Comparison of partial-breast irradiation and intraoperative radiation to whole-breast irradiation in early-stage breast cancer patients: a Kaplan-Meier-derived patient data meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Partial breast irradiation (PBI) and intraoperative radiation (IORT) represent alternatives to whole breast irradiation (WBI) following breast conserving surgery. However, data is mixed regarding outcomes. We therefore performed a pooled analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived patient data from randomized trials to evaluate the hypothesis that PBI and IORT have comparable long-term rates of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence as WBI. METHODS: In February, 2023, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central were systematically searched for randomized phase 3 trials of early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with PBI or IORT as compared to WBI. Time-to-event outcomes of interest included ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), overall survival (OS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). Statistical analysis was performed with R Statistical Software. RESULTS: Eleven randomized trials comprising 15,460 patients were included; 7,675 (49.6%) patients were treated with standard or moderately hypofractionated WBI, 5,413 (35%) with PBI and 2,372 (15.3%) with IORT. Median follow-up was 9 years. PBI demonstrated comparable IBTR risk compared with WBI (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.95-1.52; p = 0.12) with no differences in OS (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.90-1.16; p = 0.70) or DDFS (HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.64; p = 0.43). In contrast, patients treated with IORT had a higher IBTR risk (HR 1.46; 95% CI 1.23-1.72; p < 0.01) compared with WBI with no difference in OS (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; p = 0.81) or DDFS (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.76-1.09; p = 0.31). CONCLUSION: For patients with early-stage breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery, PBI demonstrated no difference in IBTR as compared to WBI while IORT was inferior to WBI with respect to IBTR.

Impact of sequencing of androgen receptor-signaling inhibition and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: importance of homologous recombination disruption.

PURPOSE: The synergy of combining androgen receptor-signaling inhibition (ARSI) to radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer has been largely attributed to non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) inhibition. However, this mechanism is unlikely to explain recently observed trial results that demonstrated the sequencing of ARSI and RT significantly impacts clinical outcomes, with adjuvant ARSI following RT yielding superior outcomes to neoadjuvant/concurrent therapy. We hypothesized this is driven by differential effects on AR-signaling and alternative DNA repair pathway engagement based on ARSI/RT sequencing. METHODS: We explored the effects of ARSI sequencing with RT (neoadjuvant vs concurrent vs adjuvant) in multiple prostate cancer cell lines using androgen-deprived media and validation with the anti-androgen enzalutamide. The effects of ARSI sequencing were measured with clonogenic assays, AR-target gene transcription and translation quantification, cell cycle analysis, DNA damage and repair assays, and xenograft animal validation studies. RESULTS: Adjuvant ARSI after RT was significantly more effective at killing colony forming cells and decreasing the transcription and translation of downstream AR-target genes across all prostate cancer models evaluated. These results were reproduced in xenograft studies. The differential effects of ARSI sequencing were not fully explained by NHEJ inhibition alone, but by the additional disruption of homologous recombination specifically with adjuvant sequencing of ARSI. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that altered sequencing of ARSI and RT mediates differential anti-AR-signaling and anti-cancer effects, with the greatest benefit from adjuvant ARSI following RT. These results, combined with our prior clinical findings, support the superiority of an adjuvant-based sequencing approach when using ARSI with RT.

Androgen and oestrogen receptor co-expression determines the efficacy of hormone receptor-mediated radiosensitisation in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) and hormone receptor (HR) inhibition are used for the treatment of HR-positive breast cancers; however, little is known about the interaction of the androgen receptor (AR) and estrogen receptor (ER) in response to RT in AR-positive, ER-positive (AR+/ER+) breast cancers. Here we assessed radiosensitisation of AR+/ER+ cell lines using pharmacologic or genetic inhibition/degradation of AR and/or ER. METHODS: Radiosensitisation was assessed with AR antagonists (enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, seviteronel, ARD-61), ER antagonists (tamoxifen, fulvestrant) or using knockout of AR. RESULTS: Treatment with AR antagonists or ER antagonists in combination with RT did not result in radiosensitisation changes (radiation enhancement ratios [rER]: 0.76-1.21). Fulvestrant treatment provided significant radiosensitisation of CAMA-1 and BT-474 cells (rER: 1.06-2.0) but not ZR-75-1 cells (rER: 0.9-1.11). Combining tamoxifen with enzalutamide did not alter radiosensitivity using a 1 h or 1-week pretreatment (rER: 0.95-1.14). Radiosensitivity was unchanged in AR knockout compared to Cas9 cells (rER: 1.07 ± 0.11), and no additional radiosensitisation was achieved with tamoxifen or fulvestrant compared to Cas9 cells (rER: 0.84-1.19). CONCLUSION: While radiosensitising in AR + TNBC, AR inhibition does not modulate radiation sensitivity in AR+/ER+ breast cancer. The efficacy of ER antagonists in combination with RT may also be dependent on AR expression.

