Long-term outcomes of young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve, triple-negative breast cancer patients according to BRCA1 status.

BACKGROUND: Due to the abundant usage of chemotherapy in young triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, the unbiased prognostic value of BRCA1-related biomarkers in this population remains unclear. In addition, whether BRCA1-related biomarkers modify the well-established prognostic value of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) is unknown. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients according to BRCA1 status, taking sTILs into account. METHODS: We included 485 Dutch women diagnosed with node-negative TNBC under age 40 between 1989 and 2000. During this period, these women were considered low-risk and did not receive chemotherapy. BRCA1 status, including pathogenic germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCA1m), somatic BRCA1 mutation (sBRCA1m), and tumor BRCA1 promoter methylation (BRCA1-PM), was assessed using DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. sTILs were assessed according to the international guideline. Patients' outcomes were compared using Cox regression and competing risk models. RESULTS: Among the 399 patients with BRCA1 status, 26.3% had a gBRCA1m, 5.3% had a sBRCA1m, 36.6% had tumor BRCA1-PM, and 31.8% had BRCA1-non-altered tumors. Compared to BRCA1-non-alteration, gBRCA1m was associated with worse overall survival (OS) from the fourth year after diagnosis (adjusted HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.18-3.75), and this association attenuated after adjustment for second primary tumors. Every 10% sTIL increment was associated with 16% higher OS (adjusted HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) in gBRCA1m, sBRCA1m, or BRCA1-non-altered patients and 31% higher OS in tumor BRCA1-PM patients. Among the 66 patients with tumor BRCA1-PM and ≥ 50% sTILs, we observed excellent 15-year OS (97.0%; 95% CI, 92.9-100%). Conversely, among the 61 patients with gBRCA1m and < 50% sTILs, we observed poor 15-year OS (50.8%; 95% CI, 39.7-65.0%). Furthermore, gBRCA1m was associated with higher (adjusted subdistribution HR, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.29-7.13) and tumor BRCA1-PM with lower (adjusted subdistribution HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.95) incidence of second primary tumors, compared to BRCA1-non-alteration. CONCLUSIONS: Although both gBRCA1m and tumor BRCA1-PM alter BRCA1 gene transcription, they are associated with different outcomes in young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients. By combining sTILs and BRCA1 status for risk classification, we were able to identify potential subgroups in this population to intensify and optimize adjuvant treatment.

A Phase I dose-escalation study of two cycles carboplatin-olaparib followed by olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer.

Preclinical studies have shown synergistic effects when combining PARP1/2 inhibitors and platinum drugs in BRCA1/2 mutated cancer cell models. After a formulation change of olaparib from capsules to tablets, we initiated a dose finding study of olaparib tablets bidaily (BID) continuously with carboplatin to prepare comparative studies in this patient group. Patients were included in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation schedule: olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 3 mg*min/mL d1/d22, olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22, followed by increasing dose-levels of olaparib from 50 mg BID, 75 mg BID, to 100 mg BID with carboplatin at AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22. After two cycles, patients continued olaparib 300 mg BID as monotherapy. Primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerable dose (MTD). Twenty-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of advanced cancer were included. Most common adverse events were nausea (46%), fatigue (33%) and platelet count decrease (33%). Dose-level 3 (olaparib 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL; n = 6) was defined as MTD. Fourteen out of 24 patients (56%) had a partial response as best response (RECIST 1.1). Systemic exposure of the olaparib tablet formulation appeared comparable to the previous capsule formulation with olaparib tablet AUC0-12 of 16.3 µg/mL*h at MTD. Polymers of ADP-ribose levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were reduced by 98.7% ± 0.14% at Day 8 compared to Day 1 for dose-level 3. Olaparib tablets 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL for two cycles preceding olaparib monotherapy 300 mg is a feasible and tolerable treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer.

Concurrent versus sequential use of trastuzumab and chemotherapy in early HER2+ breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The addition of trastuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy has improved the outcome of human epidermal growth-factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. Uncertainty remains about the optimal timing of trastuzumab treatment. Therefore, we compared long-term outcome after concurrent versus sequential treatment, in a population-based setting, using data from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. METHODS: We identified 1843 women diagnosed in The Netherlands from January 1st 2005 until January 1st 2008 with primary, HER2-positive, T1-4NanyM0 breast cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression were used to compare recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) between women who received trastuzumab concurrently with versus sequentially after chemotherapy. Hazard ratios (HR) were adjusted for age, year of diagnosis, grade, pathological T-stage, number of positive lymph nodes, ER-status, PR-status, socio-economic status, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, ovarian ablation, and type of chemotherapy. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 8.2 years, RFS events had occurred in 224 out of 1235 (18.1%) concurrently treated women and 129 out of 608 (21.2%) sequentially treated women (adjusted-HR 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.24; P = 0.580). Deaths occurred in 182/1235 (14.7%) concurrently treated women and 104/608 (17.1%) sequentially treated women (adjusted-HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65-1.29; P = 0.635). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this population-based study are consistent with earlier randomized trials, demonstrating a non-significant difference in outcome for concurrently treated women compared to those who were treated sequentially, suggesting both options are justified.

The effect of trastuzumab-based chemotherapy in small node-negative HER2-positive breast cancer.

The prognosis of patients with stage II-III Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer has significantly improved since the addition of trastuzumab to (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy. Several reports have shown that small (≤2 cm), node-negative, HER2-positive tumors have a relatively poor prognosis and these patients increasingly receive trastuzumab-based chemotherapy. We aimed to provide evidence for this approach in a population-based cohort. All T1N0M0 HER2-positive breast cancer patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2012 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were recorded. Kaplan-Meier statistics were used for overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) estimations overall and in T1a, T1b, and T1c tumors separately. Cox regression analyses were performed to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics between treated and untreated patients. A total of 3512 patients were identified: 385 with T1a, 800 with T1b, and 2327 with T1c tumors. Forty-five percent of patients received chemotherapy and/or trastuzumab: 92 % received both. Chemotherapy and/or trastuzumab significantly improved 8-year OS (95 vs. 84 %; hazard ratio [HR] 0.29; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.41, P < 0.001). The effect remained significant in multivariable analyses (HR 0.35; 95 % CI 0.23-0.52, P < 0.001). BCSS was also improved with systemic treatment in univariable (96 vs. 92 %; HR 0.41; 95 % CI 0.27-0.63, P < 0.001) and multivariable analyses (HR 0.31; 95 % CI 0.19-0.53, P < 0.001). Treatment effect on OS and BCSS was similar in T1a, T1b, and T1c tumors. Chemotherapy and/or trastuzumab improves OS and BCSS and can be considered in all patients with small node-negative HER2-positive breast cancer.

External validation and clinical utility assessment of PREDICT breast cancer prognostic model in young, systemic treatment-naïve women with node-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The validity of the PREDICT breast cancer prognostic model is unclear for young patients without adjuvant systemic treatment. This study aimed to validate PREDICT and assess its clinical utility in young women with node-negative breast cancer who did not receive systemic treatment. METHODS: We selected all women from the Netherlands Cancer Registry who were diagnosed with node-negative breast cancer under age 40 between 1989 and 2000, a period when adjuvant systemic treatment was not standard practice for women with node-negative disease. We evaluated the calibration and discrimination of PREDICT using the observed/expected (O/E) mortality ratio, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), respectively. Additionally, we compared the potential clinical utility of PREDICT for selectively administering chemotherapy to the chemotherapy-to-all strategy using decision curve analysis at predefined thresholds. RESULTS: A total of 2264 women with a median age at diagnosis of 36 years were included. Of them, 71.2% had estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors and 44.0% had grade 3 tumors. Median tumor size was 16 mm. PREDICT v2.2 underestimated 10-year all-cause mortality by 33% in all women (O/E ratio:1.33, 95%CI:1.22-1.43). Model discrimination was moderate overall (AUC10-year:0.65, 95%CI:0.62-0.68), and poor for women with ER-negative tumors (AUC10-year:0.56, 95%CI:0.51-0.62). Compared to the chemotherapy-to-all strategy, PREDICT only showed a slightly higher net benefit in women with ER-positive tumors, but not in women with ER-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS: PREDICT yields unreliable predictions for young women with node-negative breast cancer. Further model updates are needed before PREDICT can be routinely used in this patient subset.

Deep learning-based breast cancer grading and survival analysis on whole-slide histopathology images.

Breast cancer tumor grade is strongly associated with patient survival. In current clinical practice, pathologists assign tumor grade after visual analysis of tissue specimens. However, different studies show significant inter-observer variation in breast cancer grading. Computer-based breast cancer grading methods have been proposed but only work on specifically selected tissue areas and/or require labor-intensive annotations to be applied to new datasets. In this study, we trained and evaluated a deep learning-based breast cancer grading model that works on whole-slide histopathology images. The model was developed using whole-slide images from 706 young (< 40 years) invasive breast cancer patients with corresponding tumor grade (low/intermediate vs. high), and its constituents nuclear grade, tubule formation and mitotic rate. The performance of the model was evaluated using Cohen's kappa on an independent test set of 686 patients using annotations by expert pathologists as ground truth. The predicted low/intermediate (n = 327) and high (n = 359) grade groups were used to perform survival analysis. The deep learning system distinguished low/intermediate versus high tumor grade with a Cohen's Kappa of 0.59 (80% accuracy) compared to expert pathologists. In subsequent survival analysis the two groups predicted by the system were found to have a significantly different overall survival (OS) and disease/recurrence-free survival (DRFS/RFS) (p < 0.05). Univariate Cox hazard regression analysis showed statistically significant hazard ratios (p < 0.05). After adjusting for clinicopathologic features and stratifying for molecular subtype the hazard ratios showed a trend but lost statistical significance for all endpoints. In conclusion, we developed a deep learning-based model for automated grading of breast cancer on whole-slide images. The model distinguishes between low/intermediate and high grade tumors and finds a trend in the survival of the two predicted groups.

Prognostic Value of Stromal Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Young, Node-Negative, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients Who Did Not Receive (neo)Adjuvant Systemic Therapy.

PURPOSE: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is considered aggressive, and therefore, virtually all young patients with TNBC receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Increased stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) have been associated with a favorable prognosis in TNBC. However, whether this association holds for patients who are node-negative (N0), young (< 40 years), and chemotherapy-naïve, and thus can be used for chemotherapy de-escalation strategies, is unknown. METHODS: We selected all patients with N0 TNBC diagnosed between 1989 and 2000 from a Dutch population-based registry. Patients were age < 40 years at diagnosis and had not received (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy, as was standard practice at the time. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded blocks were retrieved (PALGA: Dutch Pathology Registry), and a pathology review including sTILs was performed. Patients were categorized according to sTILs (< 30%, 30%-75%, and ≥ 75%). Multivariable Cox regression was performed for overall survival, with or without sTILs as a covariate. Cumulative incidence of distant metastasis or death was analyzed in a competing risk model, with second primary tumors as competing risk. RESULTS: sTILs were scored for 441 patients. High sTILs (≥ 75%; 21%) translated into an excellent prognosis with a 15-year cumulative incidence of a distant metastasis or death of only 2.1% (95% CI, 0 to 5.0), whereas low sTILs (< 30%; 52%) had an unfavorable prognosis with a 15-year cumulative incidence of a distant metastasis or death of 38.4% (32.1 to 44.6). In addition, every 10% increment of sTILs decreased the risk of death by 19% (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.87), which are an independent predictor adding prognostic information to standard clinicopathologic variables (χ2 = 46.7, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy-naïve, young patients with N0 TNBC with high sTILs (≥ 75%) have an excellent long-term prognosis. Therefore, sTILs should be considered for prospective clinical trials investigating (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy de-escalation strategies.

Adjuvant Aromatase Inhibitors or Tamoxifen Following Chemotherapy for Perimenopausal Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) vs tamoxifen has been investigated in randomized clinical trials for premenopausal and postmenopausal patients with early, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. The optimal endocrine treatment for chemotherapy-treated perimenopausal women, who generally develop chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea, is uncertain. METHODS: All Dutch women who received adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine treatment for stage I-III, ER+ (>10% positive cells), invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2007 were identified through the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Included women were considered perimenopausal based on an age at diagnosis of 45 to 50 years (n = 2295). For each patient, AI treatment duration relative to total endocrine treatment duration was calculated. Predominantly tamoxifen-treated patients (AI < 25%) were compared with those receiving AI and tamoxifen for a similar duration (AI 25%-75%) and those mostly using AI (AI > 75%). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were calculated using time-dependent Cox regression. RESULTS: After an average follow-up of 7.6 years, 377 RFS events occurred. Women mostly receiving AI (AI > 75%) had the best RFS (adjusted HR = 0.63, 95% confidence interval = 0.46 to 0.86) followed by those receiving AI 25% to 75% (adjusted HR = 0.85, 95% confidence interval = 0.65 to 1.12) compared with predominantly tamoxifen-treated women. Trend analyses showed that every 10% increase in AI-endocrine treatment ratio reduced RFS event risk by 5% (2-sided Ptrend = .002). In total, 236 deaths occurred; hazard ratios for overall survival showed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the best adjuvant endocrine treatment for chemotherapy-treated, ER+ breast cancer patients diagnosed aged 45-50 years consists of mainly AI followed by a switch strategy and mainly tamoxifen.

