Results of a worldwide survey on the currently used histopathological diagnostic criteria for invasive lobular breast cancer

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) represents the second most common subtype of breast cancer (BC), accounting for up to 15% of all invasive BC. Loss of cell adhesion due to functional inactivation of E-cadherin is the hallmark of ILC. Although the current world health organization (WHO) classification for diagnosing ILC requires the recognition of the dispersed or linear non-cohesive growth pattern, it is not mandatory to demonstrate E-cadherin loss by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Recent results of central pathology review of two large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated relative overdiagnosis of ILC, as only ~60% of the locally diagnosed ILCs were confirmed by central pathology. To understand the possible underlying reasons of this discrepancy, we undertook a worldwide survey on the current practice of diagnosing BC as ILC. A survey was drafted by a panel of pathologists and researchers from the European lobular breast cancer consortium (ELBCC) using the online tool SurveyMonkey®. Various parameters such as indications for IHC staining, IHC clones, and IHC staining procedures were questioned. Finally, systematic reporting of non-classical ILC variants were also interrogated. This survey was sent out to pathologists worldwide and circulated from December 14, 2020 until July, 1 2021. The results demonstrate that approximately half of the institutions use E-cadherin expression loss by IHC as an ancillary test to diagnose ILC and that there is a great variability in immunostaining protocols. This might cause different staining results and discordant interpretations. As ILC-specific therapeutic and diagnostic avenues are currently explored in the context of clinical trials, it is of importance to improve standardization of histopathologic diagnosis of ILC diagnosis

Reporting on patient’s body mass index (BMI) in recent clinical trials for patients with breast cancer:a systematic review

Background: The proportion of patients with breast cancer and obesity is increasing. While the therapeutic landscape of breast cancer has been expanding, we lack knowledge about the potential differential efficacy of most drugs according to the body mass index (BMI). Here, we conducted a systematic review on recent clinical drug trials to document the dosing regimen of recent drugs, the reporting of BMI and the possible exclusion of patients according to BMI, other adiposity measurements and/or diabetes (leading comorbidity of obesity). We further explored whether treatment efficacy was evaluated according to BMI. Methods: A search of Pubmed and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed to identify phase I-IV trials investigating novel systemic breast cancer treatments. Dosing regimens and exclusion based on BMI, adiposity measurements or diabetes, documentation of BMI and subgroup analyses according to BMI were assessed. Results: 495 trials evaluating 26 different drugs were included. Most of the drugs (21/26, 81%) were given in a fixed dose independent of patient weight. BMI was an exclusion criterion in 3 out of 495 trials. Patients with diabetes, the leading comorbidity of obesity, were excluded in 67/495 trials (13.5%). Distribution of patients according to BMI was mentioned in 8% of the manuscripts, subgroup analysis was performed in 2 trials. No other measures of adiposity/body composition were mentioned in any of the trials. Retrospective analyses on the impact of BMI were performed in 6 trials. Conclusions: Patient adiposity is hardly considered as most novel drug treatments are given in a fixed dose. BMI is generally not reported in recent trials and few secondary analyses are performed. Given the prevalence of patients with obesity and the impact obesity can have on pharmacokinetics and cancer biology, more attention should be given by investigators and study sponsors to reporting patient’s BMI and evaluating its impact on treatment efficacy and toxicity.</p

Reporting on patient’s body mass index (BMI) in recent clinical trials for patients with breast cancer:a systematic review

Background: The proportion of patients with breast cancer and obesity is increasing. While the therapeutic landscape of breast cancer has been expanding, we lack knowledge about the potential differential efficacy of most drugs according to the body mass index (BMI). Here, we conducted a systematic review on recent clinical drug trials to document the dosing regimen of recent drugs, the reporting of BMI and the possible exclusion of patients according to BMI, other adiposity measurements and/or diabetes (leading comorbidity of obesity). We further explored whether treatment efficacy was evaluated according to BMI. Methods: A search of Pubmed and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed to identify phase I-IV trials investigating novel systemic breast cancer treatments. Dosing regimens and exclusion based on BMI, adiposity measurements or diabetes, documentation of BMI and subgroup analyses according to BMI were assessed. Results: 495 trials evaluating 26 different drugs were included. Most of the drugs (21/26, 81%) were given in a fixed dose independent of patient weight. BMI was an exclusion criterion in 3 out of 495 trials. Patients with diabetes, the leading comorbidity of obesity, were excluded in 67/495 trials (13.5%). Distribution of patients according to BMI was mentioned in 8% of the manuscripts, subgroup analysis was performed in 2 trials. No other measures of adiposity/body composition were mentioned in any of the trials. Retrospective analyses on the impact of BMI were performed in 6 trials. Conclusions: Patient adiposity is hardly considered as most novel drug treatments are given in a fixed dose. BMI is generally not reported in recent trials and few secondary analyses are performed. Given the prevalence of patients with obesity and the impact obesity can have on pharmacokinetics and cancer biology, more attention should be given by investigators and study sponsors to reporting patient’s BMI and evaluating its impact on treatment efficacy and toxicity.</p

