Estrogen/progesterone Receptor and HER2 Discordance Between Primary Tumor and Brain Metastases in Breast Cancer and Its Effect on Treatment and Survival

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment is based on estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). At the time of metastasis, receptor status can be discordant from that at initial diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of discordance and its effect on survival and subsequent treatment in patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). METHODS: A retrospective database of 316 patients who underwent craniotomy for BCBM between 2006 and 2017 was created. Discordance was considered present if the ER, PR, or HER2 status differed between the primary tumor and the BCBM. RESULTS: The overall receptor discordance rate was 132/316 (42%), and the subtype discordance rate was 100/316 (32%). Hormone receptors (HR, either ER or PR) were gained in 40/160 (25%) patients with HR-negative primary tumors. HER2 was gained in 22/173 (13%) patients with HER2-negative primary tumors. Subsequent treatment was not adjusted for most patients who gained receptors-nonetheless, median survival (MS) improved but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 17-28 mo, P = 0.12; HER2, 15-19 mo, P = 0.39). MS for patients who lost receptors was worse (HR, 27-18 mo, P = 0.02; HER2, 30-18 mo, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Receptor discordance between primary tumor and BCBM is common, adversely affects survival if receptors are lost, and represents a missed opportunity for use of effective treatments if receptors are gained. Receptor analysis of BCBM is indicated when clinically appropriate. Treatment should be adjusted accordingly. KEY POINTS: 1. Receptor discordance alters subtype in 32% of BCBM patients.2. The frequency of receptor gain for HR and HER2 was 25% and 13%, respectively.3. If receptors are lost, survival suffers. If receptors are gained, consider targeted treatment

Initial Assessment, Surveillance, and Management of Blood Pressure in Patients Receiving Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Signaling Pathway Inhibitors

Hypertension is a mechanism-based toxic effect of drugs that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor signaling pathway (VSP). Substantial evidence exists for managing hypertension as a chronic condition, but there are few prospectively collected data on managing acute hypertension caused by VSP inhibitors. The Investigational Drug Steering Committee of the National Cancer Institute convened an interdisciplinary cardiovascular toxicities expert panel to evaluate this problem, to make recommendations to the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program on further study, and to structure an approach for safe management by treating physicians. The panel reviewed: the published literature on blood pressure (BP), hypertension, and specific VSP inhibitors; abstracts from major meetings; shared experience with the development of VSP inhibitors; and established principles of hypertension care. The panel generated a consensus report including the recommendations on clinical concerns summarized here. To support the greatest possible number of patients to receive VSP inhibitors safely and effectively, the panel had four recommendations: 1) conduct and document a formal risk assessment for potential cardiovascular complications, 2) recognize that preexisting hypertension will be common in cancer patients and should be identified and addressed before initiation of VSP inhibitor therapy, 3) actively monitor BP throughout treatment with more frequent assessments during the first cycle of treatment, and 4) manage BP with a goal of less than 140/90 mmHg for most patients (and to lower, prespecified goals in patients with specific preexisting cardiovascular risk factors). Proper agent selection, dosing, and scheduling of follow-up should enable maintaining VSP inhibition while avoiding the complications associated with excessive or prolonged elevation in BP

THE CASE OF COMPARABLE WORTH IN WASHINGTON STATE

Twelve years after its precedent-setting comparable worth study, Washington State has approved an agreement guaranteeing implementation of its comparable worth system by 1993. A history is presented of state actions on comparable worth. The causes for the slow course of policy formation and implementation are seen to lie with the following: being the first to conduct a study, taking too long to act, the changes in persons in key positions, the state economy, attitudes towards state workers, lack of focus of responsibility, and denial that sex-based differences in wages are the bases for Comparable worth adjustments. Copyright 1986 by The Policy Studies Organization.