Systemic Therapy For Breast Cancer Research Articles

Presenting decision-relevant numerical information to Dutch women aged 50-70 with varying levels of health literacy: Case example of adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer.

If communicated adequately, numerical decision-relevant information can support informed and shared decision making. Visual formats are recommended, but which format supports patients depending on their health literacy (HL) levels for specific decisions is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate: 1) the effect of survival rates and side-effects presentation formats on comprehension and 'feeling informed'; 2) differential effects among women with higher/lower HL, with adjuvant systemic breast cancer therapy as case example. Two online experiments among women from the Dutch population without a history of breast cancer were conducted. Experiment 1 had a 3 (survival rate format: text block-bar graph-icon array) x 2 (HL: low-high) between-subjects design. Experiment 2 had a 5 (side-effects format: no probability information-probability information in numbers with or without a visualisation-probability information in numbers with or without a visualisation accompanied by a description of the side-effects) x 2 (HL: low-high) design. Primary outcomes were comprehension and feeling informed (Experiment 2 only). Formats were previously designed in co-creation with patients. In Experiment 1, presentation format did not affect gist or verbatim comprehension. Higher HL was associated with higher gist comprehension. Experiment 2 showed an interaction between presentation format and HL on 'feeling informed'. When provided with visualised probability information without a description of the side-effects, women with lower HL felt better informed than women with higher HL. Visual formats did not enhance comprehension of survival rate information beyond a well-designed text block format. However, none of the formats could overcome HL differences. When designing decision-relevant information, visualisations might not necessarily provide an advantage over structured numerical information for both patients with lower and higher HL. However, a deeper understanding of presenting side-effect information is warranted.

Disease extent according to baseline [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and molecular subtype: prediction of axillary treatment response after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer

Disease extent according to baseline [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and molecular subtype: prediction of axillary treatment response after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer

Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Systemic Therapy in Breast Cancer: A Matched Case-control Study.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAT) in breast cancer can make tumors resectable or reduce the extent of surgery needed for locally advanced cancers. It can also better prevent distant relapse and possibly modulate drug therapy by adjusting adjuvant therapy (AD) based on the response to NAT, either by escalating or de-escalating the treatment. However, clear evidence of improved outcomes is currently missing. Here, we report on breast cancer patients treated with NAT at our institution. One hundred twenty-seven patients treated at our Radiation Oncology department between 2004 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had localized or locally advanced breast cancer, were treated with NAT, and received postoperative radiotherapy. The outcomes considered were overall survival (OS), loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS). A matched patient population treated with AD during the same period and at the same center was used for comparison. The 5-year predicted OS was 87% in the NAT group and 81.5% in the AD group (p-value=0.179), while LRRFS was 93.2% in the NAT group and 100% in the AD group (p=0.005). The 5-year predicted DMFS was 84.6% in the NAT group and 82.1% in AD patients (p=0.367). In the NAT group, the only prognostic factor significantly related to improved outcomes was the pathological node response, with an OS of 95.6% in patients without residual node disease compared to 75.1% in patients with evidence of residual node disease. Our study, despite the limitations of a small number of patients and its retrospective nature, confirms the data of previous larger studies. In terms of DMFS and OS, NAT is at least as effective as AD. NAT represents a great opportunity for personalized modulation of treatment in node-positive breast cancer patients.

Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers develop breast cancers with distinct pathological characteristics and mutational signatures that may result in differential response to chemotherapy. We compared rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) after NAC between BRCA1/2 variant carriers and noncarriers in a cohort of 1426 women (92 [6.5%] BRCA1 and 73 [5.1%] BRCA2) with clinical stage I–III breast cancer treated with NAC followed by surgery from 11/2013 to 01/2022 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The majority received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/paclitaxel therapy (93%); BRCA1/2 carriers were more likely to receive carboplatin (p < 0.001). Overall, pCR was achieved in 42% of BRCA1 carriers, 21% of BRCA2 carriers, and 26% of noncarriers (p = 0.001). Among clinically node-positive (cN+) patients, nodal pCR was more frequent in BRCA1/2 carriers compared to noncarriers (53/96 [55%] vs. 371/856 [43%], p = 0.015). This difference was seen in HR+/HER2− (36% vs. 20% of noncarriers; p = 0.027) and TN subtypes (79% vs. 45% of noncarriers; p < 0.001). In a multivariable analysis of the overall cohort, BRCA1 status, and TN and HER2+ subtypes were independently associated with pCR. These data indicate that BRCA1 carriers may be more likely to achieve overall and nodal pCR in response to NAC compared with BRCA2 carriers and patients with sporadic disease. Further studies with a larger cohort of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are needed, as a small sample size may have a restricted ability to detect a significant association between mutational status and pCR in sensitivity analyses stratified by subtype and adjusted for clinically relevant factors.

Tailoring neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: "The advent of a personalized approach"-The Breast-Gynecological and Immuno-Oncology International Cancer Conference (BGICC) consensus and recommendations.

The management of early breast cancer (BC) has witnessed an uprise in the use of neoadjuvant therapy and a remarkable reshaping of the systemic therapy postneoadjuvant treatment in the last few years, with the evolution of many controversial clinical situations that require consensus. During the 14th Breast-Gynecological and Immuno-Oncology International Cancer Conference held in Egypt in 2022, a panel of 44 BC experts from 13 countries voted on statements concerning debatable challenges in the neo/adjuvant treatment setting. The recommendations were subsequently updated based on the most recent data emerging. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop this consensus. A consensus was achieved when ≥75% of voters selected an answer. The consensus recommendations addressed different escalation and de-escalation strategies in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy for early BC. The recommendations recapitulate the available clinical evidence and expert opinion to individualize patient management and optimize therapy outcomes. Consensus was reached in 63% of the statements (52/83), and the rationale behind each statement was clarified.

Systemic Therapy in Breast Cancer.

Therapeutic advances in breast cancer have significantly improved outcomes in recent decades. In the early setting, there has been a gradual shift from adjuvant-only to neoadjuvant strategies, with a growing focus on customizing post-neoadjuvant treatments through escalation and de-escalation based on pathologic response. At the same time, the transition from a pre-genomic to a post-genomic era, utilizing specific assays in the adjuvant setting and targeted sequencing in the advanced stage, has deepened our understanding of disease biology and aided in identifying molecular markers associated with treatment benefit. Finally, the introduction of new drug classes such as antibody-drug conjugates, and the incorporation in the (neo)adjuvant setting of therapies previously investigated in the advanced stage, like immunotherapy and CDK4-6 inhibitors, poses new challenges in treatment sequencing.

Abstract 7485: Microfluidic detection of dual positive cells in whole blood of metastatic breast cancer patients

