Multigene assays have been developed and validated to determine the prognosis of breast cancer. In this study, we assessed the additional predictive value of the 70-gene MammaPrint signature for ...chemotherapy (CT) benefit in addition to endocrine therapy (ET) from pooled study series. For 541 patients who received either ET (n = 315) or ET + CT (n = 226), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at 5 years were assessed separately for the 70-gene high and low risk groups. The 70-gene signature classified 252 patients (47%) as low risk and 289 (53%) as high risk. Within the 70-gene low risk group, BCSS was 97% for the ET group and 99% for the ET + CT group at 5 years with a non-significant univariate hazard ratio (HR) of 0.58 (95% CI 0.07-4.98; P = 0.62). In the 70-gene high risk group, BCSS was 81% (ET group) and 94% (ET + CT group) at 5 years with a significant HR of 0.21 (95% CI 0.07-0.59; P < 0.01). DDFS was 93% (ET) versus 99% (ET + CT), respectively, in the 70-gene low risk group, HR 0.26 (95% CI 0.03-2.02; P = 0.20). In the high risk group DDFS was 76 versus 88%, HR of 0.35 (95% CI 0.17-0.71; P < 0.01). Results were similar in multivariate analysis, showing significant survival benefit by adding CT in the 70-gene high risk group. A significant and clinically meaningful benefit was observed by adding chemotherapy to endocrine treatment in 70-gene high risk patients. This benefit was not significant in low risk patients, who were at such low risk for recurrence and cancer-related death, that adding CT does not appear to be clinically meaningful.
Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after a local excision (LE) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) aims at reduction of the incidence of a local recurrence (LR). We analyzed the long-term risk on developing ...LR and its impact on survival after local treatment for DCIS.
Between 1986 and 1996, 1,010 women with complete LE of DCIS less than 5 cm were randomly assigned to no further treatment (LE group, n = 503) or RT (LE+RT group, n = 507). The median follow-up time was 15.8 years.
Radiotherapy reduced the risk of any LR by 48% (hazard ratio HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P < .001). The 15-year LR-free rate was 69% in the LE group, which was increased to 82% in the LE+RT group. The 15-year invasive LR-free rate was 84% in the LE group and 90% in the LE+RT group (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.87). The differences in LR in both arms did not lead to differences in breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS; HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.91) or overall survival (OS; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.44). Patients with invasive LR had a significantly worse BCSS (HR, 17.66; 95% CI, 8.86 to 35.18) and OS (HR, 5.17; 95% CI, 3.09 to 8.66) compared with those who did not experience recurrence. A lower overall salvage mastectomy rate after LR was observed in the LE+RT group than in the LE group (13% v 19%, respectively).
At 15 years, almost one in three nonirradiated women developed an LR after LE for DCIS. RT reduced this risk by a factor of 2. Although women who developed an invasive recurrence had worse survival, the long-term prognosis was good and independent of the given treatment.
Summary Background If treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary ...lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects. Methods Patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00014612. Findings Between Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1–8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00–0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31–2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00–5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. Interpretation Axillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity. Funding EORTC Charitable Trust.
The MINDACT trial showed excellent 5-year distant metastasis-free survival of 94·7% (95% CI 92·5–96·2) in patients with breast cancer of high clinical and low genomic risk who did not receive ...chemotherapy. We present long-term follow-up results together with an exploratory analysis by age.