Dose-intensified chemoradiation is associated with altered patterns of failure and favorable survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We evaluated whether dose-intensified chemoradiation alters patterns of failure and is associated with favorable survival in the temozolomide era. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2003 and 2015, 82 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were treated with 66-81 Gy in 30 fractions using conventional magnetic resonance imaging. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Factors associated with improved PFS, OS, and time to progression were assessed using multivariate Cox model and linear regression. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 23 months (95% CI 4-124 months). Sixty-one percent of patients underwent subtotal resection or biopsy, and 38% (10/26) of patients with available data had MGMT promoter methylation. Median PFS was 8.4 months (95% CI 7.3-11.0) and OS was 18.7 months (95% CI 13.1-25.3). Only 30 patients (44%) experienced central recurrence, 6 (9%) in-field, 16 (23.5%) marginal and 16 (23.5%) distant. On multivariate analysis, younger age (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97, p = 0.0001), higher performance status (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.95, p = 0.04), gross total resection (GTR) versus biopsy (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.85, p = 0.02) and MGMT methylation (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.71, p = 0.009) were associated with improved OS. Only distant versus central recurrence (p = 0.03) and GTR (p = 0.02) were associated with longer time to progression. Late grade 3 neurologic toxicity was rare (6%) in patients experiencing long-term survival. CONCLUSION: Dose-escalated chemoRT resulted in lower rates of central recurrence and prolonged time to progression compared to historical controls, although a significant number of central recurrences were still observed. Advanced imaging and correlative molecular studies may enable targeted treatment advances that reduce rates of in- and out-of-field progression.

Development and validation of a 24-gene predictor of response to postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a matched, retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative radiotherapy has an important role in the treatment of prostate cancer, but personalised patient selection could improve outcomes and spare unnecessary toxicity. We aimed to develop and validate a gene expression signature to predict which patients would benefit most from postoperative radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients were eligible for this matched, retrospective study if they were included in one of five published US studies (cohort, case-cohort, and case-control studies) of patients with prostate adenocarcinoma who had radical prostatectomy (with or without postoperative radiotherapy) and had gene expression analysis of the tumour, with long-term follow-up and complete clinicopathological data. Additional treatment after surgery was at the treating physician's discretion. In each cohort, patients who had postoperative radiotherapy were matched with patients who had not had radiotherapy using Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen concentration, surgical margin status, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node invasion, and androgen deprivation therapy. We constructed a matched training cohort using patients from one study in which we developed a 24-gene Post-Operative Radiation Therapy Outcomes Score (PORTOS). We generated a pooled matched validation cohort using patients from the remaining four studies. The primary endpoint was the development of distant metastasis. FINDINGS: In the training cohort (n=196), among patients with a high PORTOS (n=39), those who had radiotherapy had a lower incidence of distant metastasis than did patients who did not have radiotherapy, with a 10-year metastasis rate of 5% (95% CI 0-14) in patients who had radiotherapy (n=20) and 63% (34-80) in patients who did not have radiotherapy (n=19; hazard ratio [HR] 0·12 [95% CI 0·03-0·41], p<0·0001), whereas among patients with a low PORTOS (n=157), those who had postoperative radiotherapy (n=78) had a greater incidence of distant metastasis at 10 years than did their untreated counterparts (n=79; 57% [44-67] vs 31% [20-41]; HR 2·5 [1·6-4·1], p<0·0001), with a significant treatment interaction (pinteraction<0·0001). The finding that PORTOS could predict outcome due to radiotherapy treatment was confirmed in the validation cohort (n=330), which showed that patients who had radiotherapy had a lower incidence of distant metastasis compared with those who did not have radiotherapy, but only in the high PORTOS group (high PORTOS [n=82]: 4% [95% CI 0-10] in the radiotherapy group [n=57] vs 35% [95% CI 7-54] in the no radiotherapy group [n=25] had metastasis at 10 years; HR 0·15 [95% CI 0·04-0·60], p=0·0020; low PORTOS [n=248]: 32% [95% CI 19-43] in the radiotherapy group [n=108] vs 32% [95% CI 22-40] in the no radiotherapy group [n=140]; HR 0·92 [95% CI 0·56-1·51], p=0·76), with a significant interaction (pinteraction=0·016). The conventional prognostic tools Decipher, CAPRA-S, and microarray version of the cell cycle progression signature did not predict response to radiotherapy (pinteraction>0·05 for all). INTERPRETATION: Patients with a high PORTOS who had postoperative radiotherapy were less likely to have metastasis at 10 years than those who did not have radiotherapy, suggesting that treatment with postoperative radiotherapy should be considered in this subgroup. PORTOS should be investigated further in additional independent cohorts. FUNDING: None.

Estrogen receptor mutations and their role in breast cancer progression.

Endocrine therapy is the mainstay of treatment in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers and significantly reduces disease recurrence and breast cancer-related mortality. However, acquired resistance to therapy has been noted in nearly one-third of women treated with tamoxifen and other endocrine therapies. Mutations in the estrogen receptor have long been speculated to play a role in endocrine therapy resistance but have been rarely detected. However, recent studies utilizing next-generation sequencing on estrogen receptor-positive, metastatic clinical samples have revealed that recurrent ESR1 mutations are far more frequent than previously thought and may play an important role in acquired endocrine therapy resistance. Here we review recent advances in detection and characterization of ESR1 mutations in advanced, endocrine therapy-resistant breast cancers.

Targeted radiosensitization with PARP1 inhibition: optimization of therapy and identification of biomarkers of response in breast cancer.

Sustained locoregional control of breast cancer is a significant issue for certain patients. Inhibition of PARP1 is a promising strategy for radiosensitization (RS). We sought to optimize therapy with PARP1 inhibition and radiation (RT) by establishing the most effective treatment schedule, degree of PARP1-mediated RS, and identify early biomarkers predictive of efficacy in breast cancer models. Using clonogenic survival assays, we assessed intrinsic radiosensitivity and RS induced by PARP1 inhibition in breast cancer cell lines. Potential biomarkers of response were evaluated using western blotting, flow cytometry, and immunofluorescence with validation in vivo using tumor xenograft experiments. Across a panel of BC and normal breast epithelial cell lines, the PARP1 inhibitor ABT-888 preferentially radiosensitizes breast cancer (vs. normal) cells with enhancement ratios (EnhR) up to 2.3 independent of intrinsic BC subtype or BRCA mutational status. Concurrent and adjuvant therapy resulted in the highest EnhR of all schedules tested. The degree of RS did not correlate with pretreatment markers of PARP1 activity, DNA damage/repair, or cell cycle distribution. Increases in PARP1 activity 24 h after RT were associated with sensitivity after combination treatment. Findings were confirmed in breast cancer xenograft models. Our study demonstrates that PARP1 inhibition improves the therapeutic index of RT independent of BC subtype or BRCA1 mutational status and that PARP1 activity may serve as a clinically relevant biomarker of response. These studies have led to a clinical trial (TBCRC024) incorporating intratreatment biomarker analyses of PARP1 inhibitors and RT in breast cancer patients.

Present and Future of Immunotherapy for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) lacks the expression of estrogen receptors (ERs), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and progesterone receptors (PRs). TNBC has the poorest prognosis among breast cancer subtypes and is more likely to respond to immunotherapy due to its higher expression of PD-L1 and a greater percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Immunotherapy has revolutionized TNBC treatment, especially with the FDA's approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) combined with chemotherapy for advanced cases, opening new avenues for treating this deadly disease. Although immunotherapy can significantly improve patient outcomes in a subset of patients, achieving the desired response rate for all remains an unmet clinical goal. Strategies that enhance responses to immune checkpoint blockade, including combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy, molecularly targeted therapy, or radiotherapy, may improve response rates and clinical outcomes. In this review, we provide a short background on TNBC and immunotherapy and explore the different types of immunotherapy strategies that are currently being evaluated in TNBC. Additionally, we review why combination strategies may be beneficial, provide an overview of the combination strategies, and discuss the novel immunotherapeutic opportunities that may be approved in the near future for TNBC.

BUB1 regulates non-homologous end joining pathway to mediate radioresistance in triple-negative breast cancer.