Abstract Background. Dual positive cells (DPCs) that express both epithelial markers and leukocytic markers have been observed in peripheral blood of breast cancer patients. DPCs acquire functional behaviors from both cell types which may drive tumor progression. However, the lack of reliable methods to isolate and identify DPCs has hindered the investigation of their origin and clinical implications in breast cancer patients. While microfluidic devices have been widely used for the detection of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) by liquid biopsy, DPC detection is underexplored in these devices. Herein, we demonstrate rapid onchip isolation and detection of DPCs in whole blood samples from metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients using an integrated microfluidic device. Methods. Our microfluidic device consists of a unique preconditioning component that concentrates targets in whole blood and a downstream cell immobilization component that captures target cells. We included 7 female patients with MBC, of which 29% are white (2), 57% are African American (4), and 14% are Latina (1). The median age is 50y (34y -75y). All patients were undergoing systemic breast cancer therapy at the time of blood collection. A total of 9 samples (4 mL each) were collected from either an antecubital vein (peripheral vein) or the subcutaneous port catheter (central vein) of these patients. All samples were processed within 5 hours of blood drawn in our novel microfluidic biochip. CTCs (EpCAM+/CK+, CD45-, DAPI+) and DPCs (EpCAM+/CK+, CD45+/CD66b+, DAPI+) were identified by immunofluorescence after cells were fixed. Results. Processing of each sample was completed within 40 minutes using our microfluidic device. Both DPCs and CTCs were detected in all the samples (9/9). The average DPC count was 3 DPCs per 4 mL whole blood with a standard deviation of 1.9 cells. The average CTC count was 9 with a standard deviation of 5 per 4 mL whole blood. 89% of the samples (8/9) had &amp;gt; 5 CTCs after the sample volume is scaled to the standard 7.5 mL. No correlation was found between DPC count and CTC count (Pearson correlation coefficient r=0.08). While the blood collection location (central vs peripheral veins) had a significant impact on the CTC count (12.6 vs 4 on average with p&amp;lt;0.01), there was no statistical difference in DPC counts in the samples collected from central and peripheral veins. Conclusions. Both DPCs and CTCs can be rapidly isolated and detected from MBC patient whole blood in our microfluidic device. Our preliminary results indicate no correlation between DPCs and CTCs, suggesting that DPCs might not originate in blood circulation of MBC patients. More work with a larger patient cohort will be needed to further investigate the clinical implications of DPCs on MBC patients. Citation Format: Jian Zhou, Qiyue Luan, Celine Macaraniag, Arielle B. Guzman, Maria Mantice, Oana Danciu, Kent F. Hoskins, Ian Papautsky. Microfluidic detection of dual positive cells in whole blood of metastatic breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 7485.

Magnetically guided surgery after primary systemic therapy for breast cancer: implications for enhanced axillary mapping.

Superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles perform comparably to radioisotope ± blue dye for sentinel lymph node detection in breast cancer, even when injected up to 8 weeks before surgery. Using superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles for sentinel lymph node detection after primary systemic therapy, and the maximum time frame of superparamagnetic iron nanoparticle administration have not been investigated. This cohort study included cN0/1-to-ycN0 patients undergoing sentinel lymph node detection or targeted axillary dissection. All patients received superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles either before primary systemic therapy or before surgery, and radioisotope on the day of surgery. For 113 patients analysed, superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles were injected a median of 3 (range 0-248) days before surgery, with a 97.4% detection rate compared with 91.2% for radioisotope (P = 0.057). Concordance for radioisotope was 97.1% and this was not affected by timing of superparamagnetic iron nanoparticle injection (Kendall's tau 0.027; P = 0.746). The median sentinel lymph node yield was 3 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 2-3) for superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles and 2 (i.q.r. 2-3) for radioisotope (P < 0.001). In targeted axillary dissection, detection was 100% for superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles and 81.8% for radioisotope (P = 0.124). The index node was magnetic in 93.9% and radioactive in 66.7% (P = 0.007), an outcome that was not affected by any factors. For patients with metastases, superparamagnetic iron nanoparticle detection was 100% and radioisotope-based detection was 84.2% (P = 0.083), with superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles detecting more metastatic sentinel lymph nodes (median of 1 (i.q.r. 1-2) for superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles compared with a median of 1 (i.q.r. 0-1) for radioisotope; P = 0.005). Injection before primary systemic therapy is feasible and does not affect concordance with radioisotope. Superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles perform comparably to radioisotope, but detect more sentinel lymph nodes and have a higher rate of detection of metastatic sentinel lymph nodes.

Is contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) an alternative to MRI in assessing the response to primary systemic therapy of breast cancer?

PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessing radiological response to primary systemic therapy (PST). MethodProspective study between February 2021 and October 2022. Women with breast cancer and indication of PST were enrolled. CEM and MRI were performed before and after PST, and the findings, including size and radiological response pattern, were compared with the size of the residual lesion measured in surgical specimens and its Miller-Payne classification (considered the gold standard). Two of four independent radiologists, with 2 years of CEM experience and 10 years of MRI experience, reviewed the images while being blinded to the results of the other technique. The agreement between measurements was evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and Lin’s coefficient. ResultsForty-eight women with breast cancer who required PST were enrolled in the study, with a mean age of 57.21 ± 10.14 years. A total of thirty-three participants (68.75 %) completed the study. The correlation between CEM and MRI measurements was high before PST (r: 0.97), and local staging was identical for 45 out of 48 patients. MRI demonstrated better accuracy in predicting residual tumor size than CEM, with Lin’s coefficient 0.91 and 0.73, respectively. However, no significant differences were observed in predicting response to therapy. Both methods tended to overestimate the size and degree of response in our study, with mean overestimations of 2.87 mm in CEM and 0.51 mm in MRI. ConclusionCEM was found to be as accurate as MRI in predicting response to PST, indicating its potential as an alternative imaging technique, but further research is necessary.

Validation of prognostic and predictive value of total tumoral load after primary systemic therapy in breast cancer using OSNA assay

PurposeThis study aimed to validate the classification of breast cancer (BC) patients in progression risk groups based on total tumor load (TTL) value to predict lymph node (LN) affectation after neo-adjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) obtained in the NEOVATTL study.Methods/patientsThis was an observational, retrospective, international, multicenter study including patients with infiltrating BC who received NAST followed by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) analyzed with one-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) from nine Spanish and two Italian hospitals. Patients were classified into three groups according to the progression risk, measured as disease-free survival (DFS), based on TTL values (> 250, 250–25,000, and > 25,000 copies/μL). The previous (NEOVATTL study) Cox regression model for prognosis was validated using prognostic index (PI) and Log ratio test (LRT) analyses; the value of TTL for axillary non-SLN affectation was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.ResultsWe included 263 patients with a mean age of 51.4 (± SD 10.5) years. Patients with TTL > 25,000 copies/μL had a shorter DFS (HR 3.561 [95% CI 1.693−7.489], p = 0.0008 vs. TTL ≤ 25,000). PI and LRT analyses showed no differences between the two cohorts (p = 0.2553 and p = 0.226, respectively). ROC analysis showed concordance between TTL and non-SLN involvement (area under the curve 0.828), with 95.7% sensitivity and 92.9% specificity at a TTL cut-off of > 15,000 copies/μL.ConclusionsIn BC patients who had received NAST and underwent SLNB analysis using OSNA, a TTL value of > 25,000 copies/μL was associated with a higher progression risk and > 15,000 copies/μL was predictive of non-SLN involvement.

Evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and mammographic density as predictors of response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer

Background Response rates vary among breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST). Thus, there is a need for reliable treatment predictors. Evidence suggests tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) predict NAST response. Still, TILs are seldom used clinically as a treatment determinant. Mammographic density (MD) is another potential marker for NAST benefit and its relationship with TILs is unknown. Our aims were to investigate TILs and MD as predictors of NAST response and to study the unexplored relationship between TILs and MD. Material and methods We studied 315 invasive breast carcinomas treated with NAST between 2013 and 2020. Clinicopathological data were retrieved from medical records. The endpoint was defined as pathological complete response (pCR) in the breast. TILs were evaluated in pre-treatment core biopsies and categorized as high (≥10%) or low (<10%). MD was scored (a–d) according to the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) fifth edition. Binary logistic regression and Spearman’s test of correlation were performed using SPSS. Results Out of 315 carcinomas, 136 achieved pCR. 94 carcinomas had high TILs and 215 had low TILs. Six carcinomas had no available TIL data. The number of carcinomas in each BI-RADS category were 37, 122, 112, and 44 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. High TILs were independently associated with pCR (OR: 2.95; 95% CI: 1.59–5.46) compared to low TILs. In the univariable analysis, MD (BI-RADS d vs. a) showed a tendency of higher likelihood for pCR (OR: 2.43; 95% CI: 0.99–5.98). However, the association was non-significant, which is consistent with the result of the multivariable analysis (OR: 2.51; 95% CI: 0.78–8.04). We found no correlation between TILs and MD (0.02; p = .80). Conclusion TILs significantly predicted NAST response. We could not define MD as a significant predictor of NAST response. These findings should be further replicated.