MINDACT was a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 112 academic and community hospitals in nine European countries. Patients aged 18–70 years, with histologically confirmed primary invasive breast cancer (stage T1, T2, or operable T3) with up to three positive lymph nodes, no distant metastases, and a WHO performance status of 0–1 were enrolled and their genomic risk (using the MammaPrint 70-gene signature) and clinical risk (using a modified version of Adjuvant! Online) were determined. Patients with low clinical and low genomic risk results did not receive chemotherapy, and patients with high clinical and high genomic risk did receive chemotherapy (mostly anthracycline-based or taxane-based, or a combination thereof). Patients with discordant risk results (ie, patients with high clinical risk but low genomic risk, and those with low clinical risk but high genomic risk) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy or not based on either the clinical risk or the genomic risk. Randomisation was done centrally and used a minimisation technique that was stratified by institution, risk group, and clinical–pathological characteristics. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was to test whether the distant metastasis-free survival rate at 5 years in patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk not receiving chemotherapy had a lower boundary of the 95% CI above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%. In the primary test population of patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk who adhered to the treatment allocation of no chemotherapy and had no change in risk post-enrolment. Here, we present updated follow-up as well as an exploratory analysis of a potential age effect (≤50 years vs >50 years) and an analysis by nodal status for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative disease. These analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00433589, and the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2005–002625–31. Recruitment is complete and further long-term follow-up is ongoing.
Between Feb 8, 2007, and July 11, 2011, 6693 patients were enrolled. On Feb 26, 2020, median follow-up was 8·7 years (IQR 7·8–9·7). The updated 5-year distant metastasis-free survival rate for patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk receiving no chemotherapy (primary test population, n=644) was 95·1% (95% CI 93·1–96·6), which is above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%, supporting the previous analysis and proving MINDACT as a positive de-escalation trial. Patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=749) or not (n=748); this was the intention-to-treat population. The 8-year estimates for distant metastasis-free survival in the intention-to-treat population were 92·0% (95% CI 89·6–93·8) for chemotherapy versus 89·4% (86·8–91·5) for no chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·48–0·92). An exploratory analysis confined to the subset of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease (1358 90.7% of 1497 randomly assigned patients, of whom 676 received chemotherapy and 682 did not) shows different effects of chemotherapy administration on 8-year distant metastasis-free survival according to age: 93·6% (95% CI 89·3–96·3) with chemotherapy versus 88·6% (83·5–92·3) without chemotherapy in 464 women aged 50 years or younger (absolute difference 5·0 percentage points SE 2·8, 95% CI −0·5 to 10·4) and 90·2% (86·8–92·7) versus 90·0% (86·6–92·6) in 894 women older than 50 years (absolute difference 0·2 percentage points 2·1, −4·0 to 4·4). The 8-year distant metastasis-free survival in the exploratory analysis by nodal status in these patients was 91·7% (95% CI 88·1–94·3) with chemotherapy and 89·2% (85·2–92·2) without chemotherapy in 699 node-negative patients (absolute difference 2·5 percentage points SE 2·3, 95% CI −2·1 to 7·2) and 91·2% (87·2–94·0) versus 89·9% (85·8–92·8) for 658 patients with one to three positive nodes (absolute difference 1·3 percentage points 2·4, −3·5 to 6·1).
With a more mature follow-up approaching 9 years, the 70-gene signature shows an intact ability of identifying among women with high clinical risk, a subgroup, namely patients with a low genomic risk, with an excellent distant metastasis-free survival when treated with endocrine therapy alone. For these women the magnitude of the benefit from adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remains small (2·6 percentage points) and is not enhanced by nodal positivity. However, in an underpowered exploratory analysis this benefit appears to be age-dependent, as it is only seen in women younger than 50 years where it reaches a clinically relevant threshold of 5 percentage points. Although, possibly due to chemotherapy-induced ovarian function suppression, it should be part of informed, shared decision making. Further study is needed in younger women, who might need reinforced endocrine therapy to forego chemotherapy.
European Commission Sixth Framework Programme.
The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10981-22023 AMAROS trial evaluated axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus axillary radiotherapy (ART) in patients with cT1-2, ...node-negative breast cancer and a positive sentinel node (SN) biopsy. At 5 years, both modalities showed excellent and comparable axillary control, with significantly less morbidity after ART. We now report the preplanned 10-year analysis of the axillary recurrence rate (ARR), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS), and an updated 5-year analysis of morbidity and quality of life.