A phase I followed by a randomized phase II trial of two cycles carboplatin-olaparib followed by olaparib monotherapy versus capecitabine in BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer as first line treatment (REVIVAL): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies in breast cancer models showed that BRCA1 or BRCA2 deficient cell lines, when compared to BRCA proficient cell lines, are extremely sensitive to PARP1 inhibition. When combining the PARP1 inhibitor olaparib with cisplatin in a BRCA1-mutated breast cancer mouse model, the combination induced a larger response than either of the two compounds alone. Several clinical studies have investigated single agent therapy or combinations of both drugs, but no randomized clinical evidence exists for the superiority of carboplatin-olaparib versus standard of care therapy in patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2--mutated metastatic breast cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: This investigator-initiated study contains two parts. Part 1 is a traditional 3 + 3 dose escalation study of the carboplatin-olaparib combination followed by olaparib monotherapy. The carboplatin dose will be escalated from area under the curve (AUC) 3 to AUC 4 with an olaparib dose of 25 mg BID. Olaparib is subsequently escalated to 50, 75, and 100 mg BID until >1/6 of patients develop dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The dose level below will be the maximum tolerable dose (MTD). It is expected that 15-20 patients are needed in Part I. In Part 2 BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated HER2-negative breast cancer patients will be randomized between standard capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) BID day 1-14 q day 22, versus 2 cycles carboplatin-olaparib followed by olaparib monotherapy 300 mg BID. In total 104 events in 110 patients need to be observed to detect a 75 % clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), from a median of 4 months (control) to 7 months (experimental) assuming a 2-year accrual and ≥6 months of follow-up with 80 % power (5 %, two-sided significance level). After progression on first line treatment, patients will receive physician's best choice of paclitaxel, vinorelbine, eribulin, or capecitabine (experimental arm only) at standard dose. A compassionate use program of olaparib is available for patients in the standard arm after progression on second line treatment. DISCUSSION: Results might be pivotal for registration of olaparib as standard first line treatment in advanced BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02418624 . Registered on 9 March 2015. EudraCT number: 2013-005590-41. Registered on 15 October 2014. Protocol version 3.0.

The long-term follow-up of patients with endoscopically diagnosed reflux oesophagitis with specific emphasis to complaints.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) need long-term treatment with acid-suppressive therapy. Data on long-term follow-up are very rare. For this reason, a study was performed to detect complaints many years after diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients diagnosed with reflux oesophagitis in the years 1998-2000 were included. In the summer of 2010, they received a questionnaire with four different lists of questions pertaining to reflux complaints and use of medication. Severity and frequency were scored on 5-point and 6-point Likert scales, respectively; the GerdQ, a symptom activity index, and the gastrointestinal symptom-rating scale were also used. RESULTS: Complaints were reported by 130 patients (63%); the majority of these, 115 (88%), used acid suppressive therapy. Only 78 patients were in clinical remission, with or without therapy. The respondents with complaints were divided into two groups. Group 1: all patients with reflux complaints using acid suppressive therapy. Group 2: all patients with complaints without medication. Patients in group 1 were significantly older at the time of the endoscopic diagnosis compared with patients of group 2, and patients in group 1 had a hiatal hernia more often (P<0.001). There was no difference in the overall symptom or the frequency score per patient between both groups, with a mean of 5.97 versus 6.8 and 13.4 versus 13.8 respectively. However, heartburn, nausea, acid regurgitation, epigastric pain, dysphagia and nocturnal complaints showed a significantly higher prevalence in patients of group 2. Scores for specific complaints were significantly lower in group 2 and there was no difference between the GerdQ, the symptom activity index and the gastrointestinal symptom-rating scale. CONCLUSION: Despite effective therapy, only 37% of the patients are in complete remission. However, the individual symptom score is rather low. Patients without medication more often have reflux complaints but lower severity scores. Patients who still had complaints and used medication had a hiatal hernia significantly more often.