Long-term outcome in young women with breast cancer : a population-based study

Whether young age at diagnosis of breast cancer is an independent risk factor for death remains controversial, and the question whether young age should be considered in treatment decisions is still to be answered. From a population-based cohort of 22,017 women with breast cancer, all women < 35 years (n = 471) were compared to a random sample of 700 women aged 35-69 years from the same cohort. Information on patient and tumor characteristics, treatment, and follow-up was collected from the medical records. Tissue microarrays were produced for analysis of classical biomarkers. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) by age were compared using women 50-69 years as reference. At 10 years follow-up, women < 35 years and 35-39 years had a worse BCSS [age < 35 years 69 % (HR 2.75, 95 % CI 1.93-3.94), age 35-39 years 76 % (HR 2.33, 95 % CI 1.54-3.52), age 40-49 years 84 % (HR 1.53, 95 % CI 0.97-2.39), and age 50-69 years 89 % (reference)]. The worse BCSS was statistically significant in stages I-IIa and Luminal B tumors. At multivariate analysis age < 35 years and 35-39 years confined a risk in LRFS (HR 2.13, 95 % CI 1.21-3.76 and HR 1.97, 95 % CI 1.06-3.68) but not in DDFS and BCSS. In the subgroup of women < 40 years with luminal tumors stage I-IIa, low age remained an independent risk factor also in DDFS (HR 1.87, 95 % CI 1.03-3.44). Young women have a high risk of systemic disease even when diagnosed in an early stage. The excess risk of relapse is most pronounced in Luminal B tumors, where low age is an independent prognostic factor of DDFS and LRFS

Biobanking across Europe post-GDPR : a deliberately fragmented landscape

This chapter seeks to provide insight into the ways in which Member States leveraged the regulatory discretion afforded to them by the GDPR. Specifically, it reviews the biobank regulatory environment; whether and how derogations under Article 89(2) GDPR are enabled; the legal basis for scientific research and the role of consent in biobanking post-GDPR; the balance between individual rights and public interest in national law; and finally, the GDPR’s impact and future possibilities for biobanking. In exercising self-determination, Member States can, to a certain extent, align data protection requirements with their values and aspirations. Such alignment, though, could jeopardize collaborative research. In light of the need to bridge divergent legal and ethical requirements at a national and supranational level, the role of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) might prove to be essential