User login
Quadruple-negative breast cancer associated with poorest outcomes
and face a poorer prognosis than patients with PD-L1–positive tumors, according to a study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, a meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
“The newly distinct quadruple negative breast cancer subtype could be considered the breast cancer subtype with the poorest outcome,” wrote the authors, who were led by Loay Kassem, MD, a clinical oncology consultant at Cairo (Egypt) University.
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 15%-20% of all breast cancers. It tends to be more aggressive and difficult to treat than other subtypes.
Prior research has shown the expression of PD-L1 in tumors is predictive of immunotherapy response in patients with metastatic TNBC. The checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and then continued as a single treatment after surgery.
To determine whether PD-L1 expression could also predict response to chemotherapy in with nonmetastatic TNBC, the researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies that included a total of 2,319 patients with nonmetastatic TBNC. The team examined whether PD-L1 expression could predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PD-L1–positive TNBC were found to be significantly associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Long-term studies have shown that PD-L1 positivity was associated with better disease-free survival and overall survival than PD-L1–negative patients.
The researchers also examined RNA sequence data, which showed that PD-L1 expression was indicative of higher levels of expression of key immune-related genes that mediate response to chemotherapy in TNBC.
Dr. Kassem and colleagues suggest that quadruple-negative breast cancer defined by a lack of PD-L1 expression is a distinct subtype of breast cancer associated with the poorest outcomes. Another quadruple-negative breast cancer – a subtype of TNBC where patients lack expression of the androgen receptor, has also been associated with more aggressive disease and poorer response to treatment.
The authors report no funding or conflicts of interest.
and face a poorer prognosis than patients with PD-L1–positive tumors, according to a study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, a meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
“The newly distinct quadruple negative breast cancer subtype could be considered the breast cancer subtype with the poorest outcome,” wrote the authors, who were led by Loay Kassem, MD, a clinical oncology consultant at Cairo (Egypt) University.
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 15%-20% of all breast cancers. It tends to be more aggressive and difficult to treat than other subtypes.
Prior research has shown the expression of PD-L1 in tumors is predictive of immunotherapy response in patients with metastatic TNBC. The checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and then continued as a single treatment after surgery.
To determine whether PD-L1 expression could also predict response to chemotherapy in with nonmetastatic TNBC, the researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies that included a total of 2,319 patients with nonmetastatic TBNC. The team examined whether PD-L1 expression could predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PD-L1–positive TNBC were found to be significantly associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Long-term studies have shown that PD-L1 positivity was associated with better disease-free survival and overall survival than PD-L1–negative patients.
The researchers also examined RNA sequence data, which showed that PD-L1 expression was indicative of higher levels of expression of key immune-related genes that mediate response to chemotherapy in TNBC.
Dr. Kassem and colleagues suggest that quadruple-negative breast cancer defined by a lack of PD-L1 expression is a distinct subtype of breast cancer associated with the poorest outcomes. Another quadruple-negative breast cancer – a subtype of TNBC where patients lack expression of the androgen receptor, has also been associated with more aggressive disease and poorer response to treatment.
The authors report no funding or conflicts of interest.
and face a poorer prognosis than patients with PD-L1–positive tumors, according to a study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, a meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
“The newly distinct quadruple negative breast cancer subtype could be considered the breast cancer subtype with the poorest outcome,” wrote the authors, who were led by Loay Kassem, MD, a clinical oncology consultant at Cairo (Egypt) University.
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 15%-20% of all breast cancers. It tends to be more aggressive and difficult to treat than other subtypes.
Prior research has shown the expression of PD-L1 in tumors is predictive of immunotherapy response in patients with metastatic TNBC. The checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer in combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and then continued as a single treatment after surgery.
To determine whether PD-L1 expression could also predict response to chemotherapy in with nonmetastatic TNBC, the researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies that included a total of 2,319 patients with nonmetastatic TBNC. The team examined whether PD-L1 expression could predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PD-L1–positive TNBC were found to be significantly associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Long-term studies have shown that PD-L1 positivity was associated with better disease-free survival and overall survival than PD-L1–negative patients.
The researchers also examined RNA sequence data, which showed that PD-L1 expression was indicative of higher levels of expression of key immune-related genes that mediate response to chemotherapy in TNBC.