Impact of Caloric Restriction in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Prospective Case Control Study.

Background and aims: It is well established that caloric restriction (CR) may influence metabolic and hormonal factors involved in cancer development and progression. Recently, several studies have demonstrated that CR may have a favorable impact on the response to systemic therapy in breast cancer (BC) patients. However, there is a lack of data regarding the influence of CR during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Our study's primary aim was to evaluate CR's impact on BC patients undergoing NACT. Secondly, we investigated the nutritional efficacy and safety of this intervention. Methods: We performed a prospective, case-control study in two breast units. A diet group consisting of 39 patients undergoing NACT and CR was enrolled in our study at the same time. CR consisted of a 30% reduction in caloric intake, which increased to 50% on the days before, during, and after the administration of chemotherapy. A control group of 60 patients that underwent the same treatment approach only followed the general dietary recommendations for BC according to WCRF guidelines. The diet group was monitored during the study for both dietary adequacy and weight trends. Results: CR combined with NACT showed a statistically significant therapeutic response in tumor size (OR 2.94, IC 1.07-8.01, p = 0.009) and lymph node status (OR 3.22, IC 1.22-8.56, p = 0.001) compared to NACT alone, even after the adjustment for all biological parameters. Our data also showed the efficacy and safety of this intervention in both anthropometric and biochemical analyses. Conclusions: Patients who adhered to CR showed a better response to NACT, both in the breast and in the axillary lymph nodes, compared to the patients in the control group. Furthermore, the CR diet combined with NACT showed good tolerance and safety.

Assessment of &lt;i&gt;ERBB2&lt;/i&gt; and HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancer using the nCounter® system and a 100-gene scale

Background. Individual molecular characteristics of a tumor can serve as a basis for a tailored approach to therapy, prediction of the disease course and outcome, and timely treatment correction in cancer patients. Tumor genomic profiling allows for a more precise tumor assessment in an individual manner. Accurate identification of the HER2 status of a breast tumor is crucial for clinical decisions and appropriate treatment strategy.Aim. To increase the efficacy of systemic therapy for breast cancer, reduce inappropriate prescribing, and ensure a tailored approach to systemic breast cancer therapy using the information on individual molecular characteristics of the tumor.Materials and methods. We explored the expression of 100 genes involved in breast cancer development in 106 tumor samples from patients with metastatic breast cancer. We used the nCounter technology based on direct digital target detection using color-coded molecular barcodes. We analyzed the expression of 28 genes with a high predictive value for breast cancer.Results. The nCounter technology allowed us to perform semiquantitative assessment of the expression of 28 genes in tumor tissue samples. We compared the expression of ERBB2 and HER2. The HER2 expression between 252.32 and 6000 barcodes was equivalent to HER2 (0) status; between 6000 and 9196.25 barcodes, to HER2 (1+); between 9196.25 and 15022.46, to HER2 (2+/ISH±); and 15022.46 barcodes, to HER2 (3+). In case of HER2 (3+) and ERBB2 below 6000 barcodes, the result was considered false positive. In case of HER2 (0) or (1+) and ERBB2 above 15 000 barcodes, the result was considered false negative. In 18 tumors, the discrepancies in the results meant two principally different breast cancer subtypes requiring different treatments; in 2 cases, the discrepancies were in the level of HER2 expression.Conclusion. HER2 testing should be performed on an excision sample (ideally on the same block that was used for genomic testing). Despite the correlation between the HER2-enriched molecular class and the response to anti-HER2 therapy, the final result on HER2 status in discordant cases should be based on currently approved assays after results validation.

