Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundPrior to the advent of Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence score (oDX) assay, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline supported omission of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ≤ 1 cm (T1b) hormone receptor-positive (HR +), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2−) node tumors. However, around 30% of these patients would have an oDX recurrence score that warrants consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy. To clarify the potential benefit of oDX in these patients, we performed a retrospective analysis comparing clinical outcomes of women with T1a or T1b, N0 HR + HER2− according to performance of oDX.Patients and MethodsAfter receiving institutional review board (IRB) approval, an institutional database was queried to identify patients with HR + HER2− ≤ T1bN0 tumors (n = 2307) diagnosed between 2009 and 2018. Patients were further stratified by recurrence score (RS) defined as low (< 18), intermediate (18–30), or high (> 30). Log-rank, Kaplan–Meier, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW) analyses were used to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) across groups.ResultsPerformance of oDX (n = 1149, 49.8%) was associated with larger tumors, younger age, and White race. On univariate analysis, performance of oDX was associated with improved OS (P < 0.01). On multivariate IPW analysis, performance of oDX lengthened DFS by an average of 16.5 months, while OS was similar between groups (P < 0.01 and P = 0.73). The improved DFS was mainly driven by those with tumors ≥ T1b.ConclusionsOverall, outcomes were excellent regardless of oDX testing. Performance of oDX testing was associated with improved DFS in patients with tumors ≥ T1b. Our results support routine use of oDX testing in patients with tumors ≥ T1b.

BackgroundNational medical/surgical organizations have recommended the use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) to bridge surgery delay of weeks to months for patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The effects of NET of varying durations on pathologic response are unclear. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we evaluated objective response to short (< 9 weeks), moderate (9–27 weeks), and long (> 27 weeks) duration of NET.Patients and MethodsThe study cohort included female patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic invasive HR+ breast cancer, stratifying by those who received NET versus no NET between 2004 and 2016. Pathologic response was grouped into four categories (complete, downstaged, stable, upstaged) by comparing clinical and pathologic staging data. Objective response to NET included complete, downstaged, and stable pathologic response. Clinical characteristics were compared using χ2 and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with NET use and objective response according to NET duration.ResultsA minority (1.2%) received NET in our cohort. Factors associated with NET use included older age, non-Black patients, more advanced clinical stage, higher comorbidity score, government insurance, and lobular histology. Objective response rate (ORR) was 56.7%, 52.1%, and 49.0% after short, moderate, and long NET duration, respectively.ConclusionShort NET duration did not result in an inferior ORR. Future study to evaluate the interaction between surgery delay and NET use on clinical outcome will provide insights into the safety of NET to bridge potential surgery delay in patients with HR+ breast cancer.

Background Adenoid cystic breast carcinoma (ACC) is a rare subtype of triple-negative breast cancer. We aim to characterize the treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of women diagnosed with ACC at a large medical center. Methods Female patients diagnosed with ACC at our institution between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively identified. Patients with limited clinicopathologic data were excluded. Results In our final study cohort (n = 9), the majority of ACCs (6/9, 66.7%) were hormone receptor (−) (HR−) and HER-2/neu (−) (HER2−), while 3 ACCs were HR+ HER2−. Two patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 4 patients received adjuvant radiotherapy. The crude local and distant recurrence rate of our cohort was 22.2% and 11.1% (median follow-up of 36 months). Conclusions The majority of ACCs were triple negative but some ACCs were HR+. The unadjusted local and distant recurrence rates were not negligible, suggesting that adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy may be warranted in select cases.

IntroductionNational guidelines specify against immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) among inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) patients. However, limited data exist regarding this practice. We report practice patterns and oncologic outcomes among nonmetastatic IBC patients receiving trimodality therapy, with or without IBR.MethodsUsing the National Cancer Database, we identified nonmetastatic IBC patients treated with trimodality therapy from 2004 to 2016. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), assessed on unadjusted analysis using Kaplan–Meier estimates and on adjusted analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards and inverse probability weighting (IPW) models. OS analysis was also conducted with propensity score matched (PSM) cohorts. Secondary outcomes included IBR utilization rates, time to postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), and surgical outcomes.Results6589 women were included, including 5954 (90.4%) non-reconstructed and 635 (9.6%) IBR. Among IBR recipients, 250 (39.4%) underwent autologous reconstruction, 171 (26.9%) underwent implant-based reconstruction, and 214 (33.7%) unspecified. IBR utilization increased from 6.3% to 10.1% from 2004 to 2016 at a 4% average annual growth rate (P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 43 and 45 months for IBR and non-reconstructed patients, respectively (P = 0.29). On Cox multivariable analysis, IBR was associated with improved OS (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44–0.90, P = 0.01), but this association was not significant on IPW analysis (P = 0.06). In PSM cohorts, this association remained significant (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40–0.92, P = 0.02). Margin status, time to PMRT, 30-day readmission, and 30-/90-day mortality did not differ between groups (all P > 0.05).ConclusionAlthough not endorsed by national guidelines, IBR is increasing among IBC patients; however, more granular data are needed to determine oncologic safety.

Objective Obesity is related to the recurrence of breast cancer. In‐person groups or individual telephone counseling currently comprise the behavioral weight loss (BWL) programs tested for cancer survivors. Group support via telehealth may be convenient and provide support from fellow survivors, but feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy testing are needed. Methods A single‐arm, 6‐month BWL program was conducted for female breast cancer survivors with an ECOG performance 0 or 1, BMI > 25 kg/m2, and > 6 months from completion of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation treatment. Participants attended 22 video group sessions over 6 months, completing acceptability ratings, weight measurements, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9), City of Hope Breast Cancer Quality of Life Scale (QOL), and International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Changes in survey scores and weight (last‐observation carried forward) and differences in outcomes by patients' race were computed with paired t‐tests, ANCOVAs and Chi‐square tests. Results Twenty‐one (5 Black, 15 White, 1 Asian American; Mean (SD) = 60.7 (11.6) years; BMI 33.1 (5.9) kg/m2) survivors enrolled with 90% retention and 81.3% of sessions attended. Acceptability ratings were high (all > 4 on a five‐point scale). Mean (SD) weight loss was 5.9% (5.2%), with 60% losing ≥ 5% of baseline weight; White participants lost 7.5% and Black participants lost 1.9% (p = 0.04). Significant improvements were observed in mood (PHQ‐9; p = 0.01) and physical wellbeing QOL (p = 0.01). Physical activity did not change. Conclusion This telehealth group BWL program was feasible and acceptable for breast cancer survivors, yielding a clinically significant weight loss. Future studies should test this intervention in larger, more diverse samples. Trail Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04855552, posted April 22, 2021