Dr. Kassem and colleagues suggest that quadruple-negative breast cancer defined by a lack of PD-L1 expression is a distinct subtype of breast cancer associated with the poorest outcomes. Another quadruple-negative breast cancer – a subtype of TNBC where patients lack expression of the androgen receptor, has also been associated with more aggressive disease and poorer response to treatment.
The authors report no funding or conflicts of interest.
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2022
Twenty years and counting: Tamoxifen’s lasting improvement in breast cancer
The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.
“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.
The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.
It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.
To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes.
In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said.
“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.
A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.
“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.
The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.
It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.
To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes.
In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said.
“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.
A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.
“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.
The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.
It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.
To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes.
In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said.
“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.
A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
FROM ESMO 2022
Uninformed breast cancer patients are making treatment decisions
and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.
Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.
Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.
“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.
Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.
The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).
A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.
Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.
and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.
Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.
Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.
“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.
Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.
The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).
A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.
Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.
and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.
Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.
Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.
“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.
Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.
The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).
A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.
Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.
FROM ESMO 2022
Misconceptions remain on gene signature use in breast cancer
BERLIN – , a European survey suggests.
The authors found, for instance, that while most specialists agreed that molecular intrinsic subtypes had clinical utility for understanding prognosis in early-stage hormone receptor (HR)–positive disease and for identifying patients for whom chemotherapy could be safely avoided, about 1 in 4 experts either disagreed or felt neutral about the use of signatures in these settings.
Similarly, almost 75% of respondents felt that these signatures were not useful in the triple-negative or metastatic setting, but a small percentage believed they were, and about 10% were neutral.
“Considering that breast cancer multigene signatures were developed in the post menopausal HR+/HER2- early breast cancer setting, the fact that some experts consider [them] useful in triple-negative, HER2+ breast cancer or in the metastatic setting corroborates a misunderstanding on how to interpret the results,” study author Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, associate professor of medical oncology at the University of Milan, and colleagues wrote.
Dr. Curigliano, who is also head of the Division of Early Drug Development at the European Institute of Oncology, presented the survey findings on May 4 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO BCC) Breast Cancer Congress.
Although several breast cancer multigene signatures are available to profile early breast cancer, little information exists on how these signatures should be used in clinical practice.
To investigate, Dr. Curigliano and colleagues convened a scientific committee of eight breast cancer experts to develop a Delphi questionnaire to examine respondents’ opinions and uses of these signatures.
The questionnaire asked about the clinical utility of multigene signatures in breast cancer and recommendations for their use in clinical practice.
In all, 133 breast cancer specialists from 11 European countries completed the questionnaire. Respondents were about 49 years old on average, and most (86.5%) worked in a teaching hospital. More than 72% were medical oncologists; 12% were pathologists.
Consensus was considered to be reached when 70% or more of the respondents were in agreement on a topic.
Participants had “extensive experience in the management of breast cancer patients and have been using breast cancer multigene signatures in clinical practice,” Dr. Curigliano said.
Almost all respondents (93.6%) reported using breast cancer multigene signatures routinely or in selected patients, and 73.4% had more than 5 years of experience with them.
Overall, more than 70% of respondents agreed that identifying tumor intrinsic subtype via gene expression profiling was important in making prognostic and treatment decisions; however, a consensus was not reached on the use of immunohistochemistry.
In addition, most respondents (76%) agreed that identifying breast cancer molecular intrinsic subtypes had clinical utility for prognosis in early-stage HR-positive disease and for identifying patients for whom chemotherapy can be safely avoided (75%). However, in both cases, about one-quarter of respondents either disagreed or felt neutral.
No consensus was reached on the clinical utility of these subtypes for selecting the most appropriate chemotherapy treatment – two-thirds disagreed, while 13% agreed and 17% felt neutral.
When deciding on the use of chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting in early node-negative breast cancer, 88% of respondents felt that breast cancer multigene signatures were important. Moreover, 75% considered such signatures important when deciding whether to use chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting for patients with one to three positive lymph nodes. However, no consensus was reached on the utility of signatures for deciding whether to extend endocrine therapy in either setting.
