17 July 2019

There are no standard guidelines for mammographic screening for men who have no symptoms (such as a lump), even if they are considered to be at high risk for developing breast cancer. A study recently published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment* evaluated the performance of screening mammography in asymptomatic high risk men.

The researchers reviewed a prospective institutional database at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, evaluating cases from 2011 – 2018. 827 men underwent mammography during that time period, but 80% were excluded from evaluation for this study as they underwent imaging due to the presence of a mass or other symptoms. Data from 163 asymptomatic patients, considered high risk due to a family and/ or personal history of breast cancer or the presence of a deleterious genetic mutation, was analyzed. 

Of the 163 men, 77% had personal history of breast cancer and 44% had a family history of breast cancer. 15% had deleterious BRCA mutations. Most of the genetic mutations (83%) were in the BRCA2 gene, as expected.

Over the 7-year time period, 806 screening mammography examinations were performed. The majority (792 studies, 98%) were BIRADS 1 or 2, indicating a normal study or benign findings. 10 (1.2%) were BIRADS 3 indicating a “probably benign” finding. Upon follow up, all of these patients were considered to have benign findings. 4 men had BIRADS 4 or 5 findings indicating suspicious or highly suspicious findings for which biopsy was recommended, and all were diagnosed with invasive ductal breast cancer.

Breast cancers in men are often diagnosed at more advanced stages than in women, and as a result, outcomes may be poorer. The authors noted that while mammographic screening has not been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality rates (the reason screening is performed) in men, the detection rate in this high-risk population (4.96 per 1000 examinations) is comparable to the breast cancer detection rate from screening mammography in average risk women. There were no false-positive (“false alarm”) biopsies in this group. The authors acknowledged one of the primary limitations of their study, the relatively small number of patients, and called for larger studies to confirm their findings. They concluded that their study “suggests that screening mammography should be performed in men at increased risk for breast cancer.”

*If you are not able to access the full study and would like a copy, please email me: contact at drattai dot com

14 July 2019

A study recently published in the journal Cancer* reports on disparities in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The researchers used the US cancer statistics database, and compared differences between TNBC and other breast cancer subtypes focusing on age, race / ethnicity, and stage at diagnosis. 

Between 2010 and 2014, approximately 1.15 million breast cancer cases were identified in the database. The mean age at diagnosis was 61.8, and 75% of patients were non-Hispanic white (NHW). 27.7% were diagnosed at stage III and 5% were diagnosed at stage IV. 

TNBC accounted for 8.4% of all breast cancer cases, but accounted for 21.4% of cases in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) women. Women diagnosed with TNBC had a lower mean age at diagnosis versus non-TNBC (59.3 versus 62.1). NHB women accounted for 11.8% of the study population, but 15.3% of TNBC cases. Women diagnosed with TNBC were also more likely to be younger than age 40 and diagnosed at Stage III or IV compared to those with other cancer subtypes. After controlling for late-stage diagnosis and age, NHB women had approximately twice the likelihood of diagnosis with TNBC compared with NHW women.

The researchers noted that their study validated previous literature, and had the advantage of being geographically very broad. Not discussed in this paper is the relationship of TNBC with genetic mutations, specifically mutations in the BRCA1 gene. Among patients with breast cancer, those who carry deleterious BRCA1 mutations are more likely to have TNBC versus BRCA2 carriers or non-carriers, and a diagnosis of TNBC should prompt genetic testing.

This study and others like it point to the need for more research on TNBC, and on breast cancer in black women. Dr. Lisa Newman, a breast surgical oncologist at Cornell, has published extensively on this topic. In this brief video, she notes that socioeconomic factors account for some of the disparities associated with breast cancer outcomes in black women. However, she also notes that there appears to be biologic differences between TNBC in black versus white women, which may also at least in part account for later stage at diagnosis and poorer prognosis.

*If you are not able to access the full study and would like a copy, please email me: contact at drattai dot com

6 March 2019

The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) held their annual meeting in Dallas last week. This meeting usually draws about 1500 breast surgeons (just under half the ASBrS membership) from around the world, for several days of pre-meeting courses, didactic sessions, and research presentations. In addition to the science, the meeting provides opportunities for breast surgeons in all types of practice settings and at all levels of training and practice to network and learn from each other. 