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a highly aggressive form of breast cancer subtype often treated with radiotherapy (RT). Due to its intrinsic heterogeneity and lack of effective targets, it is crucial to identify novel molecular targets that would increase RT efficacy. Here we demonstrate the role of BUB1 (cell cycle Ser/Thr kinase) in TNBC radioresistance and offer a novel strategy to improve TNBC treatment. Methods: Gene expression analysis was performed to look at genes upregulated in TNBC patient samples compared to other subtypes. Cell proliferation and clonogenic survivals assays determined the IC 50 of BUB1 inhibitor (BAY1816032) and radiation enhancement ratio (rER) with pharmacologic and genomic BUB1 inhibition. Mammary fat pad xenografts experiments were performed in CB17/SCID. The mechanism through which BUB1 inhibitor sensitizes TNBC cells to radiotherapy was delineated by γ-H2AX foci assays, BLRR, Immunoblotting, qPCR, CHX chase, and cell fractionation assays. Results: BUB1 is overexpressed in BC and its expression is considerably elevated in TNBC with poor survival outcomes. Pharmacological or genomic ablation of BUB1 sensitized multiple TNBC cell lines to cell killing by radiation, although breast epithelial cells showed no radiosensitization with BUB1 inhibition. Kinase function of BUB1 is mainly accountable for this radiosensitization phenotype. BUB1 ablation also led to radiosensitization in TNBC tumor xenografts with significantly increased tumor growth delay and overall survival. Mechanistically, BUB1 ablation inhibited the repair of radiation-induced DNA double strand breaks (DSBs). BUB1 ablation stabilized phospho-DNAPKcs (S2056) following RT such that half-lives could not be estimated. In contrast, RT alone caused BUB1 stabilization, but pre-treatment with BUB1 inhibitor prevented stabilization (t 1/2 , ∼8 h). Nuclear and chromatin-enriched fractionations illustrated an increase in recruitment of phospho- and total-DNAPK, and KAP1 to chromatin indicating that BUB1 is indispensable in the activation and recruitment of non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) proteins to DSBs. Additionally, BUB1 staining of TNBC tissue microarrays demonstrated significant correlation of BUB1 protein expression with tumor grade. Conclusions: BUB1 ablation sensitizes TNBC cell lines and xenografts to RT and BUB1 mediated radiosensitization may occur through NHEJ. Together, these results highlight BUB1 as a novel molecular target for radiosensitization in women with TNBC.

BUB1 regulates non-homologous end joining pathway to mediate radioresistance in triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a highly aggressive form of breast cancer subtype often treated with radiotherapy (RT). Due to its intrinsic heterogeneity and lack of effective targets, it is crucial to identify novel molecular targets that would increase RT efficacy. Here we demonstrate the role of BUB1 (cell cycle Ser/Thr kinase) in TNBC radioresistance and offer a novel strategy to improve TNBC treatment. METHODS: Gene expression analysis was performed to look at genes upregulated in TNBC patient samples compared to other subtypes. Cell proliferation and clonogenic survivals assays determined the IC50 of BUB1 inhibitor (BAY1816032) and radiation enhancement ratio (rER) with pharmacologic and genomic BUB1 inhibition. Mammary fat pad xenografts experiments were performed in CB17/SCID. The mechanism through which BUB1 inhibitor sensitizes TNBC cells to radiotherapy was delineated by γ-H2AX foci assays, BLRR, Immunoblotting, qPCR, CHX chase, and cell fractionation assays. RESULTS: BUB1 is overexpressed in BC and its expression is considerably elevated in TNBC with poor survival outcomes. Pharmacological or genomic ablation of BUB1 sensitized multiple TNBC cell lines to cell killing by radiation, although breast epithelial cells showed no radiosensitization with BUB1 inhibition. Kinase function of BUB1 is mainly accountable for this radiosensitization phenotype. BUB1 ablation also led to radiosensitization in TNBC tumor xenografts with significantly increased tumor growth delay and overall survival. Mechanistically, BUB1 ablation inhibited the repair of radiation-induced DNA double strand breaks (DSBs). BUB1 ablation stabilized phospho-DNAPKcs (S2056) following RT such that half-lives could not be estimated. In contrast, RT alone caused BUB1 stabilization, but pre-treatment with BUB1 inhibitor prevented stabilization (t1/2, ~8 h). Nuclear and chromatin-enriched fractionations illustrated an increase in recruitment of phospho- and total-DNAPK, and KAP1 to chromatin indicating that BUB1 is indispensable in the activation and recruitment of non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) proteins to DSBs. Additionally, BUB1 staining of TNBC tissue microarrays demonstrated significant correlation of BUB1 protein expression with tumor grade. CONCLUSIONS: BUB1 ablation sensitizes TNBC cell lines and xenografts to RT and BUB1 mediated radiosensitization may occur through NHEJ. Together, these results highlight BUB1 as a novel molecular target for radiosensitization in women with TNBC.

