Delineating transcriptional networks of prognostic gene signatures refines treatment recommendations for lymph node-negative breast cancer patients.

The majority of women diagnosed with lymph node-negative breast cancer are unnecessarily treated with damaging chemotherapeutics after surgical resection. This highlights the importance of understanding and more accurately predicting patient prognosis. In the present study, we define the transcriptional networks regulating well-established prognostic gene expression signatures. We find that the same set of transcriptional regulators consistently lie upstream of both 'prognosis' and 'proliferation' gene signatures, suggesting that a central transcriptional network underpins a shared phenotype within these signatures. Strikingly, the master transcriptional regulators within this network predict recurrence risk for lymph node-negative breast cancer better than currently used multigene prognostic assays, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive patients. Simultaneous examination of p16(INK4A) expression, which predicts tumours that have bypassed cellular senescence, revealed that intermediate levels of p16(INK4A) correlate with an intact pRB pathway and improved survival. A combination of these master transcriptional regulators and p16(INK4A), termed the OncoMasTR score, stratifies tumours based on their proliferative and senescence capacity, facilitating a clearer delineation of lymph node-negative breast cancer patients at high risk of recurrence, and thus requiring chemotherapy. Furthermore, OncoMasTR accurately classifies over 60% of patients as 'low risk', an improvement on existing prognostic assays, which has the potential to reduce overtreatment in early-stage patients. Taken together, the present study provides new insights into the transcriptional regulation of cellular proliferation in breast cancer and provides an opportunity to enhance and streamline methods of predicting breast cancer prognosis

Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction

Background: Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR. Methods: The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy. Results: A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment. Conclusion: TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety