Rethinking neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. In 2014, 55 000 women in the UK were given the diagnosis of breast cancer, and 11 000 died.1 Early breast cancer is traditionally treated with surgery, plus radiotherapy and adjuvant systemic therapy as required. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is a new strategy that was introduced towards the end of the 20th century with the aim of reducing tumour size. It has four main rationales. Firstly, it should render an otherwise inoperable tumour operable or, secondly, allow more conservative surgery. Thirdly, starting systemic treatment preoperatively was hoped to lead to improved overall survival in patients with locally advanced cancers, who are at high risk of having distant disease. Finally, unlike adjuvant chemotherapy given in the absence of any measurable disease, neoadjuvant chemotherapy gives us the opportunity to observe the tumour shrink both palpably and on imaging, enabling a rapid assessment of clinical response. This could help test responses in vivo to new drug regimens, which could then be used as adjuvant therapies, in so called window of opportunity studies. A survey of multidisciplinary teams in Australia, Germany, Italy, the UK, and the US found that 7-27% of new breast cancers are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Saunders C, Cody H, Kolberg HC, et al, personal communication, 2017). With 1.7 million women receiving diagnoses annually, this translates into 120 000-460 000 women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy worldwide.1 Although data indicate that the first rationale remains valid, the others have not led to the desired outcomes. More conservative surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy can result in a higher rate of local recurrence, and, despite the earlier initiation of systemic treatment, no improvement in survival has been seen.234 Furthermore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy may not help test novel chemotherapies—although primary tumour response is a good indicator of prognosis for a particular treatment, it is counterintuitively a poor surrogate marker for the overall survival benefit when evaluating novel chemotherapy regimens. Finally, for 40-80% of patients, even the best neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens extend the period the cancer remains in the breast and can make surgery more difficult, as the tumour is less easily palpable and the axillary lymph nodes are less distinct. We question the wisdom of the current widespread use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Suspected breast implant rupture: our experience, recommendations on its management and a proposal for a model of informed consent

n/

Whole genome methylation profiles as independent markers of survival in stage IIIc melanoma patients

Background: The clinical course of cutaneous melanoma (CM) can differ significantly for patients with identical stages of disease, defined clinico-pathologically, and no molecular markers differentiate patients with such a diverse prognosis. This study aimed to define the prognostic value of whole genome DNA methylation profiles in stage III CM.Methods: Genome-wide methylation profiles were evaluated by the Illumina Human Methylation 27 BeadChip assay in short-term neoplastic cell cultures from 45 stage IIIC CM patients. Unsupervised K-means partitioning clustering was exploited to sort patients into 2 groups based on their methylation profiles. Methylation patterns related to the discovered groups were determined using the nearest shrunken centroid classification algorithm. The impact of genome-wide methylation patterns on overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.Results: Unsupervised K-means partitioning by whole genome methylation profiles identified classes with significantly different OS in stage IIIC CM patients. Patients with a " favorable" methylation profile had increased OS (P = 0.001, log-rank = 10.2) by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Median OS of stage IIIC patients with a " favorable" vs. " unfavorable" methylation profile were 31.5 and 10.4 months, respectively. The 5 year OS for stage IIIC patients with a " favorable" methylation profile was 41.2% as compared to 0% for patients with an " unfavorable" methylation profile. Among the variables examined by multivariate Cox regression analysis, classification defined by methylation profile was the only predictor of OS (Hazard Ratio = 2.41, for " unfavorable" methylation profile; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.02-5.70; P = 0.045). A 17 gene methylation signature able to correctly assign prognosis (overall error rate = 0) in stage IIIC patients on the basis of distinct methylation-defined groups was also identified.Conclusions: A discrete whole-genome methylation signature has been identified as molecular marker of prognosis for stage IIIC CM patients. Its use in daily practice is foreseeable, and promises to refine the comprehensive clinical management of stage III CM patients. © 2012 Sigalotti et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: powerful evidence to change practice

We believe that the recent News and Views article (Sasieni, P. D. & Sawyer, E. J. Intraoperative radiotherapy for early breast cancer — insufficient evidence to change practice. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 17, 723–724 (2020))1 about the TARGIT-A trial contains several factual and logical errors. This article overlooks both the long-term positive findings2 and the all-important patient perspective

Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial compared risk-adapted radiotherapy using single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for breast cancer. We report 5-year results for local recurrence and the first analysis of overall survival. METHODS: TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TARGIT or whole-breast EBRT, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy: randomisation occurred either before lumpectomy (prepathology stratum, TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy) or after lumpectomy (postpathology stratum, TARGIT given subsequently by reopening the wound). Patients in the TARGIT group received supplemental EBRT (excluding a boost) if unforeseen adverse features were detected on final pathology, thus radiotherapy was risk-adapted. The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2·5% at 5 years; prespecified analyses included outcomes as per timing of randomisation in relation to lumpectomy. Secondary outcomes included complications and mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled at 33 centres in 11 countries, between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012. 1721 patients were randomised to TARGIT and 1730 to EBRT. Supplemental EBRT after TARGIT was necessary in 15·2% [239 of 1571] of patients who received TARGIT (21·6% prepathology, 3·6% postpathology). 3451 patients had a median follow-up of 2 years and 5 months (IQR 12–52 months), 2020 of 4 years, and 1222 of 5 years. The 5-year risk for local recurrence in the conserved breast was 3·3% (95% CI 2·1–5·1) for TARGIT versus 1·3% (0·7–2·5) for EBRT (p=0·042). TARGIT concurrently with lumpectomy (prepathology, n=2298) had much the same results as EBRT: 2·1% (1·1–4·2) versus 1·1% (0·5–2·5; p=0·31). With delayed TARGIT (postpathology, n=1153) the between-group difference was larger than 2·5% (TARGIT 5·4% [3·0–9·7] vs EBRT 1·7% [0·6–4·9]; p=0·069). Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6% [1·5–4·3] for TARGIT vs 1·9% [1·1–3·2] for EBRT; p=0·56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1·4% [0·8–2·5] vs 3·5% [2·3–5·2]; p=0·0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers. Overall mortality was 3·9% (2·7–5·8) for TARGIT versus 5·3% (3·9–7·3) for EBRT (p=0·099). Wound-related complications were much the same between groups but grade 3 or 4 skin complications were significantly reduced with TARGIT (four of 1720 vs 13 of 1731, p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach should be considered as an option for eligible patients with breast cancer carefully selected as per the TARGIT-A trial protocol, as an alternative to postoperative EBRT. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research