Menstrual cycle associated changes in hormone-related gene expression in oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer.

The major changes in hormone levels that occur through the menstrual cycle have been postulated to affect the expression of hormone-regulated and proliferation-associated genes (PAGs) in premenopausal ER+ breast cancer. Whilst previous studies have demonstrated differences in gene expression, here, we investigated if there are within patient changes in the expression of oestrogen- and progesterone-regulated genes (ERGs and PRGs) and PAGs in ER+ breast cancer during the menstrual cycle. Samples from 96 patients in two independent prospective studies of the effect of menstrual cycle on ER+ breast cancer were used. Plasma hormone measurements were used to assign tumours to one of three pre-defined menstrual cycle windows: W1 (days 27-35 and 1-6; low oestradiol and low progesterone), W2 (days 7-16; high oestradiol and low progesterone) and W3 (days 17-26; intermediate oestradiol and high progesterone). RNA expression of 50 genes, including 27 ERGs, 11 putative PRGs and seven PAGs was measured. The AvERG (geomean of PGR, GREB1, TFF1 and PDZK1) was used as a composite measure of ERG expression and showed significant changes between the three windows of the menstrual cycle increasing over 2.2-fold between W1 and W2 and decreasing between W2 and W3 and between W3 and W1. Proliferation gene expression also varied significantly, following the same pattern of changes as ERG expression, but the changes were of lower magnitude (1.4-fold increase between W1 and W2). Significant changes in the expression of eight individual ERGs, including GREB1, PGR and TFF1, and two PAGs were observed between W1 and either W2 or W3 with all genes showing higher levels in W2 or W3 (1.3-2.4-fold; FDR 0.016-0.05). The AvProg, a composite measure of PRG expression, increased significantly (1.5-fold) in W3 compared to W1 or W2 but no significant changes were observed for individual PRGs. In conclusion, we observed significant changes in ERG, PRG and PAG expression in ER+ breast tumours during the menstrual cycle that may affect the assessment and interpretation of prominent biomarkers (e.g. PgR) and commonly used multigene prognostic signatures in premenopausal ER+ breast cancer

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences

Risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains uncertain. The risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected DCIS are unclear. METHODS: Women diagnosed with DCIS on needle biopsy after 1997 who did not undergo surgical resection for ≥1 year after diagnosis were identified by breast centres and the cancer registry and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Eighty-nine women with DCIS diagnosed 1998-2010 were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 75 (range 44-94) years with median follow-up (diagnosis to death, invasive disease or last review) of 59 (12-180) months. Twenty-nine women (33%) developed invasive breast cancer after a median interval of 45 (12-144) months. 14/29 (48%) with high grade, 10/31 (32%) with intermediate grade and 3/17 (18%) with low grade DCIS developed invasive cancer after median intervals of 38, 60 and 51 months. The cumulative incidence of invasion was significantly higher in high grade DCIS than other grades (p = .0016, log-rank test). Invasion was more frequent in lesions with calcification as the predominant feature (23/50 v. 5/25; p = .042) and in younger women (p = .0002). Endocrine therapy was associated with a lower rate of invasive breast cancer (p = .048). CONCLUSIONS: High cytonuclear grade, mammographic microcalcification, young age and lack of endocrine therapy were risk factors for DCIS progression to invasive cancer. Surgical excision of high grade DCIS remains the treatment of choice. Given the uncertain long-term natural history of non-high grade DCIS, the option of active surveillance of women with this condition should be offered within a clinical trial

A randomized trial to assess the biological activity of short-term (pre-surgical) fulvestrant 500 mg plus anastrozole versus fulvestrant 500 mg alone or anastrozole alone on primary breast cancer

Introduction: Fulvestrant shows dose-dependent biological activity. Greater estrogen-receptor (ER) blockade may feasibly be achieved by combining fulvestrant with anastrozole. This pre-surgical study compared fulvestrant plus anastrozole versus either agent alone in patients with ER-positive breast cancer. Methods: In this double-blind, multicenter trial, 121 patients received: fulvestrant 500 mg on day 1 plus anastrozole 1 mg/day for 14-21 days (F+A); fulvestrant plus anastrozole placebo (F); or fulvestrant placebo plus anastrozole (A), 2-3 weeks before surgery. ER, progesterone-receptor (PgR), and Ki67 expression were determined from tumor biopsies before treatment and at surgery. Results: 103 paired samples were available (F, n = 35; F+A, n = 31; A, n = 37). All treatments significantly reduced mean ER expression from baseline (F: 41%, P = 0.0001; F+A: 39%, P = 0.0001; A: 13%, P = 0.0034). F and F+A led to greater reductions in ER versus A (both P = 0.0001); F+A did not lead to additional reductions versus F. PgR and Ki67 expression were significantly reduced with all treatments (means were 34% to 45%, and 75% to 85%, respectively; all P = 0.0001), with no differences between groups. Conclusions: In this short-term study, all treatments reduced ER expression, although F and F+A showed greater reductions than A. No significant differences were detected between the treatment groups in terms of PgR and Ki67 expression. No additional reduction in tumor biomarkers with combination treatment was observed, suggesting that F+A is unlikely to have further clinical benefit over F alone. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00259090

HER2-enriched subtype and novel molecular subgroups drive aromatase inhibitor resistance and an increased risk of relapse in early ER+/HER2+ breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Oestrogen receptor positive/ human epidermal growth factor receptor positive (ER+/HER2+) breast cancers (BCs) are less responsive to endocrine therapy than ER+/HER2- tumours. Mechanisms underpinning the differential behaviour of ER+HER2+ tumours are poorly characterised. Our aim was to identify biomarkers of response to 2 weeks’ presurgical AI treatment in ER+/HER2+ BCs. METHODS: All available ER+/HER2+ BC baseline tumours (n=342) in the POETIC trial were gene expression profiled using BC360™ (NanoString) covering intrinsic subtypes and 46 key biological signatures. Early response to AI was assessed by changes in Ki67 expression and residual Ki67 at 2 weeks (Ki672wk). Time-To-Recurrence (TTR) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox models adjusted for standard clinicopathological variables. New molecular subgroups (MS) were identified using consensus clustering. FINDINGS: HER2-enriched (HER2-E) subtype BCs (44.7% of the total) showed poorer Ki67 response and higher Ki672wk (p<0.0001) than non-HER2-E BCs. High expression of ERBB2 expression, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and TP53 mutational score were associated with poor response and immune-related signatures with High Ki672wk. Five new MS that were associated with differential response to AI were identified. HER2-E had significantly poorer TTR compared to Luminal BCs (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.14–5.69; p=0.0222). The new MS were independent predictors of TTR, adding significant value beyond intrinsic subtypes. INTERPRETATION: Our results show HER2-E as a standardised biomarker associated with poor response to AI and worse outcome in ER+/HER2+. HRD, TP53 mutational score and immune-tumour tolerance are predictive biomarkers for poor response to AI. Lastly, novel MS identify additional non-HER2-E tumours not responding to AI with an increased risk of relapse

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Abstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown