AGO Recommendations for the surgical therapy of breast cancer: update 2022

The recommendations of the AGO Breast Committee on the surgical therapy of breast cancer were last updated in March 2022 (www.ago-online.de). Since surgical therapy is one of several partial steps in the treatment of breast cancer, extensive diagnostic and oncological expertise of a breast surgeon and good interdisciplinary cooperation with diagnostic radiologists is of great importance. The most important changes concern localization techniques, resection margins, axillary management in the neoadjuvant setting and the evaluation of the meshes in reconstructive surgery. Based on meta-analyses of randomized studies, the level of recommendation of an intraoperative breast ultrasound for the localization of non-palpable lesions was elevated to “++”. Thus, the technique is considered to be equivalent to wire localization, provided that it is a lesion which can be well represented by sonography, the surgeon has extensive experience in breast ultrasound and has access to a suitable ultrasound device during the operation. In invasive breast cancer, the aim is to reach negative resection margins (“no tumor on ink”), regardless of whether an extensive intraductal component is present or not. Oncoplastic operations can also replace a mastectomy in selected cases due to the large number of existing techniques, and are equivalent to segmental resection in terms of oncological safety at comparable rates of complications. Sentinel node excision is recommended for patients with cN0 status receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy after completion of chemotherapy. Minimally invasive biopsy is recommended for initially suspect lymph nodes. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, patients with initially 1 – 3 suspicious lymph nodes and a good response (ycN0) can receive the targeted axillary dissection and the axillary dissection as equivalent options

Age- and Tumor Subtype-Specific Breast Cancer Risk Estimates for CHEK2*1100delC Carriers.

PURPOSE: CHEK2*1100delC is a well-established breast cancer risk variant that is most prevalent in European populations; however, there are limited data on risk of breast cancer by age and tumor subtype, which limits its usefulness in breast cancer risk prediction. We aimed to generate tumor subtype- and age-specific risk estimates by using data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, including 44,777 patients with breast cancer and 42,997 controls from 33 studies genotyped for CHEK2*1100delC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CHEK2*1100delC genotyping was mostly done by a custom Taqman assay. Breast cancer odds ratios (ORs) for CHEK2*1100delC carriers versus noncarriers were estimated by using logistic regression and adjusted for study (categorical) and age. Main analyses included patients with invasive breast cancer from population- and hospital-based studies. RESULTS: Proportions of heterozygous CHEK2*1100delC carriers in controls, in patients with breast cancer from population- and hospital-based studies, and in patients with breast cancer from familial- and clinical genetics center-based studies were 0.5%, 1.3%, and 3.0%, respectively. The estimated OR for invasive breast cancer was 2.26 (95%CI, 1.90 to 2.69; P = 2.3 × 10(-20)). The OR was higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease (2.55 [95%CI, 2.10 to 3.10; P = 4.9 × 10(-21)]) than it was for ER-negative disease (1.32 [95%CI, 0.93 to 1.88; P = .12]; P interaction = 9.9 × 10(-4)). The OR significantly declined with attained age for breast cancer overall (P = .001) and for ER-positive tumors (P = .001). Estimated cumulative risks for development of ER-positive and ER-negative tumors by age 80 in CHEK2*1100delC carriers were 20% and 3%, respectively, compared with 9% and 2%, respectively, in the general population of the United Kingdom. CONCLUSION: These CHEK2*1100delC breast cancer risk estimates provide a basis for incorporating CHEK2*1100delC into breast cancer risk prediction models and into guidelines for intensified screening and follow-up.NIH

Patients' preferences for subcutaneous trastuzumab versus conventional intravenous infusion for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of 488 patients in the international, randomized, two-cohort PrefHer study

PrefHer revealed compelling and consistent patient preference for subcutaneous (s.c.) trastuzumab, regardless of delivery by single-use injection device or hand-held syringe. s.c. trastuzumab was well-tolerated and safety data, including immunogenicity, were consistent with previous reports. No new safety signals were identified compared with the known intravenous trastuzumab profile in early breast cance

Incorporating progesterone receptor expression into the PREDICT breast prognostic model

Background: Predict Breast (www.predict.nhs.uk) is an online prognostication and treatment benefit tool for early invasive breast cancer. The aim of this study was to incorporate the prognostic effect of progesterone receptor (PR) status into a new version of PREDICT and to compare its performance to the current version (2.2).Method: The prognostic effect of PR status was based on the analysis of data from 45,088 European patients with breast cancer from 49 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio for PR status. Data from a New Zealand study of 11,365 patients with early invasive breast cancer were used for external validation. Model calibration and discrimination were used to test the model performance.Results: Having a PR-positive tumour was associated with a 23% and 28% lower risk of dying from breast cancer for women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased with the addition of PR status from 0.807 to 0.809 for patients with ER-negative tumours (p = 0.023) and from 0.898 to 0. 902 for patients with ER-positive tumours (p = 2.3 x 10(-6)) in the New Zealand cohort. Model calibration was modest with 940 observed deaths compared to 1151 predicted.Conclusion: The inclusion of the prognostic effect of PR status to PREDICT Breast has led to an improvement of model performance and more accurate absolute treatment benefit predic-tions for individual patients. Further studies should determine whether the baseline hazard function requires recalibration. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewe

Incorporating progesterone receptor expression into the PREDICT breast prognostic model