Assessment of &lt;i&gt;ERBB2&lt;/i&gt; and HER2 expression in metastatic breast cancer using the nCounter® system and a 100‑gene scale

Background. Individual molecular characteristics of a tumor can serve as a basis for a tailored approach to therapy, prediction of the disease course and outcome, and timely treatment correction in cancer patients. Tumor genomic profiling allows for a more precise tumor assessment in an individual manner. Accurate identification of the HER2 status of a breast tumor is crucial for clinical decisions and appropriate treatment strategy.Aim. To increase the efficacy of systemic therapy for breast cancer, reduce inappropriate prescribing, and ensure a tailored approach to systemic breast cancer therapy using the information on individual molecular characteristics of the tumor.Materials and methods. We explored the expression of 100 genes involved in breast cancer development in 106 tumor samples from patients with metastatic breast cancer. We used the nCounter technology based on direct digital target detection using color‑coded molecular barcodes. We analyzed the expression of 28 genes with a high predictive value for breast cancer.Results. The nCounter technology allowed us to perform semiquantitative assessment of the expression of 28 genes in tumor tissue samples. We compared the expression of ERBB2 and HER2. The HER2 expression between 252.32 and 6000 barcodes was equivalent to HER2 (0) status; between 6000 and 9196.25 barcodes, to HER2 (1+); between 9196.25 and 15022.46, to HER2 (2+ / ISH±); and ≥15022.46 barcodes, to HER2 (3+). In case of HER2 (3+) and ERBB2 below 6000 barcodes, the result was considered false positive. In case of HER2 (0) or (1+) and ERBB2 above 15000 barcodes, the result was considered false negative. In 18 tumors, the discrepancies in the results meant two principally different breast cancer subtypes requiring different treatments; in 2 cases, the discrepancies were in the level of HER2 expression.Conclusion. HER2 testing should be performed on an excision sample (ideally on the same block that was used for genomic testing). Despite the correlation between the HER2‑enriched molecular class and the response to anti‑HER2 therapy, the final result on HER2 status in discordant cases should be based on currently approved assays after results validation.

Prognostic factors and clinical outcomes of breast cancer patients with disease progression during neoadjuvant systemic therapy

Disease progression during neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer indicates poor prognosis, while predictors of the clinical outcomes of these patients remain unclear. By comparing the clinical outcomes of patients with different patterns of salvage treatment strategies, we try to evaluate the factors predicting distant failure and explore the favourable treatment for them.Patients with disease progression during neoadjuvant systemic therapy for stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and July 31, 2021 in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center were enrolled. Disease progression was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target lesions or the appearance of new breast or nodal lesions. Kaplan-Meier, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regressions were utilized to compare survival outcomes between different salvage treatment strategies.Among 3775 patients treated with NST, 60 (1.6%) patients encountered disease progression. A significant difference between the outcomes of patients receiving direct surgery and other salvage modalities was found (p = 0.007). Triple-negative breast cancer (p = 0.010) and not receiving direct surgery (p = 0.016) were independently associated with distant disease-free survival on multivariate analysis.Predictors of distant failure in patients with disease progression include triple-negative breast cancer and not receiving direct surgery. Direct surgery seems to be more favourable than other treatments for patients with disease progression. For inoperable patients, neoadjuvant radiation can increase their operability but not improve their prognosis.

Patient-Friendly Summary of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Monitoring Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer: 2022 Update

Patient-Friendly Summary of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Monitoring Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer: 2022 Update

Recent advances in BCRP-induced breast cancer resistance treatment with marine-based natural products.

