Does the Presence of Circulating Tumor Cells in High-Risk Early Breast Cancer Patients Predict the Site of First Metastasis—Results from the Adjuvant SUCCESS A Trial

Simple Summary Due to recent advances in breast cancer detection and treatment strategies, the number of breast cancer survivors has increased over the past decades. However, breast cancer follow-up guidelines have not changed for years. The presence of CTCs detected during follow-up has been shown to indicate poor prognosis in high-risk breast cancer patients. Here, we evaluated if the presence of CTCs also indicates the site of metastatic disease by analyzing CTC status and metastatic location in 206 patients with distant recurrence from the large adjuvant breast cancer trial SUCCESS A. Patients who were CTC-positive both before and after chemotherapy were more likely to show bone-only first distant disease (37.5% vs. 21.0%) and first distant disease at multiple sites (31.3% vs. 12.6%) than patients without CTCs. These data indicate that CTCs might serve as a liquid biopsy surveillance-marker enabling risk-stratification for deciding on further adjuvant add-on-treatment. Abstract The prognostic relevance of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in breast cancer is well established. However, little is known about the association of CTCs and site of first metastasis. In the SUCCESS A trial, 373 out of 3754 randomized high-risk breast cancer patients developed metastatic disease. CTC status was assessed by the FDA-approved CellSearch®-System (Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Bologna, Italy) in 206 of these patients before chemotherapy and additionally in 159 patients after chemotherapy. CTCs were detected in 70 (34.0%) of 206 patients before (median 2 CTCs, 1–827) and in 44 (27.7%) of 159 patients after chemotherapy (median 1 CTC, 1–124); 16 (10.1%) of 159 patients were CTC-positive at both timepoints. The site of first distant disease was bone-only, visceral-only, and other-site-only in 44 (21.4%), 60 (29.1%), and 74 (35.9%) patients, respectively, while 28 (13.6%) patients had multiple sites of first metastatic disease. Patients with CTCs at both timepoints more often showed bone-only first distant disease (37.5% vs. 21.0%) and first distant disease at multiple sites (31.3% vs. 12.6%) than patients without CTCs before and/or after chemotherapy (p = 0.027). In conclusion, the presence of CTCs before and after chemotherapy is associated with multiple-site or bone-only first-distant disease and may trigger intensified follow-up and perhaps further treatment

Gemcitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk early breast cancer—results from the randomized phase III SUCCESS-A trial

Background When chemotherapy is indicated in patients with early breast cancer, regimens that contain anthracyclines and taxanes are established standard treatments. Gemcitabine has shown promising effects on the response and prognosis in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The SUCCESS-A trial (NCT02181101) examined the addition of gemcitabine to a standard chemotherapy regimen in high-risk early breast cancer patients. Methods A total of 3754 patients with at least one of the following characteristics were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment arms: nodal positivity, tumor grade 3, age ≤ 35 years, tumor larger than 2 cm, or negative hormone receptor status. The treatment arms received either three cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, followed by three cycles of docetaxel (FEC → Doc); or three cycles of FEC followed by three cycles of docetaxel and gemcitabine (FEC → Doc/Gem). The primary study aim was disease-free survival (DFS), and the main secondary objectives were overall survival (OS) and safety. Results No differences were observed in the 5-year DFS or OS between FEC → Doc and FEC → Doc/Gem. The hazard ratio was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.12; P = 0.47) for DFS and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.19; P = 0.60) for OS. For patients treated with FEC → Doc and FEC → Doc/Gem, the 5-year probabilities of DFS were 86.6% and 87.2%, and the 5-year probabilities of OS were 92.8% and 92.5%, respectively. Conclusion Adding gemcitabine to a standard chemotherapy does not improve the outcomes in patients with high-risk early breast cancer and should therefore not be included in the adjuvant treatment setting

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

Novel and flexible ultrasound simulation with smartphones and tablets in fetal echocardiography

