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

Prognostic utility of the breast cancer index and comparison to Adjuvant! Online in a clinical case series of early breast cancer

Introduction\ud Breast Cancer Index (BCI) combines two independent biomarkers, HOXB13:IL17BR (H:I) and the 5-gene molecular grade index (MGI), that assess estrogen-mediated signalling and tumor grade, respectively. BCI stratifies early-stage estrogen-receptor positive (ER+), lymph-node negative (LN-) breast cancer patients into three risk groups and provides a continuous assessment of individual risk of distant recurrence. Objectives of the current study were to validate BCI in a clinical case series and to compare the prognostic utility of BCI and Adjuvant!Online (AO).\ud \ud Methods\ud Tumor samples from 265 ER+LN- tamoxifen-treated patients were identified from a single academic institution's cancer research registry. The BCI assay was performed and scores were assigned based on a pre-determined risk model. Risk was assessed by BCI and AO and correlated to clinical outcomes in the patient cohort.\ud \ud Results\ud BCI was a significant predictor of outcome in a cohort of 265 ER+LN- patients (median age: 56-y; median follow-up: 10.3-y), treated with adjuvant tamoxifen alone or tamoxifen with chemotherapy (32%). BCI categorized 55%, 21%, and 24% of patients as low, intermediate and high-risk, respectively. The 10-year rates of distant recurrence were 6.6%, 12.1% and 31.9% and of breast cancer-specific mortality were 3.8%, 3.6% and 22.1% in low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively. In a multivariate analysis including clinicopathological factors, BCI was a significant predictor of distant recurrence (HR for 5-unit increase = 5.32 [CI 2.18-13.01; P = 0.0002]) and breast cancer-specific mortality (HR for a 5-unit increase = 9.60 [CI 3.20-28.80; P < 0.0001]). AO was significantly associated with risk of recurrence. In a separate multivariate analysis, both BCI and AO were significantly predictive of outcome. In a time-dependent (10-y) ROC curve accuracy analysis of recurrence risk, the addition of BCI+AO increased predictive accuracy in all patients from 66% (AO only) to 76% (AO+BCI) and in tamoxifen-only treated patients from 65% to 81%.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud This study validates the prognostic performance of BCI in ER+LN- patients. In this characteristically low-risk cohort, BCI classified high versus low-risk groups with ~5-fold difference in 10-year risk of distant recurrence and breast cancer-specific death. BCI and AO are independent predictors with BCI having additive utility beyond standard of care parameters that are encompassed in AO

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic sequence variants in women of African origin or ancestry.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) pathogenic sequence variants (PSVs) confer elevated risks of multiple cancers. However, most BRCA1/2 PSVs reports focus on European ancestry individuals. Knowledge of the PSV distribution in African descent individuals is poorly understood. We undertook a systematic review of the published literature and publicly available databases reporting BRCA1/2 PSVs also accessed the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) database to identify African or African descent individuals. Using these data, we inferred which of the BRCA PSVs were likely to be of African continental origin. Of the 43,817 BRCA1/2 PSV carriers in the CIMBA database, 469 (1%) were of African descent. Additional African descent individuals were identified in public databases (n = 291) and the literature (n = 601). We identified 164 unique BRCA1 and 173 unique BRCA2 PSVs in individuals of African ancestry. Of these, 83 BRCA1 and 91 BRCA2 PSVs are of likely or possible African origin. We observed numerous differences in the distribution of PSV type and function in African origin versus non-African origin PSVs. Research in populations of African ancestry with BRCA1/2 PSVs is needed to provide the information needed for clinical management and decision-making in African descent individuals worldwide

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

Transcriptome-wide association study of breast cancer risk by estrogen-receptor status

Previous transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome-wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype-specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta-analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER-). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER- subtypes, using a case-only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER- breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS-significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast-cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS-significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER- breast cancer.Peer reviewe