Breast cancer is the prominent cause of cancer-related death in women globally in terms of incidence and mortality. Despite, recent advances in the management of breast cancer, there are still a lot of cases of resistance to medicines, which is currently one of the biggest problems faced by researchers across the globe. Out of several mechanisms, breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) arbitrated drug resistance is a major concern. Hormonal, cytotoxic and immunotherapeutic drugs are used in the systemic therapy of breast cancer. It is vital to choose drugs based on the clinical and molecular attributes of the tumor to provide better treatment with greater efficacy and minimal harm. Given the aforementioned necessity, the use of marine flora in treating breast cancer cannot be neglected. The scientists also stressed the value of marine-derived goods in avoiding breast cancer resistance. Future research into the identification of anticancer drugs will heavily draw upon the marine environment's ample supply of marine-derived natural products (MNPs), which have a wide range of biological functions. Cell cycle arrest, induction of apoptosis and anti-angiogenic, anti-proliferative and anti-metastasis actions are all part of their processes. The overview of breast cancer, the mechanisms underlying its resistance, recent clinical trials based on marine-derived products in breast cancer and the use of marine products in the treatment of breast cancer are highlighted in this paper. Moreover, the authors also emphasised the importance of marine-derived products in preventing breast cancer resistance.

Predictive multigenic scale. Analysis of own results in metastatic breast cancer

Background. Breast cancer is one of the most common female malignancies. Molecular diagnostic methods of tumor profiling allow us to analyze individual tumor characteristics, identify new prognostic and predictive markers. Aim. To increase the efficacy of systemic therapy for breast cancer and reduce inappropriate prescriptions using the data on individual molecular tumor characteristics; to develop a polygenic panel to ensure a tailored approach to systemic therapy for breast cancer. Materials and methods. We analyzed 84 tumor tissue samples from pre- and postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer who were treated and followed-up in 6 healthcare institutions. We assessed expression of genes involved in breast cancer. In a pilot study, we analyzed archived paraffin-embedded tumor specimens form 12 out of 1,216 patients with T1–2N0M0 breast cancer included into retrospective analysis. Gene expression was assessed using the nCounter technology based on direct digital detection of targets using fluorescent barcodes (nCounter Analysis System; NanoString Technologies, USA). Tumor tissue (biopsy and surgical specimens) was analyzed. The choice of genes was based on the literature data and experience in the development of other polygenic panels, as well as clinical significance of markers of prognostic scales. Gene mutations were confirmed by next generation sequencing and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Results. We analyzed the expression of 28 genes with a high predictive value that have been substantially studied (including ESR1, PGR, PIK3CA, BCAR4, BCAS2, CCND1, CCND2, CCND3, FOXA1, Erb2, EGFR, CDH3, FOXC1, KRT14, KRT5, CD274, CDK4, CDK6, P53, PTEN, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, CLDN3, CLDN7, AR, TOP2a, TUBBIII). We identified 29 cases of discrepancy (29 / 84; 34.5 %) in tumor subtype, including 11 cases of luminal A and B breast cancer, which might potentially affect the choice of the treatment regimen. In 18 cases, there were some principal discrepancies in the tumor subtype that implied totally different treatment regimens. The proposed polygenic signature allows accurate identification of the tumor subtype in patients with metastatic breast cancer and choice of an optimal treatment strategy. Conclusion. We have developed a 100-gene signature including molecular subtypes of breast cancer (luminal A, luminal B, basal, claudin-like) and treatment-oriented clusters. Molecular tumor profiling using this polygenic signature is an accurate method for determining tumor subtype in patients with breast cancer, which enables a tailored approach to therapy.

