The Clinical Utility of a 7-Gene Biosignature on Radiation Therapy Decision Making in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following Breast-Conserving Surgery: An Updated Analysis of the DCISionRT® PREDICT Study.

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) is a standard treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). A low-risk patient subset that does not benefit from RT has not yet been clearly identified. The DCISionRT test provides a clinically validated decision score (DS), which is prognostic of 10-year in-breast recurrence rates (invasive and non-invasive) and is also predictive of RT benefit. This analysis presents final outcomes from the PREDICT prospective registry trial aiming to determine how often the DCISionRT test changes radiation treatment recommendations. METHODS: Overall, 2496 patients were enrolled from February 2018 to January 2022 at 63 academic and community practice sites and received DCISionRT as part of their care plan. Treating physicians reported their treatment recommendations pre- and post-test as well as the patient's preference. The primary endpoint was to identify the percentage of patients where testing led to a change in RT recommendation. The impact of the test on RT treatment recommendation was physician specialty, treatment settings, individual clinical/pathological features and RTOG 9804 like criteria. Multivariate logisitc regression analysis was used to estimate the odds ratio (ORs) for factors associated with the post-test RT recommendations. RESULTS: RT recommendation changed 38% of women, resulting in a 20% decrease in the overall recommendation of RT (p < 0.001). Of those women initially recommended no RT (n = 583), 31% were recommended RT post-test. The recommendation for RT post-test increased with increasing DS, from 29% to 66% to 91% for DS <2, DS 2-4, and DS >4, respectively. On multivariable analysis, DS had the strongest influence on final RT recommendation (odds ratio 22.2, 95% confidence interval 16.3-30.7), which was eightfold greater than clinicopathologic features. Furthermore, there was an overall change in the recommendation to receive RT in 42% of those patients meeting RTOG 9804-like low-risk criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The test results provided information that changes treatment recommendations both for and against RT use in large population of women with DCIS treated in a variety of clinical settings. Overall, clinicians changed their recommendations to include or omit RT for 38% of women based on the test results. Based on published clinical validations and the results from current study, DCISionRT may aid in preventing the over- and undertreatment of clinicopathological 'low-risk' and 'high-risk' DCIS patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03448926 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03448926 ).

The Clinical Utility of DCISionRT® on Radiation Therapy Decision Making in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The role of radiation therapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. Trials have not identified a low-risk cohort, based on clinicopathologic features, who do not benefit from RT. A biosignature (DCISionRT®) that evaluates recurrence risk has been developed and validated. We evaluated the impact of DCISionRT on clinicians' recommendations for adjuvant RT. METHODS: The PREDICT study is a prospective, multi-institutional, observational registry in which patients underwent DCISionRT testing. The primary endpoint was to identify the percentage of patients where testing led to a change in RT recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, 539 women were included in this study. Pre DCISionRT testing, RT was recommended to 69% of patients; however, post-testing, a change in the RT recommendation was made for 42% of patients compared with the pre-testing recommendation; the percentage of women who were recommended RT decreased by 20%. For women initially recommended not to receive an RT pre-test, 35% had their recommendation changed to add RT following testing, while post-test, 46% of patients had their recommendation changed to omit RT after an initial recommendation for RT. When considered in conjunction with other clinicopathologic factors, the elevated DCISionRT score risk group (DS > 3) had the strongest association with an RT recommendation (odds ratio 43.4) compared with age, grade, size, margin status, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS: DCISionRT provided information that significantly changed the recommendations to add or omit RT. Compared with traditional clinicopathologic features used to determine recommendations for or against RT, the factor most strongly associated with RT recommendations was the DCISionRT result, with other factors of importance being patient preference, tumor size, and grade.

