Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Update.

PURPOSE.­: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline. METHODS.­: A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. RECOMMENDATIONS.­: The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline. METHODS: A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Development of Phase-Specific Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Plans.

INTRODUCTION: Phase-specific survivorship care plans (SCPs) have the potential to be powerful tools in providing individualized, comprehensive survivorship care, particularly in terms of care coordination and transition, if used as dynamic documents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed an initial follow-up care plan (FCP) to be used at the conclusion of curative therapy, as well as distinct, phase-specific FCPs for periodic use at 5-year and 10-year time points in the survivorship course. These FCPs incorporate the 4 essential components of survivorship care outlined by the Institute of Medicine: prevention, surveillance, intervention for consequences of cancer treatment, and coordination among health care providers. RESULTS: Phase-specific SCPs were designed by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in breast health, survivorship, and cancer care delivery across diverse practice settings. The FCPs were formulated to align with national guidelines and emergent, peer-reviewed literature, and reflect evolving recommendations regarding the duration of adjuvant hormone therapy. The SCPs were pilot-tested and successfully integrated into the existing work flow of the electronic medical records at each practice site. CONCLUSION: Phase-specific SCPs were developed to incorporate new knowledge about evolving treatment recommendations, screening guidelines, and updated genetic information to encourage timely discussions relevant to the specific stage of survivorship.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II-III triple negative breast cancer on eligibility for breast-conserving surgery and breast conservation rates: surgical results from CALGB 40603 (Alliance).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) at increasing the rate of successful breast-conserving therapy (BCT) in triple negative breast cancer. BACKGROUND: Inducing tumor regression to permit BCT is often cited to support administration of NST. To quantify this benefit, we conducted a surgical companion study to CALGB40603, a randomized phase II, 2×2 factorial trial of neoadjuvant paclitaxel ± carboplatin ± bevacizumab (B) followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide ± B in stage II-III triple negative breast cancer. METHODS: Before and after NST, treating surgeons evaluated BCT candidacy by clinico-radiographic criteria; surgery performed was at surgeon and patient discretion. We measured (1) conversion rates from BCT-ineligible to BCT-eligible, (2) surgical choices in BCT candidates, and (3) rates of successful BCT with tumor-free margins. RESULTS: Four hundred four patients were assessable for surgical outcomes. Two hundred nineteen (54%) were BCT candidates before NST. One hundred ninety-seven (90%) remained BCT candidates after NST, of whom 138 (70%) chose BCT, which was successful in 130 (94%). Of 185 (46%) who were not BCT candidates before NST, 78 (42%) converted to candidates with NST. Of these, 53 (68%) chose BCT with a 91% (48/53) success rate. The overall BCT-eligibility rate rose from 54% to 68% (275/404) with NST. Addition of carboplatin, B, or both increased conversion rates. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to document prospectively a 42% conversion rate from BCT-ineligible to BCT-eligible, resulting in a 14% absolute increase in BCT eligibility. BCT was successful in 93% of patients who opted for it, but 31% of BCT-eligible patients still chose mastectomy.

A retrospective study of the impact of 21-gene recurrence score assay on treatment choice in node positive micrometastatic breast cancer.

To assess clinical utility of the 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score®), we determined whether women with HER2(-)/ER+ pN1mi breast cancer with low (<18) Recurrence Scores results are given adjuvant chemotherapy in a lower proportion than those with high scores (≥31). This was a multicenter chart review of ≥18 year old women with pN1mi breast cancer, HER2(-)/ER+ tumors, ductal/lobular/mixed histology, with the assay ordered on or after 1 January 2007. One hundred and eighty one patients had a mean age of 60.7 years; 82.9% had ECOG performance status 0; 33.7% had hypertension, 22.7% had osteoporosis, 18.8% had osteoarthritis, and 8.8% had type-2 diabetes. Mean Recurrence Score was 17.8 (range: 0-50). 48.6% had a mastectomy; 55.8% had a lumpectomy. 19.8% of low-risk group patients were recommended chemotherapy vs. 57.9% in the intermediate-risk group and 100% in the high-risk group (p < 0.001). A total of 80.2% of the low-risk group were recommended endocrine therapy alone, while 77.8% of the high-risk group were recommended both endocrine and chemotherapy (p < 0.001). The Oncotype DX Recurrence Score result provides actionable information that can be incorporated into treatment planning for women with HER2(-)/ER+ pN1mi breast cancer. The Recurrence Score result has clinical utility in treatment planning for HER2(-)/ER+ pN1mi breast cancer patients.

Effectiveness of a single-day three-drug regimen of dexamethasone, palonosetron, and aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting includes both Acute (0-24 h) and Delayed (24-120 h) components with different physiologic mechanisms. A combination of a serotonin antagonist, a corticosteroid, and an NK-1 antagonist has proven effective against this problem. However, standard antiemetic regimens require administration over 3-4 days after chemotherapy. The present study evaluated a more convenient single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen for patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors receiving cyclophosphamide and/or doxorubicin were eligible. Patients could not have pre-existing etiologies for vomiting. Prior to chemotherapy, patients received a single dose of aprepitant 285 mg p.o., dexamethasone 20 mg p.o., and palonosetron 0.25 mg i.v. A daily patient diary recording episodes of emesis and severity of nausea was then kept for 5 days. Any further antiemetics were considered rescue medication. RESULTS: Forty-one eligible and evaluable patients (40 women, one man) with breast cancer were entered on study. Most were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Complete Response (no vomiting, no rescue medication) was seen in 51% of patients, including 76% with Complete Response for the Acute period and 66% for the Delayed period. No emesis was reported for 100% of patients in the Acute period and 95% in the Delayed period. No Nausea was seen in 32% of patients. No untoward toxicities were seen. CONCLUSION: A single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen is feasible and effective for protection against both Acute and Delayed vomiting after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Formal comparison to a standard multi-day antiemetic regimen is warranted.