Springer Science and Business Media LLC

This paper is a narrative review of a major clinical challenge at the heart of breast cancer care: determining which patients are at risk of recurrence, which require systemic therapy, and which remain at risk in the survivorship phase of care despite initial therapy. We review the literature on prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer with a focus on detection of minimal residual disease. While we have many tools to estimate and refine risk that are used to individualize local and systemic therapy, we know that we continue to over treat many patients and undertreat others. Many patients also experience what is, at least in hindsight, needless fear of recurrence. In this review, we frame this dilemma for the practicing breast oncologist and discuss the search for what we term the “holy grail” of breast cancer evaluation: the ideal biomarker of residual distant disease. We review the history of attempts to address this problem and the up-to-date science on biomarkers, circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). This review suggests that the emerging promise of ctDNA may help resolve a crticical dilemma at the heart of breast cancer care, and improve prognostication, treatment selection, and outcomes for patients with breast cancer.

Purpose Retrospective analyses suggest patients with stage IV breast cancer who undergo breast surgery have improved survival. We sought to determine whether surgery and other clinical and staging factors affected overall survival. Methods We performed a review of our prospectively maintained database of patients who presented with stage IV breast cancer between 1998 and 2005. We compared survival between women who received therapeutic surgery to the breast (S) versus those who did not (NS). Results Of the 147 women who presented with stage IV breast carcinoma, 61 (41%) underwent mastectomy or lumpectomy. Median overall survival unadjusted was 3.52 years for S versus 2.36 years for NS (P = 0.093). ER and Her2neu status were positive predictors of survival (HR: 0.191 and 0.285 P < 0.0001); CNS and liver metastases were adverse predictors (HR: 2.05 and 1.59 P = 0.015 P = 0.059). On multivariate survival was significantly superior in the surgery group (HR: 0.47 P = 0.003 mean 4.13 years versus 2.36 years). In those undergoing surgery, 36 women were diagnosed with metastatic disease postoperatively and 25 preoperatively. These groups had median survival of 4.0 years and 2.4 years, respectively, comparable to those in the NS group (2.36 years, (P = 0.18). Conclusions Breast surgery is associated with improved survival in stage IV breast cancer. However, in our experience, this benefit is only realized among patients operated on before diagnosis of metastatic disease and is likely a consequence of stage migration bias. While some women may warrant palliative surgery to the breast, it is unclear that such surgery otherwise improves clinical outcomes.

Here we report a novel potential therapeutic strategy using histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors to enhance the action of hormonal therapy agents in estrogen receptor alpha (ERα)-positive breast cancer. HDAC inhibitors [trichostatin A (TSA), suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA) and valproic acid (VPA)], inhibited proliferation of MCF-7 breast cancer cells and, in combination with tamoxifen inhibited proliferation better than with either agent alone. VPA, an anti-convulsant drug with HDAC inhibitory activity, enhanced tamoxifen action at doses within the concentration range used for anti-convulsive therapy. VPA cooperated with tamoxifen in a variety of ERα-positive cell lines and was also effective when combined with other antiestrogens, and with aromatase inhibition. VPA enhanced antiestrogen action by promoting cell death via apoptosis without affecting cell cycling. Some of this action may be due to VPA’s ability to induce the pro-apoptotic gene Bik, which is also induced by antiestrogens. Remarkably, VPA blocked the undesirable pro-proliferative action of tamoxifen on uterine endometrial cells. Our in vitro results suggest that VPA and other HDAC inhibitors have the potential to enhance hormonal therapy for ERα-positive breast cancer and simultaneously reverse the adverse effects of antiestrogens in the uterus.

NEWEST (Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women with Estrogen-Sensitive Tumors) is the first study to compare biological and clinical activity of fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in the neoadjuvant breast cancer setting. We hypothesized that fulvestrant 500 mg may be superior to 250 mg in blocking estrogen receptor (ER) signaling and growth. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase II study was performed to compare fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 14 of month 1) versus fulvestrant 250 mg/month for 16 weeks prior to surgery in postmenopausal women with ER+ locally advanced breast cancer. Core biopsies at baseline, week 4, and surgery were assessed for biomarker changes. Primary endpoint: change in Ki67 labeling index (LI) from baseline to week 4 determined by automated computer imaging system (ACIS). Secondary endpoints: ER protein expression and function; progesterone receptor (PgR) expression; tumor response; tolerability. ER and PgR were examined retrospectively using the H score method. A total of 211 patients were randomized (fulvestrant 500 mg: n = 109; 250 mg: n = 102). At week 4, fulvestrant 500 mg resulted in greater reduction of Ki67 LI and ER expression versus 250 mg (−78.8 vs. −47.4% [p < 0.0001] and −25.0 vs. −13.5% [p = 0.0002], respectively [ACIS]); PgR suppression was not significantly different (−22.7 vs. −17.6; p = 0.5677). However, H score detected even greater suppression of ER (−50.3 vs. −13.7%; p < 0.0001) and greater PgR suppression (−80.5 vs. −46.3%; p = 0.0018) for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg. At week 16, tumor response rates were 22.9 and 20.6% for fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg, respectively, with considerable decline in all markers by both ACIS and H score. No detrimental effects on endometrial thickness or bone markers and no new safety concerns were identified. This provides the first evidence of greater biological activity for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in depleting ER expression, function, and growth.

Health care providers need simple tools to identify patients at genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic risk prediction models such as BRCAPRO could fill this gap if incorporated into Electronic Medical Records or other Health Information Technology solutions. However, BRCAPRO requires potentially extensive information on the counselee and her family history. Thus, it may be useful to provide simplified version(s) of BRCAPRO for use in settings that do not require exhaustive genetic counseling. We explore four simplified versions of BRCAPRO, each using less complete information than the original model. BRCAPROLYTE uses information on affected relatives only up to second degree. It is in clinical use but has not been evaluated. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus extends BRCAPROLYTE by imputing the ages of unaffected relatives. BRCAPROLYTE-Simple reduces the data collection burden associated with BRCAPROLYTE and BRCAPROLYTE-Plus by not collecting the family structure. BRCAPRO-1Degree only uses first-degree affected relatives. We use data on 2,713 individuals from seven sites of the Cancer Genetics Network and MD Anderson Cancer Center to compare these simplified tools with the Family History Assessment Tool (FHAT) and BRCAPRO, with the latter serving as the benchmark. BRCAPROLYTE retains high discrimination; however, because it ignores information on unaffected relatives, it overestimates carrier probabilities. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple provide better calibration than BRCAPROLYTE, so they have higher specificity for similar values of sensitivity. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus performs slightly better than BRCAPROLYTE-Simple. The Areas Under the ROC curve are 0.783 (BRCAPRO), 0.763 (BRCAPROLYTE), 0.772 (BRCAPROLYTE-Plus), 0.773 (BRCAPROLYTE-Simple), 0.728 (BRCAPRO-1Degree), and 0.745 (FHAT). The simpler versions, especially BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple, lead to only modest loss in overall discrimination compared to BRCAPRO in this dataset. Thus, we conclude that simplified implementations of BRCAPRO can be used for genetic risk prediction in settings where collection of complete pedigree information is impractical.

From January 1980 to August 1982 the Cancer and Leukemia Group B conducted a prospective randomized trial comparing chemoendocrine therapy with T-CAF (cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, and 5-fluorouracil plus tamoxifen) to CAF alone in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. The patients were stratified by estrogen receptor (ER) status into three groups: ER-negative, ER-positive, ER-unknown. They were also stratified by dominant site of metastatic disease: visceral and other (osseous and/or soft tissue). A total of 246 eligible patients were enrolled in the study; 232 were evaluable and constitute the basis for this report. The study revealed that there was no difference in overall response frequency or response duration between T-CAF and CAF; there was no difference in response between T-CAF and CAF in ER-positive or in ER-negative patients; and there was no difference in response between T-CAF and CAF by dominant site of metastatic disease. The expected advantage of T-CAF over CAF, especially for ER-positive patients, was not observed.

Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) is associated with infertility and menopausal symptoms. Learning how frequently paclitaxel and trastuzumab cause amenorrhea is important. Most other adjuvant breast cancer therapies induce CRA in approximately 50 % of all premenopausal recipients [1]. 410 patients enrolled on the APT Trial, a single-arm phase 2 adjuvant study of 12 weeks of paclitaxel and trastuzumab followed by nine months of trastuzumab monotherapy. Eligible patients had ≤3 cm node-negative HER2 + breast cancers. Premenopausal enrollees were asked to complete menstrual surveys every 3–12 months for 72 months. Women who responded to at least one survey at least 15 months after chemotherapy initiation (and who did not undergo hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy or receive ovarian suppressing medications prior to 15 months) were included in this analysis. A participant was defined as having amenorrhea in follow-up if her self-reported last menstrual period at last follow-up was greater than 12 months prior to the survey. Among the 64 women in the evaluable population (median age at study entry 44 years, range 27–52 years), the median time between chemotherapy initiation and last menstrual survey was 51 months (range 16–79). 18 of 64 women (28 %, 95 % CI 18–41 %) were amenorrheic at that time point. Amenorrhea rates among premenopausal women treated with adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for early stage breast cancer appear lower than those seen historically with standard alkylator-based breast cancer regimens. Future studies are needed to understand the impact of this regimen on related issues of fertility and menopausal symptoms.