In this open-label multicenter phase III noninferiority trial, 4,806 patients underwent SN biopsy; 1,425 were node-positive and randomly assigned to either ALND (n = 744) or ART (n = 681).
Per intention-to-treat analysis, 10-year ARR cumulative incidence was 0.93% (95% CI, 0.18 to 1.68; seven events) after ALND and 1.82% (95% CI, 0.74 to 2.94; 11 events) after ART (hazard ratio HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.67 to 4.39). There were no differences in OS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.52) or DFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.46). ALND was associated with a higher lymphedema rate in updated 5-year analyses (24.5%
11.9%;
< .001). Quality-of-life scales did not differ by treatment through 5 years. Exploratory analysis showed a 10-year cumulative incidence of second primary cancers of 12.1% (95% CI, 9.6 to 14.9) after ART and 8.3% (95% CI, 6.3 to 10.7) after ALND.
This 10-year analysis confirms a low ARR after both ART and ALND with no difference in OS, DFS, and locoregional control. Considering less arm morbidity, ART is preferred over ALND for patients with SN-positive cT1-2 breast cancer.
Background
The randomized EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial investigates whether breast cancer patients with a tumor-positive sentinel node biopsy (SNB) are best treated with an axillary lymph node ...dissection (ALND) or axillary radiotherapy (ART). The aim of the current substudy was to evaluate the identification rate and the nodal involvement.
Methods
The first 2,000 patients participating in the AMAROS trial were evaluated. Associations between the identification rate and technical, patient-, and tumor-related factors were evaluated. The outcome of the SNB procedure and potential further nodal involvement was assessed.
Results
In 65 patients, the sentinel node could not be identified. As a result, the sentinel node identification rate was 97% (1,888 of 1,953). Variables affecting the success rate were age, pathological tumor size, histology, year of accrual, and method of detection. The SNB results of 65% of the patients (
n
= 1,220) were negative and the patients underwent no further axillary treatment. The SNB results were positive in 34% of the patients (
n
= 647), including macrometastases (
n
= 409, 63%), micrometastases (
n
= 161, 25%), and isolated tumor cells (
n
= 77, 12%). Further nodal involvement in patients with macrometastases, micrometastases, and isolated tumor cells undergoing an ALND was 41, 18, and 18%, respectively.
Conclusions
With a 97% detection rate in this prospective international multicenter study, the SNB procedure is highly effective, especially when the combined method is used. Further nodal involvement in patients with micrometastases and isolated tumor cells in the sentinel node was similar—both were 18%.
We sought to compare the molecular signature of node negative cancers from two cohorts 15 years apart, to determine if there is molecular evidence of increase in low and ultralow risk cancers over ...time. We studied the impact of age, time period of diagnosis, and mammographic screening on biology of tumors where The Netherlands Cancer Institute 70-gene prognosis signature was generated as part of 2 validation series, one retrospective (1984–1992), Cohort 1, and one prospective (2004–2006), Cohort 2. A total of 866 patients were analyzed. Regardless of time period of diagnosis, the proportion of T1, grade 1, hormone receptor positive (HR) tumors, and good prognosis by 70-gene signature significantly increases as age increases (
P
< 0.01). In women aged 49–60, the time period of diagnosis significantly affects the proportion of cancers that were NKI 70-gene low risk: 40.6% (67/165) compared with 58% (119/205) for Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. This is in contrast to the absence of a significant change for women under age 40, where 25% (17/68) and 30% (17/56) were low risk in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. In women aged 49–60, using an ultralow risk threshold of the 70-gene signature, 10% of tumors in Cohort 1 were ultralow risk compared with 30% for women with screen-detected cancers in Cohort 2. Older age and method of detection (screening) are associated with a higher likelihood of a biologically low risk tumor. In women over age 50, biologically low risk tumors are frequent and tools that classify risk may minimize overtreatment.