Results of a worldwide survey on the currently used histopathological diagnostic criteria for invasive lobular breast cancer

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) represents the second most common subtype of breast cancer (BC), accounting for up to 15% of all invasive BC. Loss of cell adhesion due to functional inactivation of E-cadherin is the hallmark of ILC. Although the current world health organization (WHO) classification for diagnosing ILC requires the recognition of the dispersed or linear non-cohesive growth pattern, it is not mandatory to demonstrate E-cadherin loss by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Recent results of central pathology review of two large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated relative overdiagnosis of ILC, as only similar to 60% of the locally diagnosed ILCs were confirmed by central pathology. To understand the possible underlying reasons of this discrepancy, we undertook a worldwide survey on the current practice of diagnosing BC as ILC. A survey was drafted by a panel of pathologists and researchers from the European lobular breast cancer consortium (ELBCC) using the online tool SurveyMonkey (R). Various parameters such as indications for IHC staining, IHC clones, and IHC staining procedures were questioned. Finally, systematic reporting of non-classical ILC variants were also interrogated. This survey was sent out to pathologists worldwide and circulated from December 14, 2020 until July, 1 2021. The results demonstrate that approximately half of the institutions use E-cadherin expression loss by IHC as an ancillary test to diagnose ILC and that there is a great variability in immunostaining protocols. This might cause different staining results and discordant interpretations. As ILC-specific therapeutic and diagnostic avenues are currently explored in the context of clinical trials, it is of importance to improve standardization of histopathologic diagnosis of ILC diagnosis

International survey on invasive lobular breast cancer identifies priority research questions

There is growing awareness of the unique etiology, biology, and clinical presentation of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), but additional research is needed to ensure translation of findings into management and treatment guidelines. We conducted a survey with input from breast cancer physicians, laboratory-based researchers, and patients to analyze the current understanding of ILC, and identify consensus research questions. 1774 participants from 66 countries respondents self-identified as clinicians (N = 413), researchers (N = 376), and breast cancer patients and advocates (N = 1120), with some belonging to more than one category. The majority of physicians reported being very/extremely (41%) to moderately (42%) confident in describing the differences between ILC and invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST). Knowledge of histology was seen as important (73%) and as affecting treatment decisions (51%), and most agreed that refining treatment guidelines would be valuable (76%). 85% of clinicians have never powered a clinical trial to allow subset analysis for histological subtypes, but the majority would consider it, and would participate in an ILC clinical trials consortium. The majority of laboratory researchers, reported being and very/extremely (48%) to moderately (29%) confident in describing differences between ILC and NST. They reported that ILCs are inadequately presented in large genomic data sets, and that ILC models are insufficient. The majority have adequate access to tissue or blood from patients with ILC. The majority of patients and advocates (52%) thought that their health care providers did not sufficiently explain the unique features of ILC. They identified improvement of ILC screening/early detection, and identification of better imaging tools as top research priorities. In contrast, both researchers and clinicians identified understanding of endocrine resistance and identifying novel drugs that can be tested in clinical trials as top research priority. In summary, we have gathered information from an international community of physicians, researchers, and patients/advocates that we expect will lay the foundation for a community-informed collaborative research agenda, with the goal of improving management and personalizing treatment for patients with ILC

Reporting on invasive lobular breast cancer in clinical trials: a systematic review

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) differs from invasive breast cancer of no special type in many ways. Evidence on treatment efficacy for ILC is, however, lacking. We studied the degree of documentation and representation of ILC in phase III/IV clinical trials for novel breast cancer treatments. Trials were identified on Pubmed and clinicaltrials.gov. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were reviewed for requirements on histological subtype and tumor measurability. Documentation of ILC was assessed and ILC inclusion rate, central pathology and subgroup analyses were evaluated. Inclusion restrictions concerning tumor measurability were found in 39/93 manuscripts. Inclusion rates for ILC were documented in 13/93 manuscripts and varied between 2.0 and 26.0%. No central pathology for ILC was reported and 3/13 manuscripts had ILC sub-analyses. ILC is largely disregarded in most trials with poor representation and documentation. The current inclusion criteria using RECIST v1.1, fall short in recognizing the unique non-measurable metastatic infiltration of ILC

International survey on invasive lobular breast cancer identifies priority research questions