The Effect of Wire Versus Magnetic Seed Localization on Lumpectomy Cavity Size.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess whether an association exists between surgical localization technique and lumpectomy cavity size on radiation therapy planning computed tomography (CT) scan. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-institution retrospective review was conducted of women undergoing breast conserving surgery with wire or magnetic seed guided lumpectomy followed by adjuvant radiation therapy from 2018 to 2021. Patients of a surgeon only performing 1 localization technique or undergoing bracketed localization were excluded. The primary outcome was lumpectomy cavity size on simulation CT. Confounding due to imbalance in patient and tumor factors was addressed with overlap weights derived from a propensity score analysis and used in a weighted multivariable analysis. Secondary outcomes included positive margins, total pathologic volume, boost delivery, and boost modality. RESULTS: Of 617 women who received lumpectomy during the study period, 387 were included in final analysis. Tumors of patients undergoing seed localization were more likely unifocal, assessable by ultrasound, and smaller. Seed use rates ranged from 27.7% to 70.7% per surgeon. There was no difference in positive margins (6.4 vs 5.4%, P = .79) or second surgeries (9.4 vs 8.1%, P = .79) between groups. Close margin rates were similar for ductal carcinoma in situ (P = .35) and invasive carcinoma (P = .97). In unadjusted bivariable analyses, wire localization was associated with larger total pathology volume (P = .004), but localization technique showed no association with CT cavity volume (P = .15). After adjusting for potentially confounding variables, multivariable analysis failed to show an association between localization technique and either CT cavity (P = .35) or total path volume (P = .08). There was no difference in indicated-boost delivery (P = .15) or electron boost (P = .14) by localization technique. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in CT cavity size by localization technique, suggesting choice between surgical techniques does not impede radiation therapy boost delivery.

Validation of a breast cancer assay for radiotherapy omission: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no molecular tests to identify individual breast cancers where radiotherapy (RT) offers no benefit. Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiotherapy (POLAR) is a 16-gene molecular signature developed to identify low risk cancers where RT will not further reduce recurrence rates. METHODS: An individual participant data meta-analysis was performed in 623 cases of node-negative ER+/HER2-negative early breast cancer enrolled in three RT randomized trials for whom primary tumor material was available for analysis. A Cox proportional hazards model on time to locoregional recurrence (LRR) was used to test the interaction between POLAR score and RT. RESULTS: 429 (69%) patients' tumors had a high POLAR score and 194 (31%) had a low score. Patients with high POLAR score had, in the absence of RT, a 10-year cumulative incidence of LRR: 20% (15%-26%) vs 5% (2%-11%) for those with a low score. Patients with a high POLAR score had a large benefit from RT (hazard ratio [HR] for RT vs no RT: 0.37 [0.23-0.60], p < .001). In contrast, there was no evidence of benefit from RT for patients with a low POLAR score (HR: 0.92 [0.42-2.02], p = .832). The test for interaction between RT and POLAR was statistically significant (p = .022). CONCLUSIONS: POLAR is not only prognostic for locoregional recurrence but also predictive of benefit from radiotherapy in selected patients. Patients ≥ 50 years with ER+/HER2-negative disease and a low POLAR score could consider omitting adjuvant RT. Further validation in contemporary clinical cohorts is required.

Budding uninhibited by benzimidazoles-1 (BUB1) regulates EGFR signaling by reducing EGFR internalization.