Cryoablation Without Excision for Low-Risk Early-Stage Breast Cancer: 3-Year Interim Analysis of Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence in the ICE3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ICE3 trial is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of breast cryoablation, enabling women older than 60 years with low-risk early-stage breast cancers to benefit from a nonsurgical treatment and to avoid the associated surgical risks. METHODS: The ICE3 trial is a prospective, multi-center, single-arm, non-randomized trial including women age 60 years or older with unifocal, ultrasound-visible invasive ductal carcinoma size 1.5 cm or smaller and classified as low to intermediate grade, hormone receptor (HR)-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) at 5 years was the primary outcome. A 3-year interim analysis of IBTR was performed, and the IBTR probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Full eligibility for the study was met by 194 patients, who received successful cryoablation per protocol. The mean age was 75 years (range, 55-94 years). The mean tumor length was 8.1 mm (range, 8-14.9 mm), and the mean tumor width was 7.4 mm (range, 2.8-14 mm). During a mean follow-up period of 34.83 months, the IBTR rate was 2.06% (4/194 patients). Device-related adverse events were reported as mild in 18.4% and moderate in 2.4% of the patients. No severe device-related adverse events were reported. More than 95% of the patients and 98% of the physicians reported satisfaction with the cosmetic results at the clinical follow-up evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cryoablation presents a promising alternative to surgery while offering the benefits of a minimally invasive procedure with minimal risks. Further study within a clinical trial or registry is needed to confirm cryoablation as a viable alternative to surgical excision for appropriately selected low-risk patients.

Legacy Genetic Testing Results for Cancer Susceptibility: How Common are Conflicting Classifications in a Large Variant Dataset from Multiple Practices?

PURPOSE: The classification of germline variants may differ between labs and change over time. We apply a variant harmonization tool, Ask2Me VarHarmonizer, to map variants to ClinVar and identify discordant variant classifications in a large multipractice variant dataset. METHODS: A total of 7496 variants sequenced between 1996 and 2019 were collected from 11 clinical practices. Variants were mapped to ClinVar, and lab-reported and ClinVar variant classifications were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Of the 4798 unique variants identified, 3699 (77%) were mappable to ClinVar. Among mappable variants, variants of unknown significance (VUS) accounted for 74% of lab-reported classifications and 60% of ClinVar classifications. Lab-reported and ClinVar discordances were present in 783 unique variants (21.2% of all mappable variants); 121 variants (2.5% of all unique variants) had within-practice lab-reported discordances; and 56 variants (1.2% of all unique variants) had lab-reported discordances across practices. The unmappable variants were associated with a higher proportion of lab-reported pathogenic classifications (50% vs. 21%, p < 0.0001) and a lower proportion of lab-reported VUS classifications (46% vs. 74%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that discordant variant classification occurs frequently, which may lead to inappropriate recommendations for prophylactic treatments or clinical management.

A Phase II Trial Exploring the Success of Cryoablation Therapy in the Treatment of Invasive Breast Carcinoma: Results from ACOSOG (Alliance) Z1072.

BACKGROUND: Cryoablation is a well-established technique to treat fibroadenomas. Pilot studies suggest this could be an effective non-surgical treatment for breast cancer. American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1072 is a phase II trial exploring the effectiveness of cryoablation in the treatment of breast cancers. METHODS: The primary endpoint of Z1072 was the rate of complete tumor ablation, defined as no remaining invasive breast cancer (IBC) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on pathologic examination of the targeted lesion. A secondary objective was to evaluate the negative predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine residual IBC or DCIS. Eligible patients included those with unifocal invasive ductal breast cancer ≤2 cm, with <25 % intraductal component and tumor enhancement on MRI. A total of 19 centers contributed 99 patients, of which 86 patients (87 breast cancers) were evaluable for data analysis. RESULTS: Final pathology results, regardless of whether residual IBC/DCIS was in the targeted ablation zone or elsewhere in the breast, showed successful ablation in 66/87 (75.9 %) cancers. The 90 % confidence interval for the estimate of successful cryoablation was 67.1-83.2, with the one-sided lower-sided 90 % CI of 69.0. The negative predictive value of MRI was 81.2 % (90 % CI 71.4-88.8). When multifocal disease outside of the targeted cryoablation zone was not defined as an ablation failure, 80/87 (92 %) of the treated cancers had a successful cryoablation. CONCLUSION: Further studies with modifications on the Z1072 protocol could be considered to evaluate the role for cryoablation as a non-surgical treatment of early-stage breast cancer.

Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in the Setting of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Case Report.

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a type of venous thromboembolism that usually involves a clot formation in the deep veins of the lower extremities. Its formation is linked to Virchow's Triad which factors in venous stasis, endothelial damage, and hypercoagulability. Venous stasis is the primary factor contributing to the development of DVT and it refers to varicosity, external pressure placed on the extremity, or immobilization due to bed rest or long flights. Clinical presentation of DVT depends on the extent and location of the thrombus with common signs including localized swelling, pain, warmth, and edema. The Wells criteria are typically applied to assess the likelihood of thrombus formation alongside D-dimer assay, ultrasound, or CT imaging. As previously mentioned, these mostly occur in the lower extremities. However, upper extremity DVT has been noted and has been linked to inherited issues with coagulation and autoimmune disorders. This report will discuss a case of left-arm DVT in a patient who underwent bilateral mastectomy with sentinel node biopsy for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in the left breast.