There is growing awareness of the unique etiology, biology, and clinical presentation of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), but additional research is needed to ensure translation of findings into management and treatment guidelines. We conducted a survey with input from breast cancer physicians, laboratory-based researchers, and patients to analyze the current understanding of ILC, and identify consensus research questions. 1774 participants from 66 countries respondents self-identified as clinicians (N = 413), researchers (N = 376), and breast cancer patients and advocates (N = 1120), with some belonging to more than one category. The majority of physicians reported being very/extremely (41%) to moderately (42%) confident in describing the differences between ILC and invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST). Knowledge of histology was seen as important (73%) and as affecting treatment decisions (51%), and most agreed that refining treatment guidelines would be valuable (76%). 85% of clinicians have never powered a clinical trial to allow subset analysis for histological subtypes, but the majority would consider it, and would participate in an ILC clinical trials consortium. The majority of laboratory researchers, reported being and very/extremely (48%) to moderately (29%) confident in describing differences between ILC and NST. They reported that ILCs are inadequately presented in large genomic data sets, and that ILC models are insufficient. The majority have adequate access to tissue or blood from patients with ILC. The majority of patients and advocates (52%) thought that their health care providers did not sufficiently explain the unique features of ILC. They identified improvement of ILC screening/early detection, and identification of better imaging tools as top research priorities. In contrast, both researchers and clinicians identified understanding of endocrine resistance and identifying novel drugs that can be tested in clinical trials as top research priority. In summary, we have gathered information from an international community of physicians, researchers, and patients/advocates that we expect will lay the foundation for a community-informed collaborative research agenda, with the goal of improving management and personalizing treatment for patients with ILC

DSCR1 is required for both axonal growth cone extension and steering

Local information processing in the growth cone is essential for correct wiring of the nervous system. As an axon navigates through the developing nervous system, the growth cone responds to extrinsic guidance cues by coordinating axon outgrowth with growth cone steering. It has become increasingly clear that axon extension requires proper actin polymerization dynamics, whereas growth cone steering involves local protein synthesis. However, molecular components integrating these two processes have not been identified. Here, we show that Down syndrome critical region 1 protein (DSCR1) controls axon outgrowth by modulating growth cone actin dynamics through regulation of cofilin activity (phospho/dephospho-cofilin). Additionally, DSCR1 mediates brain-derived neurotrophic factor-induced local protein synthesis and growth cone turning. Our study identifies DSCR1 as a key protein that couples axon growth and pathfinding by dually regulating actin dynamics and local protein synthesis.clos

Results of a worldwide survey on the currently used histopathological diagnostic criteria for invasive lobular breast cancer

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) represents the second most common subtype of breast cancer (BC), accounting for up to 15% of all invasive BC. Loss of cell adhesion due to functional inactivation of E-cadherin is the hallmark of ILC. Although the current world health organization (WHO) classification for diagnosing ILC requires the recognition of the dispersed or linear non-cohesive growth pattern, it is not mandatory to demonstrate E-cadherin loss by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Recent results of central pathology review of two large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated relative overdiagnosis of ILC, as only similar to 60% of the locally diagnosed ILCs were confirmed by central pathology. To understand the possible underlying reasons of this discrepancy, we undertook a worldwide survey on the current practice of diagnosing BC as ILC. A survey was drafted by a panel of pathologists and researchers from the European lobular breast cancer consortium (ELBCC) using the online tool SurveyMonkey (R). Various parameters such as indications for IHC staining, IHC clones, and IHC staining procedures were questioned. Finally, systematic reporting of non-classical ILC variants were also interrogated. This survey was sent out to pathologists worldwide and circulated from December 14, 2020 until July, 1 2021. The results demonstrate that approximately half of the institutions use E-cadherin expression loss by IHC as an ancillary test to diagnose ILC and that there is a great variability in immunostaining protocols. This might cause different staining results and discordant interpretations. As ILC-specific therapeutic and diagnostic avenues are currently explored in the context of clinical trials, it is of importance to improve standardization of histopathologic diagnosis of ILC diagnosis

Rapid autopsies to enhance metastatic research: the UPTIDER post-mortem tissue donation program

Research on metastatic cancer has been hampered by limited sample availability. Here we present the breast cancer post-mortem tissue donation program UPTIDER and show how it enabled sampling of a median of 31 (range: 5-90) metastases and 5-8 liquids per patient from its first 20 patients. In a dedicated experiment, we show the mild impact of increasing time after death on RNA quality, transcriptional profiles and immunohistochemical staining in tumor tissue samples. We show that this impact can be counteracted by organ cooling. We successfully generated ex vivo models from tissue and liquid biopsies from distinct histological subtypes of breast cancer. We anticipate these and future findings of UPTIDER to elucidate mechanisms of disease progression and treatment resistance and to provide tools for the exploration of precision medicine strategies in the metastatic setting