EGFR signaling initiates upon ligand binding which leads to activation and internalization of the receptor-ligand complex. Here, we evaluated if BUB1 impacted EGFR signaling by regulating EGFR receptor internalization and activation. BUB1 was ablated genomically (siRNA) or biochemically (2OH-BNPP1) in cells. EGF ligand was used to initiate EGFR signaling while disuccinimidyl suberate (DSS) was used for cross linking cellular proteins. EGFR signaling was measured by western immunoblotting and receptor internalization was evaluated by fluorescent microscopy (pEGFR (pY1068) colocalization with early endosome marker EEA1). siRNA mediated BUB1 depletion led to an overall increase in total EGFR levels and more phospho-EGFR (Y845, Y1092, and Y1173) dimers while the amount of total EGFR (non-phospho) dimers remained unchanged. BUB1 inhibitor (BUB1i) decreased EGF mediated EGFR signaling including pEGFR Y845, pAKT S473 and pERK1/2 in a time dependent manner. Additionally, BUB1i also reduced EGF mediated pEGFR (Y845) dimers (asymmetric dimers) without affecting total EGFR dimers (symmetric dimers) indicating that dimerization of inactive EGFR is not affected by BUB1. Furthermore, BUB1i blocked EGF mediated EGFR degradation (increase in EGFR half-life) without impacting half-lives of HER2 or c-MET. BUB1i also reduced co-localization of pEGFR with EEA1 positive endosomes suggesting that BUB1 might modulate EGFR endocytosis. Our data provide evidence that BUB1 protein and its kinase activity may regulate EGFR activation, endocytosis, degradation, and downstream signaling without affecting other members of the receptor tyrosine kinase family.

Radiotherapy Use and Incidence of Locoregional Recurrence in Patients With Favorable-Risk, Node-Positive Breast Cancer Enrolled in the SWOG S1007 Trial.

Importance: Little is known about regional nodal irradiation (RNI) practice patterns or rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR) with and without RNI in patients with limited nodal disease and favorable biology treated with modern surgical and systemic therapy, including approaches that de-escalate those latter treatments. Objective: To investigate how often patients with low-recurrence score breast cancer with 1 to 3 nodes involved receive RNI, incidence and predictors of LRR, and associations between locoregional therapy and disease-free survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this secondary analysis of the SWOG S1007 trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative breast cancer, and a Oncotype DX 21-gene Breast Recurrence Score assay result of no more than 25, were randomized to endocrine therapy alone vs chemotherapy then endocrine therapy. Prospectively collected radiotherapy information was collected from 4871 patients treated in diverse settings. Data were analyzed June 2022 to April 2023. Exposure: Receipt of RNI (targeting at least the supraclavicular region). Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Cumulative incidence of LRR was calculated by locoregional treatment received. Analyses were assessed for associations between invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and locoregional therapy, adjusted for menopausal status, treatment group, recurrence score, tumor size, nodes involved, and axillary surgery. Radiotherapy information was recorded in the first year after randomization, so survival analyses were landmarked as starting at 1 year among those still at risk. Results: Of 4871 female patients (median [range] age, 57 [18-87] years) with radiotherapy forms, 3947 (81.0%) reported radiotherapy receipt. Of 3852 patients who received radiotherapy and had complete information on targets, 2274 (59.0%) received RNI. With a median follow-up of 6.1 years, the cumulative incidence of LRR by 5 years was 0.85% among patients who received breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy with RNI; 0.55% after breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy without RNI; 0.11% after mastectomy with postmastectomy radiotherapy; and 1.7% after mastectomy without radiotherapy. Similarly low LRR was observed within the group assigned to endocrine therapy without chemotherapy. The rate of IDFS did not differ by RNI receipt (premenopausal: hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43; P = .87; postmenopausal: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68-1.07; P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, RNI use was divided in the setting of biologically favorable N1 disease, and rates of LRR were low even in patients who did not receive RNI. Disease-free survival was not associated with RNI receipt; omission of chemotherapy among patients similar to those enrolled in the S1007 trial is not an independent indication for use of RNI.

Development and Validation of a Genomic Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation in Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) is used for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery. However, some women with low risk of recurrence may safely be spared RT. This study aimed to identify these women using a molecular-based approach. METHODS: We analyzed two randomized trials of women with node-negative invasive breast cancer to ± RT following breast-conserving surgery: SweBCG91-RT (stage I-II, no adjuvant systemic therapy) and Princess Margaret (age 50 years or older, T1-T2, adjuvant tamoxifen). Transcriptome-wide profiling was performed (Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray). Patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors and with gene expression data were included. The SweBCG91-RT cohort was divided into training (N = 243) and validation (N = 354) cohorts. A 16-gene signature named Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) was trained to predict locoregional recurrence (LRR) using elastic net regression. POLAR was then validated in the SweBCG91-RT validation cohort and the Princess Margaret cohort (N = 132). RESULTS: Patients categorized as POLAR low-risk without RT had a 10-year LRR of 6% (95% CI, 2 to 16) and 7% (0 to 27) in SweBCG91-RT and Princess Margaret cohorts, respectively. There was no significant benefit from RT in POLAR low-risk patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1 [0.39 to 3.4], P = .81, and HR, 1.5 [0.14 to 16], P = .74, respectively). Patients categorized as POLAR high-risk had a significant decreased risk of LRR with RT (HR, 0.43 [0.24 to 0.78], P = .0055, and HR, 0.25 [0.07 to 0.92], P = .038, respectively). An exploratory analysis testing for interaction between RT and POLAR in the combined validation cohort was performed (P = .066). CONCLUSION: The novel POLAR genomic signature on the basis of LRR biology may identify patients with a low risk of LRR despite not receiving RT, and thus may be candidates for RT omission.

Integrating Tumor-Intrinsic and Immunologic Factors to Identify Immunogenic Breast Cancers from a Low-Risk Cohort: Results from the Randomized SweBCG91RT Trial.

PURPOSE: The local immune infiltrate's influence on tumor progression may be closely linked to tumor-intrinsic factors. The study aimed to investigate whether integrating immunologic and tumor-intrinsic factors can identify patients from a low-risk cohort who may be candidates for radiotherapy (RT) de-escalation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The SweBCG91RT trial included 1,178 patients with stage I to IIA breast cancer, randomized to breast-conserving surgery with or without adjuvant RT, and followed for a median of 15.2 years. We trained two models designed to capture immunologic activity and immunomodulatory tumor-intrinsic qualities, respectively. We then analyzed if combining these two variables could further stratify tumors, allowing for identifying a subgroup where RT de-escalation is feasible, despite clinical indicators of a high risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). RESULTS: The prognostic effect of the immunologic model could be predicted by the tumor-intrinsic model (Pinteraction = 0.01). By integrating measurements of the immunologic- and tumor-intrinsic models, patients who benefited from an active immune infiltrate could be identified. These patients benefited from standard RT (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.85; P = 0.025) and had a 5.4% 10-year incidence of IBTR after irradiation despite high-risk genomic indicators and a low frequency of systemic therapy. In contrast, high-risk tumors without an immune infiltrate had a high 10-year incidence of IBTR despite RT treatment (19.5%; 95% CI, 12.2-30.3). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating tumor-intrinsic and immunologic factors may identify immunogenic tumors in early-stage breast cancer populations dominated by ER-positive tumors. Patients who benefit from an activated immune infiltrate may be candidates for RT de-escalation.

Evaluation of the Sensitivity to Endocrine Therapy Index and 21-Gene Breast Recurrence Score in the SWOG S8814 Trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy has not demonstrated benefit over adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer with a 21-gene breast recurrence score (RS) of 25 or below (RS ≤ 25). We tested whether combined results from RS and the sensitivity to endocrine therapy (SET2,3) index of endocrine-related transcription (SETER/PR) adjusted for baseline prognostic index (BPI) improve prognostic assessment, and whether SET2,3 predicted benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy. METHODS: A blinded retrospective clinical validation of SET2,3 in two randomized treatment arms from the SWOG S8814 trial comparing adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen endocrine therapy for 5 years, versus tamoxifen alone. SET2,3 assay was calibrated and measured using whole-transcriptome RNA sequence of tumor samples already tested for RS. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: There were 106 events in 283 patients over a median follow-up of 8.99 years. Proportional hazards assumptions were met during the first 5 years only. SET2,3 index and RS were not correlated (r = -0.04) and were independently prognostic (SET2,3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 per unit; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.68; P < .001; RS: HR, 1.28 per 10 units; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.44; P < .001). SET2,3 index did not predict chemotherapy benefit (interaction P = .77). SET2,3 was high in 93/175 (53%) patients with RS ≤ 25 (concordant low-risk), with 5-year DFS 97%. SET2,3 was low in 55/108 (51%) patients with RS > 25 (concordant high-risk), with 5-year DFS 53%. Both components of SET2,3 index were prognostic after adjustment for RS: SETER/PR (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.92) and BPI (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.64). CONCLUSION: SET2,3 index was not correlated with RS, demonstrated additive prognostic performance, and was not chemopredictive in this subset of patients from S8814. The SETER/PR and BPI components of SET2,3 each added prognostic information to RS.

