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.

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.

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.

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.

The OncoMasTR Test Predicts Distant Recurrence in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Validation Study in ABCSG Trial 8.

PURPOSE: To validate the clinical performance of the OncoMasTR Risk Score in the biomarker cohort of Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG) Trial 8. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We evaluated the OncoMasTR test in 1,200 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) surgical specimens from postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative primary breast cancer with 0 to 3 involved lymph nodes in the prospective, randomized ABCSG Trial 8. Time to distant recurrence (DR) was analyzed by Cox models. RESULTS: The OncoMasTR Risk Score categorized 850 of 1,087 (78.2%) evaluable patients as "low risk". At 10 years, the DR rate for patients in the low-risk group was 5.8% versus 21.1% for patients in the high-risk group (P < 0.0001, absolute risk reduction 15.3%). The OncoMasTR Risk Score was highly prognostic for prediction of DR in years 0 to 10 in all patients [HR 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62-2.26, P < 0.0001; C-index 0.73], in patients that were node negative (HR 1.79, 95% CI, 1.43-2.24, P < 0.0001; C-index 0.72), and in patients with 1 to 3 involved lymph nodes (HR 1.93, 95% CI, 1.44-2.58, P < 0.0001; C-index 0.71). The OncoMasTR Risk Score provided significant additional prognostic information beyond clinical parameters, Ki67, Nottingham Prognostic Index, and Clinical Treatment Score. CONCLUSIONS: OncoMasTR Risk Score is highly prognostic for DR in postmenopausal women with ER-positive, HER2-negative primary breast cancer with 0 to 3 involved lymph nodes. In combination with prior validation studies, this fully independent validation in ABCSG Trial 8 provides level 1B evidence for the prognostic capability of the OncoMasTR Risk Score.

Duration of Adjuvant Aromatase-Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer, the most effective duration for adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor remains unclear. METHODS: In this prospective, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer who had received 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy to receive the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole for an additional 2 years (2-year group, receiving a total of 7 years) or an additional 5 years (5-year group, receiving a total of 10 years). The primary end point was disease-free survival. The primary analysis included all the patients who were still participating in the trial and who had no recurrence 2 years after randomization (i.e., when treatment in the 2-year group had ended). Secondary end points were overall survival, contralateral breast cancer, second primary cancer, and clinical bone fracture. RESULTS: Among the 3484 women who were enrolled in the trial, 3208 remained in the trial without disease progression after the first 2 years of extended anastrozole treatment following randomization. Among these women, disease progression or death occurred in 335 women in each treatment group in the primary-analysis set at 8 years (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.15; P = 0.90). No between-group differences occurred in most secondary end points, and subgroup analyses did not indicate differences in any particular subgroup. The risk of clinical bone fracture was higher in the 5-year group than in the 2-year group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.84). CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer who had received 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy, extending hormone therapy by 5 years provided no benefit over a 2-year extension but was associated with a greater risk of bone fracture. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group; ABCSG-16/SALSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00295620.).

Androgen Receptor is Expressed in Breast Cancer Brain Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Androgen receptor (AR) expression is a potential therapeutic target in breast cancer (BC) as it is frequently expressed in the luminal A and B subtypes and in approximately one third of basal-like cancers. As AR-positive BC displays a distinct biological behavior, we aimed to analyze AR expression in the particular context of BC brain metastases (BM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed BC BM treated with neurosurgical resection were identified from the Vienna Brain Metastasis Registry and clinical data including patient characteristics, biological tumor subtypes and overall survival were obtained by retrospective chart review. Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded specimen containing BM tissue were retrieved from the Neuro-Biobank. Immunohistochemical staining of AR was performed and AR expression in the tumor-cell nucleus was evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-seven BM samples from 57 individual patients with BC were available for this analysis. AR expression of ≥1% tumor cells was evident in 20/57 (35.1%) BM specimens; the median AR-expression rate was 10% (range: 1% to 60%). AR expression was observed in 11/21 (52.4%) BM of the luminal/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative subtype, 3/13 (23.1%) of the luminal/HER2-positive subtype, 2/7 (28.6%) of the HER2-positive subtype and 4/16 (25.0%) of the triple-negative subtype (P=0.247). Median survival from diagnosis of BM was 10 months (range: 0 to 104 mo) in the entire cohort. No significant association of overall survival and AR expression ≥1% was observed (15 vs. 13 mo; P>0.05). CONCLUSION: AR is expressed in more than one third of BC BM with the highest rates among the luminal/HER2-negative BC subtype and may therefore be a potential prognostic and predictive biomarker in this particular BC population.