Prognostic and predictive value of a novel 100-point scale in patients with T1–2N0M0 breast cancer

Aim. To increase the efficacy of systemic breast cancer therapy and reduce inappropriate prescriptions using individual immunohistochemical tumor characteristics, as well as to develop prognostic scales to ensure a tailored approach to adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer patients. Materials and methods. We conducted a comprehensive study that included collection of literature data on clinical, pathomorphological, prognostic, and predictive factors of breast cancer, as well as a retrospective cohort study using the data from the cancer registry. We also performed histological and immunohistochemical examination of tumor tissue samples from breast cancer patients (for the retrospective cohort study) and statistical data analysis. A total of 1,216 patients with T1–2N0M0 breast cancer were included in this study. Histological and immunohistochemical examinations of tissue samples (paraffin blocks) were conducted in the laboratory of N. N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology. We stained slides for both routinely used markers (including estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, HER2, and Ki-67) and other markers (CK14, FOXA1, FOXP3, PD-L1, P53, SMA, androgen receptors, E-cadherin, CD4, CD8, CK5 / 6, EGFR).We analyzed risk factors for lethal outcomes in patients from this group to develop prognostic scales and compared their results. Results. We evaluated the most clinically and statistically significant factors affecting mortality. Using logistic regression, we chose 10 factors that had the greatest impact on the outcomes and then produced several scales, includinga 10-point regression scale (based on 10 most significant factors identified). Survival analysis in high-risk and low-risk patients using the regression scale demonstrated significant differences between these groups (р &lt;0.00001). The assessment of adjuvant chemotherapy efficacy in the combined group of intermediate- and high-risk patients (as estimated by the regression model) showed that intermediate- and high-risk patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy had significant differences in their survival (р = 0.0057). The regression scale for 10-year prognosis demonstrated sufficient sensitivity (58.05 %), specificity (69.47 %) and ef fectiveness (63.76 %). Conclusion. Our regression prognostic scale includes markers with a high prognostic value. The multifactorial approach used in the developed regression scale for breast cancer 10-year prognosis increases its accuracy and reliability.

Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers.

544 Background: Distinct pathological characteristics and mutational signatures in BRCA-associated breast cancers may result in differential response to chemotherapy but understanding of treatment response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is limited. We describe a single-institutional experience to compare rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) after NAC in BRCA carriers (g BRCA1/2) and noncarriers. Methods: From 11/2013 to 01/2022, 1426 consecutive women with clinical stage I-III breast cancer were treated with NAC followed by surgery. Baseline disease characteristics were compared between g BRCA1/2 and noncarriers using two-sample non-parametric tests. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between BRCA status and pCR (i.e., ypT0/is pN0) adjusting for variables selected using backward elimination. Results: 92 (6.5%) and 73 (5.1%) had deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. Compared to noncarriers, g BRCA1/2 were younger (p&lt;0.001) with clinical T1 (p=0.002) and triple negative disease (TN) (57% vs 25% noncarriers, p&lt;0.001). Almost all patients received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/paclitaxel therapy (93%) with g BRCA1/2 more likely to receive carboplatin (p&lt;0.001). pCR rate was 42% of g BRCA1, 21% of g BRCA2, and 26% of noncarriers (p=0.001). Among clinically node positive (cN+) patients, nodal pCR was higher in g BRCA1/2 compared to noncarriers (53/96 (55%) vs 371/856 (43%), p=0.012). This difference was seen in ER+/HER2- (36% gBRCA1/2 vs 20% noncarriers; p=0.027) and TN subtypes (79% g BRCA1/2 vs 45% noncarriers; p&lt;0.001). Poorly differentiated tumors (p&lt;0.001), cN+ (p=0.010), lower cT stage (p=0.028), ductal histology (p&lt;0.001), TN and HER2+ receptor status (p&lt;0.001), absence of lymphovascular invasion (p&lt;0.001), carboplatin receipt (p=0.041), and BRCA1 status (p=0.001) were also associated with pCR on univariate analysis. After adjusting for differentiation and molecular subtype, BRCA1 status remained independently associated with pCR. Conclusions: g BRCA1 undergoing NAC have higher pCR rates relative to g BRCA2 and patients with sporadic disease. Across breast cancer subtypes, g BRCA1/2 more frequently converted to pN0. Defining biological mechanism for these findings would allow customization of treatment based on germline genetics. [Table: see text]