Background
Knowledge of regional lymph node involvement is important in patients with recurrent breast cancer for obtaining better locoregional control and predicting prognosis. To determine ...technical feasibility, validity, aberrant drainage rates, and clinical consequences of performing repeat sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in patients with locally recurrent breast cancer we conducted the “Sentinel Node and Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB)” study.
Methods
A total of 150 patients with locally recurrent breast cancer underwent lymphatic mapping and SNB. In case of an intact axillary lymph node basin, ipsilateral axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was performed subsequently.
Results
A total of 41 patients previously underwent breast conserving therapy (BCT) with SNB, 82 patients BCT with ALND, and 21 patients a mastectomy, of which 9 with SNB and 12 with ALND. In 95 patients (63.3 %) a sentinel node was identified and in 78 patients (52 %) the sentinel node was successfully removed. In 18 patients (22.8 %) a (micro)metastasis was found on pathologic examination. Confirmation ALND in 18 patients showed no axillary lymph node metastases. Aberrant drainage pathways were visualized in 58.9 % of the patients, significantly more frequently after a previous ALND (79.3 %) than after a previous SNB (25.0 %) (
P
< .0001). Overall, the result of this repeat SNB led to a change in the adjuvant treatment plan in 16.5 % of the patients with a successful repeat SNB.
Conclusions
Repeat SNB is technically feasible and provides reliable results in patients with locally recurrent breast cancer, leading to change in management in 1 of 6 patients.
SummaryBackgroundApproximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines ...for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk. MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30–55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661. FindingsBetween Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4·3 (SD 1·76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0·0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm 5–14 vs 17 mm 13–22; p=0·010) and less frequently node positive (four 17% of 24 vs five 63% of eight; p=0·023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 48% of 25 in the MRI group vs one 7% of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0·035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two 11% of 18 in the MRI group vs five 63% of eight in the mammography group; p=0·014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0·0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group). InterpretationMRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density. FundingDutch Government ZonMw, Dutch Cancer Society, A Sister's Hope, Pink Ribbon, Stichting Coolsingel, J&T Rijke Stichting.
Patients with 70-gene signature ultralow-risk breast cancers have shown excellent survival in historic cohorts, including randomized trials. The ultralow-risk subgroup was characterized to help avoid ...overtreatment. We evaluated outcomes of ultralow-risk patients in the largest cohort to date.
Of the 6,693 patients enrolled in the EORTC-10041/BIG-3-04 randomized phase III MINDACT trial, profiling revealed an ultralow-risk 70-gene signature in 1,000 patients (15%). Distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were assessed in patients stratified by 70-gene signature result (high, low, and ultralow) by Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios with 95% CI from Cox regression.
Median follow-up was 8.7 years. Of the ultralow-risk patients (n = 1,000), 67% were > 50 years, 81% had tumors ≤ 2 cm, 80% were lymph node-negative, 96% had grade 1 or 2 tumors, and 99% were estrogen receptor (ER)-positive. Systemic therapy was received by 84% of patients (69% endocrine therapy, 14% endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy, 1% other) and 16% received no adjuvant systemic treatment. The 8-year DMFI for ultralow-risk patients was 97.0% (95% CI, 95.8 to 98.1), which was 2.5% higher than for patients with low-risk tumors (n = 3,295, 94.5% 95% CI, 93.6 to 95.3). The hazard ratio for DMFI was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.94) for ultralow versus low risk, after adjusting for clinical-pathologic and treatment characteristics. The 8-year BCSS for ultralow-risk patients was 99.6% (95% CI, 99.1 to 100).
Patients with an ultralow-risk 70-gene signature have the best prognosis, distinctive from low risk, with 8-year BCSS above 99%, and very few patients developed distant metastases with an 8-year DMFI rate of 97%. These patients could be candidates for further de-escalation of treatment, to avoid overtreatment and the risk of side effects.
PDF