Favourable outcome of patients with breast cancer brain metastases treated with dual HER2 blockade of trastuzumab and pertuzumab.

BACKGROUND: Dual human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab (TP) is a standard therapy of metastatic and localized HER2-positive breast cancer (BC), but its activity in breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) is unknown. METHODS: Patients with HER2-positive BCBM were identified from the Vienna Brain Metastasis Registry and clinical data including patient characteristics, therapies and overall survival (OS) were obtained. Patients were grouped into 'TP', 'other-HER2-targeted therapy' and 'no-HER2-targeted therapy' according to received first-line systemic therapy after diagnosis of BCBM. Radiological re-assessment of intracranial lesions was performed in patients treated with TP as systemic first-line therapy according to RANO response criteria for brain metastases (BM). RESULTS: A total of 252 HER2-positive BC patients with BM were available for this analysis. Patients treated with TP as systemic first-line therapy after diagnosis of BM had a significantly longer OS compared with treatment with other-HER2-targeted therapy and no-HER2-targeted therapy (44 versus 17 versus 3 months, p < 0.001; log-rank test). Among radiologically re-assessed patients treated with TP as systemic first-line therapy after diagnosis of BM, 5/14 patients (35.7%) had complete intracranial remission (CR), 8/14 patients (57.1%) partial intracranial remission (PR), 1/14 patients (7.1%) stable intracranial disease (SD) and 0/14 patients (0.0%) progressive intracranial disease (PD) as best response resulting in an intracranial objective response rate (iORR) of 92.9% and an intracranial clinical benefit rate (iCBR) of 100.0%. CONCLUSION: First-line therapy with dual HER2-inhibition of TP after BM diagnosis was associated with the longest median OS times in patients with BCBM.

Conventional versus reverse sequence of neoadjuvant epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel: sequencing results from ABCSG-34.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemotherapy containing anthracyclines and taxanes is well established in early-stage breast cancer. Previous studies have suggested that the chemotherapy sequence may matter but definitive evidence is missing. ABCSG trial 34 evaluated the activity of the MUC1 vaccine tecemotide when added to neoadjuvant treatment; the study provided the opportunity for the second randomisation to compare two different anthracycline/taxane sequences. METHODS: HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer patients were recruited to this randomised multicentre Phase 2 study. Patients in the chemotherapy cohort (n = 311) were additionally randomised to a conventional or reversed sequence of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel. Residual cancer burden (RCB) with/without tecemotide was defined as primary study endpoint; RCB in the two chemotherapy groups was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: No significant differences in terms of RCB 0/I (40.1% vs. 37.2%; P = 0.61) or pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (24.3% vs. 25%, P = 0.89) were observed between conventional or reverse chemotherapy sequence. No new safety signals were reported, and upfront docetaxel did not result in decreased rates of treatment delay or discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Upfront docetaxel did not improve chemotherapy activity or tolerability; these results suggest that upfront neoadjuvant treatment with anthracyclines remains a valid option.

