected Austrian adult females (mean 164.3 vs. 164.8 cm; p < 0.0001) and significantly more patients were seen in the lower body height class (50 vs. 46%; p < 0.0001) when using the median as a cutoff. However, after adjustment for age, the difference in body height between the two cohorts was no longer significant (p = 0.089). DFS and OS in the two upper height groups (≥170 cm) compared to the two lowest height groups (<160 cm) was not significantly different (5-year DFS: 84.7 vs. 83.0%; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73-1.13, p = 0.379; 5-year OS: 94.8 vs. 91.7%; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-1.00, p = 0.051). The BMI of ABCSG patients was significantly higher than in the reference population (mean BMI 24.64 vs. 23.96; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our results do not confirm previous findings that greater body height is associated with a higher breast cancer risk and worse outcome.

Oncoplastic breast consortium recommendations for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy.

AIM: Demand for nipple- and skin- sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario. METHODS: A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology. RESULTS: The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recommendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR. CONCLUSIONS: The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BR.

Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis Comparing Conventional with Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Oncological and Surgical Outcomes in Women with High-Risk Breast Cancer from the OPBC-01/iTOP2 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggest that margins ≥2 mm after breast-conserving surgery may improve local control in invasive breast cancer (BC). By allowing large resection volumes, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCII; Clough level II/Tübingen 5-6) may achieve better local control than conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS; Tübingen 1-2) or oncoplastic breast conservation with low resection volumes (OBCI; Clough level I/Tübingen 3-4). METHODS: Data from consecutive high-risk BC patients treated in 15 centers from the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) network, between January 2010 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 3,177 women were included, 30% of whom were treated with OBC (OBCI n = 663; OBCII n = 297). The BCS/OBCI group had significantly smaller tumors and smaller resection margins compared with OBCII (pT1: 50% vs. 37%, p = 0.002; proportion with margin <1 mm: 17% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). There were significantly more re-excisions due to R1 ("ink on tumor") in the BCS/OBCI compared with the OBCII group (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.049). Univariate and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for tumor biology, tumor size, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment demonstrated no differences in local, regional, or distant recurrence-free or overall survival between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Large resection volumes in oncoplastic surgery increases the distance from cancer cells to the margin of the specimen and reduces reexcision rates significantly. With OBCII larger tumors are resected with similar local, regional and distant recurrence-free as well as overall survival rates as BCS/OBCI.

Long-Term Outcomes of Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer.

Outcomes of Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast CancerIn this long-term report of a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of adjuvant aromatase inhibitor in postmenopausal patients with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, adjuvant denosumab therapy improved disease-free survival by 3.5 percentage points, bone metastasis-free survival by 2.5 percentage points, and overall survival by 1.0 percentage point at 9 years of follow-up.