When examining the usefulness of signatures in more special settings, the authors found that the vast majority (90%) of respondents believed that multigene signatures had clinical utility for postmenopausal early breast cancer patients, and 82% did not consider signatures clinically useful in the early-stage HER2-overexpressed setting.
In addition, 74% thought that breast cancer multigene signatures were not useful in triple-negative disease or in the metastatic setting.
Respondents did not reach a consensus on the clinical utility of multigene signatures in the neoadjuvant setting – only 27% considered them useful, and almost half did not.
The “low percentage” of respondents using the signatures in the neoadjuvant setting and the “misconception regarding the predictive value of these tests on chemotherapy benefits suggest there is still room for training on results interpretation [for breast cancer multigene signatures],” the authors write.
The study was sponsored by Veracyte. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, and Veracyte. No other relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 5/9/22.
BERLIN – , a European survey suggests.
The authors found, for instance, that while most specialists agreed that molecular intrinsic subtypes had clinical utility for understanding prognosis in early-stage hormone receptor (HR)–positive disease and for identifying patients for whom chemotherapy could be safely avoided, about 1 in 4 experts either disagreed or felt neutral about the use of signatures in these settings.
Similarly, almost 75% of respondents felt that these signatures were not useful in the triple-negative or metastatic setting, but a small percentage believed they were, and about 10% were neutral.
“Considering that breast cancer multigene signatures were developed in the post menopausal HR+/HER2- early breast cancer setting, the fact that some experts consider [them] useful in triple-negative, HER2+ breast cancer or in the metastatic setting corroborates a misunderstanding on how to interpret the results,” study author Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, associate professor of medical oncology at the University of Milan, and colleagues wrote.
Dr. Curigliano, who is also head of the Division of Early Drug Development at the European Institute of Oncology, presented the survey findings on May 4 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO BCC) Breast Cancer Congress.
Although several breast cancer multigene signatures are available to profile early breast cancer, little information exists on how these signatures should be used in clinical practice.
To investigate, Dr. Curigliano and colleagues convened a scientific committee of eight breast cancer experts to develop a Delphi questionnaire to examine respondents’ opinions and uses of these signatures.
The questionnaire asked about the clinical utility of multigene signatures in breast cancer and recommendations for their use in clinical practice.
In all, 133 breast cancer specialists from 11 European countries completed the questionnaire. Respondents were about 49 years old on average, and most (86.5%) worked in a teaching hospital. More than 72% were medical oncologists; 12% were pathologists.
Consensus was considered to be reached when 70% or more of the respondents were in agreement on a topic.
Participants had “extensive experience in the management of breast cancer patients and have been using breast cancer multigene signatures in clinical practice,” Dr. Curigliano said.
Almost all respondents (93.6%) reported using breast cancer multigene signatures routinely or in selected patients, and 73.4% had more than 5 years of experience with them.
Overall, more than 70% of respondents agreed that identifying tumor intrinsic subtype via gene expression profiling was important in making prognostic and treatment decisions; however, a consensus was not reached on the use of immunohistochemistry.
In addition, most respondents (76%) agreed that identifying breast cancer molecular intrinsic subtypes had clinical utility for prognosis in early-stage HR-positive disease and for identifying patients for whom chemotherapy can be safely avoided (75%). However, in both cases, about one-quarter of respondents either disagreed or felt neutral.
No consensus was reached on the clinical utility of these subtypes for selecting the most appropriate chemotherapy treatment – two-thirds disagreed, while 13% agreed and 17% felt neutral.
When deciding on the use of chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting in early node-negative breast cancer, 88% of respondents felt that breast cancer multigene signatures were important. Moreover, 75% considered such signatures important when deciding whether to use chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting for patients with one to three positive lymph nodes. However, no consensus was reached on the utility of signatures for deciding whether to extend endocrine therapy in either setting.
When examining the usefulness of signatures in more special settings, the authors found that the vast majority (90%) of respondents believed that multigene signatures had clinical utility for postmenopausal early breast cancer patients, and 82% did not consider signatures clinically useful in the early-stage HER2-overexpressed setting.
In addition, 74% thought that breast cancer multigene signatures were not useful in triple-negative disease or in the metastatic setting.
Respondents did not reach a consensus on the clinical utility of multigene signatures in the neoadjuvant setting – only 27% considered them useful, and almost half did not.