Clinical Impact of Intraoperative Margin Assessment in Breast-Conserving Surgery With a Novel Pegulicianine Fluorescence-Guided System: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Positive margins following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) are often identified on standard pathology evaluation. Intraoperative assessment of the lumpectomy cavity has the potential to reduce residual disease or reexcision rate following standard of care BCS in real time. Objective: To collect safety and initial efficacy data on the novel pegulicianine fluorescence-guided system (pFGS) when used to identify residual cancer in the tumor bed of female patients undergoing BCS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective single-arm open-label study was conducted as a nonrandomized multicenter controlled trial at 16 academic or community breast centers across the US. Female patients 18 years and older with newly diagnosed primary invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ DCIS undergoing BCS were included, excluding those with previous breast cancer surgery and a history of dye allergies. Of 283 consecutive eligible patients recruited, 234 received a pegulicianine injection and were included in the safety analysis; of these, 230 were included in the efficacy analysis. Patients were enrolled between February 6, 2018, and April 10, 2020, and monitored for a 30-day follow-up period. Data were analyzed from April 10, 2020, to August 5, 2021. Interventions: Participants received an injection of a novel imaging agent (pegulicianine) a mean (SD) of 3.2 (0.9) hours prior to surgery at a dose of 1 mg/kg. After completing standard of care (SOC) excision, pFGS was used to scan the lumpectomy cavity to guide the removal of additional shave margins. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adverse events and sensitivity, specificity, and reexcision rate. Results: Of 234 female patients enrolled (median [IQR] age, 62.0 [55.0-69.0] years), 230 completed the trial and 1 patient with a history of allergy to contrast agents had an anaphylactic reaction and recovered without sequelae. Correlation of pFGS with final margin status on a per-margin analysis showed a marked improvement in sensitivity over standard pathology assessment of the main lumpectomy specimen (69.4% vs 38.2%, respectively). On a per-patient level, the false-negative rate of pFGS was 23.7% (9 of 38), and sensitivity was 76.3% (29 of 38). Among 32 patients who underwent excision of pFGS-guided shaves, pFGS averted the need for reexcision in 6 (19%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this pilot feasibility study, the safety profile of pegulicianine was consistent with other imaging agents used in BCS, and was associated with a reduced need for second surgery in patients who underwent intraoperative additional excision of pFGS-guided shaves. These findings support further development and clinical performance assessment of pFGS in a prospective randomized trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03321929.

Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer.

Importance: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration. Objective: To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022. Exposure: New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported. Results: Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast cancer.

Underdiagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer: Are Genetic Testing Guidelines a Tool or an Obstacle?

PURPOSE: An estimated 10% of breast and ovarian cancers result from hereditary causes. Current testing guidelines for germ line susceptibility genes in patients with breast carcinoma were developed to identify carriers of BRCA1/ 2 variants and have evolved in the panel-testing era. We evaluated the capability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to identify patients with breast cancer with pathogenic variants in expanded panel testing. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved multicenter prospective registry was initiated with 20 community and academic sites experienced in cancer genetic testing and counseling. Eligibility criteria included patients with a previously or newly diagnosed breast cancer who had not undergone either single- or multigene testing. Consecutive patients 18 to 90 years of age were consented and underwent an 80-gene panel test. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic case report forms collected information on patient demographics, diagnoses, phenotypes, and test results. RESULTS: More than 1,000 patients were enrolled, and data records for 959 patients were analyzed; 49.95% met NCCN criteria, and 50.05% did not. Overall, 8.65% of patients had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant. Of patients who met NCCN guidelines with test results, 9.39% had a P/LP variant. Of patients who did not meet guidelines, 7.9% had a P/LP variant. The difference in positive results between these groups was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test P = .4241). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that nearly half of patients with breast cancer with a P/LP variant with clinically actionable and/or management guidelines in development are missed by current testing guidelines. We recommend that all patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer undergo expanded panel testing.