Purpose!#!Evaluation of a novel ultrasound-simulation-app for training fetal echocardiography as a possible useful addition for students, residents and specialist doctors. Furthermore, comparison to a conventional learning-method with special attention on orientation and recognition of physiological structures.!##!Methods!#!Prospective two-arm study with the participation of 226 clinical students. 108 students were given an extract from a textbook on fetal echocardiography (PDF-group, n = 108) for 30 min to study. 118 students were able to use the new ultrasound-simulator-app (Simulator-group, n = 118) to learn for 30 min. The knowledge of the students was examined both before and after the learning-period by having them identify sonographic structures in videos using single-choice selection.!##!Results!#!There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding age (p = 0.87), gender (p = 0.28), and the number of previously performed ultrasound-examinations (p = 0.45). In the Simulator-group, there was a significantly higher learning effect regarding the proportion of students with an increase of correct answers in the video test examination (p = 0.005). At the end of learning, the students in the Simulator-group needed significantly less time to display the structures in the app's simulation (median initially 10.9 s vs. 6.8 s at the end; p < 0.001).!##!Conclusions!#!The novel ultrasound-simulation-app seems to be a useful addition and improvement to ultrasound training. Previous difficulties such as simultaneously having patients, ultrasound-machines, and professors at disposal can thus be avoided. This means that another important step towards remote learning can be taken, which has been proven increasingly essential lately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic

BRENDA-Score, a hghly significant, internally and externally validated prognostic marker for metastatic recurrence: analysis of 10,449 primary breast cancer patients

Background Current research in breast cancer focuses on individualization of local and systemic therapies with adequate escalation or de-escalation strategies. As a result, about two-thirds of breast cancer patients can be cured, but up to one-third eventually develop metastatic disease, which is considered incurable with currently available treatment options. This underscores the importance to develop a metastatic recurrence score to escalate or de-escalate treatment strategies. Patients and methods Data from 10,499 patients were available from 17 clinical cancer registries (BRENDA-project. In total, 8566 were used to develop the BRENDA-Index. This index was calculated from the regression coefficients of a Cox regression model for metastasis-free survival (MFS). Based on this index, patients were categorized into very high, high, intermediate, low, and very low risk groups forming the BRENDA-Score. Bootstrapping was used for internal validation and an independent dataset of 1883 patients for external validation. The predictive accuracy was checked by Harrell's c-index. In addition, the BRENDA-Score was analyzed as a marker for overall survival (OS) and compared to the Nottingham prognostic score (NPS). Results: Intrinsic subtypes, tumour size, grading, and nodal status were identified as statistically significant prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis. The five prognostic groups of the BRENDA-Score showed highly significant (p < 0.001) differences regarding MFS:low risk: hazard ratio (HR) = 2.4, 95%CI (1.7–3.3); intermediate risk: HR = 5.0, 95%CI.(3.6–6.9); high risk: HR = 10.3, 95%CI (7.4–14.3) and very high risk: HR = 18.1, 95%CI (13.2–24.9). The external validation showed congruent results. A multivariate Cox regression model for OS with BRENDA-Score and NPS as covariates showed that of these two scores only the BRENDA-Score is significant (BRENDA-Score p < 0.001; NPS p = 0.447). Therefore, the BRENDA-Score is also a good prognostic marker for OS. Conclusion: The BRENDA-Score is an internally and externally validated robust predictive tool for metastatic recurrence in breast cancer patients. It is based on routine parameters easily accessible in daily clinical care. In addition, the BRENDA-Score is a good prognostic marker for overall survival. Highlights: The BRENDA-Score is a highly significant predictive tool for metastatic recurrence of breast cancer patients. The BRENDA-Score is stable for at least the first five years after primary diagnosis, i.e., the sensitivities and specificities of this predicting system is rather similar to the NPI with AUCs between 0.76 and 0.81 the BRENDA-Score is a good prognostic marker for overall survival