The following covers some highlights from the general session. 

The meeting started off with the Critical Issues in Breast Cancer Forum: Changing Paradigms for Breast Cancer Surgery. Dr. Cary Kaufman presented an update on current clinical trials for cryoablation for breast cancer. Cryoablation is a technique that freezes the tumor, using a small probe placed into the tumor (similar to a needle biopsy) under local anesthesia. There are several types of ablative therapy including laser, radiofrequency, high-frequency ultrasound, and cryoablation. Because cold is a natural anesthetic agent, patients undergoing cryoablation do not need any sedation, and the procedure is performed while they are awake. 

Cryoablation was initially tried with benign tumors (fibroadenomas). In many cases, the fibroadenoma reabsorbed, leaving no mass and only a tiny (3 millimeter) scar. Multiple studies have looked at the use of cryoablation for breast cancer, and most have restricted therapy to patients with small (1.5 cm or smaller) estrogen receptor positive, Her2/neu negative tumors. I participated in a national multi-center trial, the ACOSOG / ALLIANCE Z1072 trial, which was published in 2016 and demonstrated that cryoablation was successful in the majority of these patients. All patients in the ACOSOG / ALLIANCE Z1072 study underwent surgery within one month of the ablation, so that the tumor site could be removed and evaluated. Several subsequent studies have looked at cryoablation for breast cancer without surgery. The longest follow up was from Dr. Fukuma in Japan. After 12 years of follow up, he reported 3 local (in-breast) recurrences in 304 patients. Combining 3 published trials, Dr. Kaufman noted that local recurrence rates range from 0.98 – 1.4%, and he concluded that this is extremely promising technology. He also noted that cryoablation of breast cancer appears to have an immunologic benefit – when the tumor cell membranes are disrupted by the extreme cold, the patient is exposed to tumor antigens, which may prompt antibody formation. It is very premature to determine if this immunologic effect will help reduce recurrence rates.

Dr. William Small presented updates on 3 clinical trials of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT). An advantage of IORT is that it is delivered at the time of lumpectomy, in the operating room, as a one-time treatment. A disadvantage is that status of the lumpectomy specimen margin and lymph nodes are not known at that time. If it is found on final pathology that there are positive margins, external beam radiation is recommended, and at least one trial noted that approximately 30% of patients who received IORT required additional whole breast radiation. Most studies of IORT have been limited to “low risk” lesions – small, low grade invasive cancers in older women. He discussed that a criticism of these studies is that some of these women may not have needed radiation therapy at all. Dr. Small noted that local recurrence rates are slightly higher (3.3 versus 1.3%) but that statistically, IORT is considered “non-inferior” to whole breast irradiation. He noted that seroma (fluid accumulation) is more common in patients who undergo IORT.  He concluded by stating that there is an “acceptable” toxicity, with non-inferior local recurrence. However, as there is relatively short follow up available in low risk patients, he questioned the applicability of this procedure to a broader patient population. A US registry is planned.

Dr. Antonio Toesca presented the results of his study of 100 patients who underwent robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) and implant reconstruction, and showed a fascinating video which highlighted the precise and meticulous dissection, along with improved visualization, compared to a standard surgical procedure. The average incision size was a little over 1 inch, and the specimen was removed intact (in one piece). The procedure averaged 1 hour and 18 minutes longer than their standard for a nipple sparing mastectomy and implant reconstruction (3 hours, 36 minutes for the robotic procedure. Patients who underwent the robotic procedure were less likely to have axillary web syndrome and reported Improved physical, psychological and sexual well-being. 

Why could performance of NSM using robotic technology become important? Dr. Tina Hieken presented the results of her study (abstract 580759, page 31) showing that as experience with the procedure has grown, indications are expanding and patients who previously were not candidates for the procedure are now being considered. A NSM is a technically challenging procedure, and it takes a toll on the neck and back of a surgeon. A 2017 study published in JAMA Surgery noted a high incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons and interventionists. Dr. Katherine Kopkash presented her research (abstract 51837, page 52) using intraoperative electromyography (EMG) on the surgeon to assess muscle strain during NSM. Of course, oncologic safety is the primary concern, and more study on the long-term outcomes (as well as costs) of robotic procedures is required. 