Subclonal evolution and expansion of spatially distinct THY1-positive cells is associated with recurrence in glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: Glioblastoma(GBM) is a lethal disease characterized by inevitable recurrence. Here we investigate the molecular pathways mediating resistance, with the goal of identifying novel therapeutic opportunities. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We developed a longitudinal in vivo recurrence model utilizing patient-derived explants to produce paired specimens(pre- and post-recurrence) following temozolomide(TMZ) and radiation(IR). These specimens were evaluated for treatment response and to identify gene expression pathways driving treatment resistance. Findings were clinically validated using spatial transcriptomics of human GBMs. RESULTS: These studies reveal in replicate cohorts, a gene expression profile characterized by upregulation of mesenchymal and stem-like genes at recurrence. Analyses of clinical databases revealed significant association of this transcriptional profile with worse overall survival and upregulation at recurrence. Notably, gene expression analyses identified upregulation of TGFß signaling, and more than one-hundred-fold increase in THY1 levels at recurrence. Furthermore, THY1-positive cells represented <10% of cells in treatment-naïve tumors, compared to 75-96% in recurrent tumors. We then isolated THY1-positive cells from treatment-naïve patient samples and determined that they were inherently resistant to chemoradiation in orthotopic models. Additionally, using image-guided biopsies from treatment-naïve human GBM, we conducted spatial transcriptomic analyses. This revealed rare THY1+ regions characterized by mesenchymal/stem-like gene expression, analogous to our recurrent mouse model, which co-localized with macrophages within the perivascular niche. We then inhibited TGFBRI activity in vivo which decreased mesenchymal/stem-like protein levels, including THY1, and restored sensitivity to TMZ/IR in recurrent tumors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal that GBM recurrence may result from tumor repopulation by pre-existing, therapy-resistant, THY1-positive, mesenchymal cells within the perivascular niche.

Tailoring the Omission of Radiotherapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Based on Tumor Biology.

Advances in our understanding of tumor biology now permit greater personalization of radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. De-escalation of radiotherapy is an important opportunity that exists due to improvements in breast imaging, surgery, pathology, and systemic therapy. These modern tools, in addition to molecular subtype and prediction assays, have allowed us to select certain patients with breast cancer based on favorable biology who are at sufficiently low-risk of local recurrence that they may reasonably consider the omission of radiotherapy to reduce toxicity and burden. For decades, clinical trials have been conducted to try to identify the population of patients in whom the risk of recurrence in the absence of radiotherapy is sufficiently small that omission of adjuvant radiotherapy might acceptably be considered after breast conserving surgery. Trials to date have largely included patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer selected based upon clinicopathologic characteristics alone and have yet to identify a patient population for whom radiotherapy is not effective. They have, however, identified women with lower absolute risks of locoregional recurrence with radiotherapy omission, and current guidelines do recognize this patient population as candidates for radiotherapy omission after breast conserving surgery. Studies that assess not just clinicopathologic features but predictive molecular biomarkers of the underlying biology are currently ongoing. This manuscript will briefly review historical trials evaluating the role of radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery as well as discuss the exciting ongoing trials in hormone receptor-positive disease leveraging our growing appreciation of tumor biology and molecular prediction to identify a population of patients who may reasonably consider omitting radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery.

Updates in combined approaches of radiotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of breast cancer.

Breast cancer is the most prevalent non-skin cancer diagnosed in females and developing novel therapeutic strategies to improve patient outcomes is crucial. The immune system plays an integral role in the body's response to breast cancer and modulating this immune response through immunotherapy is a promising therapeutic option. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors were recently approved for the treatment of breast cancer patients, not all patients respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors as a monotherapy, highlighting the need to better understand the biology underlying patient response. Additionally, as radiotherapy is a critical component of breast cancer treatment, understanding the interplay of radiation and immune checkpoint inhibitors will be vital as recent studies suggest that combined therapies may induce synergistic effects in preclinical models of breast cancer. This review will discuss the mechanisms supporting combined approaches with radiotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of breast cancer. Moreover, this review will analyze the current clinical trials examining combined approaches of radiotherapy, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy. Finally, this review will evaluate data regarding treatment tolerance and potential biomarkers for these emerging therapies aimed at improving breast cancer outcomes.