Background: Predict Breast (www.predict.nhs.uk) is an online prognostication and treatment benefit tool for early invasive breast cancer. The aim of this study was to incorporate the prognostic effect of progesterone receptor (PR) status into a new version of PREDICT and to compare its performance to the current version (2.2).Method: The prognostic effect of PR status was based on the analysis of data from 45,088 European patients with breast cancer from 49 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio for PR status. Data from a New Zealand study of 11,365 patients with early invasive breast cancer were used for external validation. Model calibration and discrimination were used to test the model performance.Results: Having a PR-positive tumour was associated with a 23% and 28% lower risk of dying from breast cancer for women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased with the addition of PR status from 0.807 to 0.809 for patients with ER-negative tumours (p = 0.023) and from 0.898 to 0. 902 for patients with ER-positive tumours (p = 2.3 x 10(-6)) in the New Zealand cohort. Model calibration was modest with 940 observed deaths compared to 1151 predicted.Conclusion: The inclusion of the prognostic effect of PR status to PREDICT Breast has led to an improvement of model performance and more accurate absolute treatment benefit predic-tions for individual patients. Further studies should determine whether the baseline hazard function requires recalibration. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewe

ARTICLEAssociation of the CHEK2 c.1100delC variant, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with contralateral breast cancer risk and breast cancer-specific survival

Aim To assessed the associations of CHEK2 c.1100delC, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with CBC risk and BCSS. Methods Analyses were based on 82,701 women diagnosed with a first primary invasive BC including 963 CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers; median follow-up was 9.1 years. Differential associations with treatment by CHEK2 c.1100delC status were tested by including interaction terms in a multivariable Cox regression model. A multi-state model was used for further insight into the relation between CHEK2 c.1100delC status, treatment, CBC risk and death. Results There was no evidence for differential associations of therapy with CBC risk by CHEK2 c.1100delC status. The strongest association with reduced CBC risk was observed for the combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy [HR (95% CI): 0.66 (0.55–0.78)]. No association was observed with radiotherapy. Results from the multi-state model showed shorter BCSS for CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers versus non-carriers also after accounting for CBC occurrence [HR (95% CI): 1.30 (1.09–1.56)]. Conclusion Systemic therapy was associated with reduced CBC risk irrespective of CHEK2 c.1100delC status. Moreover, CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers had shorter BCSS, which appears not to be fully explained by their CBC risk

Association of the CHEK2 c.1100delC variant, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with contralateral breast cancer risk and breast cancer-specific survival

Background: Breast cancer (BC) patients with a germline CHEK2 c.1100delC variant have an increased risk of contralateral BC (CBC) and worse BC-specific survival (BCSS) compared to non-carriers.Aim: To assessed the associations of CHEK2 c.1100delC, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with CBC risk and BCSS.Methods: Analyses were based on 82,701 women diagnosed with a first primary invasive BC including 963 CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers; median follow-up was 9.1 years. Differential associations with treatment by CHEK2 c.1100delC status were tested by including interaction terms in a multivariable Cox regression model. A multi-state model was used for further insight into the relation between CHEK2 c.1100delC status, treatment, CBC risk and death. Results: There was no evidence for differential associations of therapy with CBC risk by CHEK2 c.1100delC status. The strongest association with reduced CBC risk was observed for the combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy [HR (95% CI): 0.66 (0.55-0.78)]. No association was observed with radiotherapy.Results from the multi-state model showed shorter BCSS for CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers versus non-carriers also after accounting for CBC occurrence [HR (95% CI): 1.30 (1.09-1.56)].Conclusion: Systemic therapy was associated with reduced CBC risk irrespective of CHEK2 c.1100delC status. Moreover, CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers had shorter BCSS, which appears not to be fully explained by their CBC risk.Peer reviewe

Germline variants and breast cancer survival in patients with distant metastases at primary breast cancer diagnosis.

Breast cancer metastasis accounts for most of the deaths from breast cancer. Identification of germline variants associated with survival in aggressive types of breast cancer may inform understanding of breast cancer progression and assist treatment. In this analysis, we studied the associations between germline variants and breast cancer survival for patients with distant metastases at primary breast cancer diagnosis. We used data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) including 1062 women of European ancestry with metastatic breast cancer, 606 of whom died of breast cancer. We identified two germline variants on chromosome 1, rs138569520 and rs146023652, significantly associated with breast cancer-specific survival (P = 3.19 × 10-8 and 4.42 × 10-8). In silico analysis suggested a potential regulatory effect of the variants on the nearby target genes SDE2 and H3F3A. However, the variants showed no evidence of association in a smaller replication dataset. The validation dataset was obtained from the SNPs to Risk of Metastasis (StoRM) study and included 293 patients with metastatic primary breast cancer at diagnosis. Ultimately, larger replication studies are needed to confirm the identified associations

Mendelian randomisation study of smoking exposure in relation to breast cancer risk

Background Despite a modest association between tobacco smoking and breast cancer risk reported by recent epidemiological studies, it is still equivocal whether smoking is causally related to breast cancer risk. Methods We applied Mendelian randomisation (MR) to evaluate a potential causal effect of cigarette smoking on breast cancer risk. Both individual-level data as well as summary statistics for 164 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported in genome-wide association studies of lifetime smoking index (LSI) or cigarette per day (CPD) were used to obtain MR effect estimates. Data from 108,420 invasive breast cancer cases and 87,681 controls were used for the LSI analysis and for the CPD analysis conducted among ever-smokers from 26,147 cancer cases and 26,072 controls. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address pleiotropy. Results Genetically predicted LSI was associated with increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.18 per SD, 95% CI: 1.07-1.30, P = 0.11 x 10(-2)), but there was no evidence of association for genetically predicted CPD (OR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.78-1.19, P = 0.85). The sensitivity analyses yielded similar results and showed no strong evidence of pleiotropic effect. Conclusion Our MR study provides supportive evidence for a potential causal association with breast cancer risk for lifetime smoking exposure but not cigarettes per day among smokers.Peer reviewe