Palbociclib with adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer (PALLAS): interim analysis of a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Palbociclib added to endocrine therapy improves progression-free survival in hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. The PALLAS trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of 2 years of palbociclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy improves invasive disease-free survival over endocrine therapy alone in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: PALLAS is an ongoing multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 406 cancer centres in 21 countries worldwide with stage II-III histologically confirmed hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, within 12 months of initial diagnosis. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) in permuted blocks of random size (4 or 6), stratified by anatomic stage, previous chemotherapy, age, and geographical region, by use of central telephone-based and web-based interactive response technology, to receive either 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with ongoing standard provider or patient-choice adjuvant endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor, with or without concurrent luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist), or endocrine therapy alone, without masking. The primary endpoint of the study was invasive disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started palbociclib or endocrine therapy. This report presents results from the second pre-planned interim analysis triggered on Jan 9, 2020, when 67% of the total number of expected invasive disease-free survival events had been observed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02513394) and EudraCT (2014-005181-30). FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 5760 patients were randomly assigned to receive palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (n=2883) or endocrine therapy alone (n=2877). At the time of the planned second interim analysis, at a median follow-up of 23·7 months (IQR 16·9-29·2), 170 of 2883 patients assigned to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and 181 of 2877 assigned to endocrine therapy alone had invasive disease-free survival events. 3-year invasive disease-free survival was 88·2% (95% CI 85·2-90·6) for palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and 88·5% (85·8-90·7) for endocrine therapy alone (hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·76-1·15]; log-rank p=0·51). As the test statistic comparing invasive disease-free survival between groups crossed the prespecified futility boundary, the independent data monitoring committee recommended discontinuation of palbociclib in patients still receiving palbociclib and endocrine therapy. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (1742 [61·3%] of 2840 patients on palbociclib and endocrine therapy vs 11 [0·3%] of 2903 on endocrine therapy alone), leucopenia (857 [30·2%] vs three [0·1%]), and fatigue (60 [2·1%] vs ten [0·3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 351 (12·4%) of 2840 patients on palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus 220 (7·6%) of 2903 patients on endocrine therapy alone. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: At the planned second interim analysis, addition of 2 years of adjuvant palbociclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy did not improve invasive disease-free survival compared with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. On the basis of these findings, this regimen cannot be recommended in the adjuvant setting. Long-term follow-up of the PALLAS population and correlative studies are ongoing. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (OPBC-02/ PREPEC): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life (QoL) has motivated surgeons to develop skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/ NSM) for breast cancer treatment or prevention. During the same operation, a so-called immediate breast reconstruction is performed. The breast can be reconstructed by positioning of a breast implant above (prepectoral) or below (subpectoral) the pectoralis major muscle or by using the patients' own tissue (autologous reconstruction). The optimal positioning of the implant prepectoral or subpectoral is currently not clear. Subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is still standard care in many countries, but prepectoral IBBR is increasingly performed. This heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice is calling for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to guide treatment decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: International, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. The primary objective of this trial is to test whether prepectoral IBBR provides better QoL with respect to long-term (24 months) physical well-being (chest) compared with subpectoral IBBR for patients undergoing SSM or NSM for prevention or treatment of breast cancer. Secondary objectives will compare prepectoral versus subpectoral IBBR in terms of safety, QoL and patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes and burden on patients. Total number of patients to be included: 372 (186 per arm). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval has been obtained for the lead investigator's site by the Ethics Committee 'Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz' (2020-00256, 26 March 2020). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, independent of the results, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials standards for RCTs and good publication practice. Metadata describing the type, size and content of the datasets will be shared along with the study protocol and case report forms on public repositories adhering to the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04293146.

Tailored axillary surgery in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer: Pre-planned feasibility substudy of TAXIS (OPBC-03, SAKK 23/16, IBCSG 57-18, ABCSG-53, GBG 101).

AIM: We developed tailored axillary surgery (TAS) to reduce the axillary tumor volume in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer to the point where radiotherapy can control it. The aim of this study was to quantify the extent of tumor load reduction achieved by TAS. METHODS: International multicenter prospective study embedded in a randomized trial. TAS is a novel pragmatic concept for axillary surgery de-escalation that combines palpation-guided removal of suspicious nodes with the sentinel procedure and, optionally, imaging-guided localization. Pre-specified study endpoints quantified surgical extent and reduction of tumor load. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients were included at 28 sites in four European countries, 125 (42.2%) of whom underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and 71 (24.0%) achieved nodal pathologic complete response. Axillary metastases were detectable only by imaging in 145 (49.0%) patients. They were palpable in 151 (51.0%) patients, of whom 63 underwent NACT and 21 had residual palpable disease after NACT. TAS removed the biopsied and clipped node in 279 (94.3%) patients. In 225 patients with nodal disease at the time of surgery, TAS removed a median of five (IQR 3-7) nodes, two (IQR 1-4) of which were positive. Of these 225 patients, 100 underwent ALND after TAS, which removed a median of 14 (IQR 10-17) additional nodes and revealed additional positive nodes in 70/100 (70%) of patients. False-negative rate of TAS in patients who underwent subsequent ALND was 2.6%. CONCLUSIONS: TAS selectively reduced the tumor load in the axilla and remained much less radical than ALND.

Patient satisfaction after breast cancer surgery : A prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the impact of curative breast cancer surgery on patient satisfaction concerning cosmetic results and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In this study 61 participants completed questionnaires to evaluate their QoL and patient satisfaction with cosmetic results following breast cancer surgery. Cosmetic outcomes were evaluated by the breast surgeon and an independent breast specialist using the Harris scale and the breast analyzing tool (BAT). RESULTS: Of the participants 71% completed all 4 follow-up visits, 38 (62%) patients received breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and 23 (38%) received a mastectomy. Surgery-associated complications arose in 2.6% of the patients who received BCT and 17.4% of patients who received a mastectomy. No significant differences in QoL between BCT patients and mastectomy patients were observed immediately after surgery, or after 6 and 12 months. Breast asymmetry, measured using the BAT score, and QoL scores were worst immediately after surgery. The surgeon rated the cosmetic results as better compared to the independent breast expert (p = 0.001). Furthermore, patients aged over 60 years old were less satisfied with the cosmetic outcome compared to younger patients at the time of discharge (p = 0.024). Patients who received a mastectomy were less satisfied when the resected volume was higher. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction was lowest immediately after surgery but improved during the following months, despite continued breast asymmetry. For mastectomy patients, a lower resected volume led to a higher satisfaction with cosmetic results. Satisfaction is subjective and cannot be determined from the esthetic satisfaction of the surgeon or using an objective tool measuring breast asymmetry.

Knowledge gaps in oncoplastic breast surgery.

The aims of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative were to identify important knowledge gaps in the field of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction, and to recommend appropriate research strategies to address these gaps. A total of 212 surgeons and 26 patient advocates from 55 countries prioritised the 15 most important knowledge gaps from a list of 38 in two electronic Delphi rounds. An interdisciplinary panel of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consisting of 63 stakeholders from 20 countries obtained consensus during an in-person meeting to select seven of these 15 knowledge gaps as research priorities. Three key recommendations emerged from the meeting. First, the effect of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery on quality of life and the optimal type and timing of reconstruction after nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy with planned radiotherapy should be addressed by prospective cohort studies at an international level. Second, the role of adjunctive mesh and the positioning of implants during implant-based breast reconstruction should ideally be investigated by randomised controlled trials of pragmatic design. Finally, the BREAST-Q questionnaire is a suitable tool to assess primary outcomes in these studies, but other metrics to measure patient-reported outcomes should be systematically evaluated and quality indicators of surgical morbidity should be further assessed.

Prognostic Value of EndoPredict in Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) accounts for approximately 5%-15% of all invasive breast cancer cases. Most of the correlations between multigene assays and patient outcome were derived from studies based on patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) or without distinction between the subtypes. Here, we investigate the prognostic value of EndoPredict (EPclin) in a large cohort of ILCs pooled from three phase III randomized trials (ABCSG-6, ABCSG-8, TransATAC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The primary objective of this analysis was to determine the prognostic value of EPclin for distant recurrence (DR) in years 0-10 in postmenopausal women with ILC. The primary outcome was DR. RESULTS: 470 women (17.9%) presented with ILC, 1,944 (73.9%) with IDC, and 216 (8.2%) with other histologic types. EPclin was highly prognostic in women with ILC [HR = 3.32 (2.54-4.34)] and provided more prognostic value than the Clinical Treatment Score [CTS; HR = 2.17 (1.73-2.72)]. 63.4% of women were categorized into the low EPclin risk group and they had a 10-year DR of 4.8% (2.7-8.4) compared with 36.6% of women in the high-risk group with a 10-year DR risk of 26.6% (20.0-35.0). EPclin also provided highly prognostic information in women with node-negative disease [HR = 2.56 (1.63-4.02)] and node-positive disease [HR = 3.70 (2.49-5.50)]. CONCLUSIONS: EPclin provided highly significant prognostic value and significant risk stratification for women with ILC. Ten-year DR risk in the EPclin low-risk groups were similar between ILC and IDC. Our results show that EPclin is informative in women with ILC and suggest that it is equally valid in both histologic subtypes.

Factors influencing agreement of breast cancer luminal molecular subtype by Ki67 labeling index between core needle biopsy and surgical resection specimens.

Reliable determination of Ki67 labeling index (Ki67-LI) on core needle biopsy (CNB) is essential for determining breast cancer molecular subtype for therapy planning. However, studies on agreement between molecular subtype and Ki67-LI between CNB and surgical resection (SR) specimens are conflicting. The present study analyzed the influence of clinicopathological and sampling-associated factors on agreement. Molecular subtype was determined visually by Ki67-LI in 484 pairs of CNB and SR specimens of invasive estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor (HER2)-negative breast cancer. Luminal B disease was defined by Ki67-LI > 20% in SR. Correlation of molecular subtype agreement with age, menopausal status, CNB method, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System imaging category, time between biopsies, type of surgery, and pathological tumor parameters was analyzed. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. CNB had a sensitivity of 77.95% and a specificity of 80.97% for identifying luminal B tumors in CNB, compared with the final molecular subtype determination after surgery. The correlation of Ki67-LI between CNB and SR was moderate (ROC-AUC 0.8333). Specificity and sensitivity for CNB to correctly define molecular subtype of tumors according to SR were significantly associated with tumor grade, immunohistochemical progesterone receptor (PR) and p53 expression (p < 0.05). Agreement of molecular subtype did not significantly impact RFS and OS (p = 0.22 for both). The identified factors likely mirror intratumoral heterogeneity that might compromise obtaining a representative CNB. Our results challenge the robustness of a single CNB-driven measurement of Ki67-LI to identify luminal B breast cancer of low (G1) or intermediate (G2) grade.