The “low percentage” of respondents using the signatures in the neoadjuvant setting and the “misconception regarding the predictive value of these tests on chemotherapy benefits suggest there is still room for training on results interpretation [for breast cancer multigene signatures],” the authors write.
The study was sponsored by Veracyte. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, and Veracyte. No other relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 5/9/22.
BERLIN – , a European survey suggests.
The authors found, for instance, that while most specialists agreed that molecular intrinsic subtypes had clinical utility for understanding prognosis in early-stage hormone receptor (HR)–positive disease and for identifying patients for whom chemotherapy could be safely avoided, about 1 in 4 experts either disagreed or felt neutral about the use of signatures in these settings.
Similarly, almost 75% of respondents felt that these signatures were not useful in the triple-negative or metastatic setting, but a small percentage believed they were, and about 10% were neutral.
“Considering that breast cancer multigene signatures were developed in the post menopausal HR+/HER2- early breast cancer setting, the fact that some experts consider [them] useful in triple-negative, HER2+ breast cancer or in the metastatic setting corroborates a misunderstanding on how to interpret the results,” study author Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, associate professor of medical oncology at the University of Milan, and colleagues wrote.
Dr. Curigliano, who is also head of the Division of Early Drug Development at the European Institute of Oncology, presented the survey findings on May 4 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO BCC) Breast Cancer Congress.
Although several breast cancer multigene signatures are available to profile early breast cancer, little information exists on how these signatures should be used in clinical practice.
To investigate, Dr. Curigliano and colleagues convened a scientific committee of eight breast cancer experts to develop a Delphi questionnaire to examine respondents’ opinions and uses of these signatures.
The questionnaire asked about the clinical utility of multigene signatures in breast cancer and recommendations for their use in clinical practice.
In all, 133 breast cancer specialists from 11 European countries completed the questionnaire. Respondents were about 49 years old on average, and most (86.5%) worked in a teaching hospital. More than 72% were medical oncologists; 12% were pathologists.
Consensus was considered to be reached when 70% or more of the respondents were in agreement on a topic.
Participants had “extensive experience in the management of breast cancer patients and have been using breast cancer multigene signatures in clinical practice,” Dr. Curigliano said.
Almost all respondents (93.6%) reported using breast cancer multigene signatures routinely or in selected patients, and 73.4% had more than 5 years of experience with them.
Overall, more than 70% of respondents agreed that identifying tumor intrinsic subtype via gene expression profiling was important in making prognostic and treatment decisions; however, a consensus was not reached on the use of immunohistochemistry.
In addition, most respondents (76%) agreed that identifying breast cancer molecular intrinsic subtypes had clinical utility for prognosis in early-stage HR-positive disease and for identifying patients for whom chemotherapy can be safely avoided (75%). However, in both cases, about one-quarter of respondents either disagreed or felt neutral.
No consensus was reached on the clinical utility of these subtypes for selecting the most appropriate chemotherapy treatment – two-thirds disagreed, while 13% agreed and 17% felt neutral.
When deciding on the use of chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting in early node-negative breast cancer, 88% of respondents felt that breast cancer multigene signatures were important. Moreover, 75% considered such signatures important when deciding whether to use chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting for patients with one to three positive lymph nodes. However, no consensus was reached on the utility of signatures for deciding whether to extend endocrine therapy in either setting.
When examining the usefulness of signatures in more special settings, the authors found that the vast majority (90%) of respondents believed that multigene signatures had clinical utility for postmenopausal early breast cancer patients, and 82% did not consider signatures clinically useful in the early-stage HER2-overexpressed setting.
In addition, 74% thought that breast cancer multigene signatures were not useful in triple-negative disease or in the metastatic setting.
Respondents did not reach a consensus on the clinical utility of multigene signatures in the neoadjuvant setting – only 27% considered them useful, and almost half did not.
The “low percentage” of respondents using the signatures in the neoadjuvant setting and the “misconception regarding the predictive value of these tests on chemotherapy benefits suggest there is still room for training on results interpretation [for breast cancer multigene signatures],” the authors write.
The study was sponsored by Veracyte. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, and Veracyte. No other relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 5/9/22.
AT ESMO BCC 2022