The next session was Emerging Strategies in Breast Cancer Care, which focused on “de-escalation” of surgical therapy. Dr. Anna Weiss provided an update of clinical trials evaluating active surveillance for low-risk ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS): COMET, LORD and LORIS. Approximately 60,000 cases of DCIS are diagnosed annually. Patients undergoing active surveillance do not have surgery, some are treated with endocrine therapy, and all undergo regular monitoring. This is a accepted option in select cases of prostate cancer, and Dr. Weiss noted that there is no difference in overall survival in patients with low-grade DCIS who do not undergo treatment. The LORD and LORIS trials are open in the UK and the COMET study is open in the US. (Additional perspective)

Dr. Henry Kuerer presented his research on the percutaneous management of breast cancer in the setting of a pathology complete response (pCR) following neoaduvant (before surgery) chemotherapy. He noted that for survival and recurrence matter most, but side effects and complications are significant concerns for both patients and physicians. I’ve recently covered details of his research on this blog

Some of the twitter conversation related to this talk included patients who noted that they would rather undergo surgery than chemotherapy. It is important to note that the patients involved in this study are those who were going to be treated with chemotherapy regardless of surgical therapy because they have triple negative or Her2/neu positive breast cancer. In these patients, systemic (whole-body) therapy is necessary due to the higher likelihood of metastatic disease. Surgical therapy in these patients, especially the “exceptional responders”, may not improve outcomes, but of course more study is needed. Surgery remains the standard of care for breast cancer therapy.

Dr. Judy Boughey discussed several cooperative group trials evaluating management of the axillary (underarm) lymph nodes, and these studies are also focusing on how we can safely de-escalate axillary surgical therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This is an area that is rapidly evolving with expansion of the criteria for a less aggressive approach to the axilla.

In a session on Evidence-Based Prevention and Management of Surgical Complications, Dr. Suzanne Klimberg presented on chronic post-mastectomy seroma. A seroma is a fluid collection – fluid normally accumulates after mastectomy which is why drainage tubes are left in place. Normally, drains can be removed after 7-14 days, but about 30% of patients will develop prolonged drainage. This is a frustrating problem for patients and physicians as the persistent fluid can be uncomfortable, may increase the risk of infection, and may delay the start of planned chemotherapy or radiation. She noted that a surgical technique to close the tissue known as “quilting” can reduce the rate of chronic seroma, but that it results in excessive skin dimpling and has a significant impact on the cosmetic results. She stated that additional drainage tubes, various “sealant” agents and compression (such as wearing an ace wrap) are not effective. The area may be sclerosed (scarred) by instilling talc or antibiotics, and in some cases, re-operation to remove the inflamed tissue is indicated. Otherwise she recommended patience and repeat aspirations. She noted that there are no ways to successfully prevent seromas from forming.

Dr. Amal Khoury presented on chronic post-mastectomy pain, and noted that persistent pain occurs in 25-60% of patients undergoing any type of breast surgery. It is thought that this chronic and at times severe pain is due to damage to and neuroma formation of the cutaneous (skin) branches of nerves that run along the 4thand 5thribs, which are roughly at the inframammary fold (bra line below the breast). These cutaneous nerve branches are often not visible at the time of surgery. She noted that the pain syndrome it is often not recognized, and when recognized it is often not treated effectively. She stated that injections with a combination of long-acting local anesthetic and steroid (in a very small dose) at the trigger points is more effective than taking pain or other medications, and in their study at UCSF, 91% of patients required only one injection for lasting relief.

The next session was Practical Considerations for Systemic Treatment. Dr. Judy Boughey reviewed the I-SPY2 clinical trials, which utilize an innovative “adaptive randomization” approach in patients who are undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative, Her2/neu positive, or other high risk breast cancers. pCR rates are assessed, and drugs that are successful move up higher in the randomization algorithm. This study and its flexible randomization protocol have accelerated the use of some novel agents. Patient reported outcomes assessing quality of life, fear of recurrence, symptoms and side effects are being assessed. If drug response rates are similar, the “winner” may be the one associated with fewer side effects. Dr. Barry Rosen discussed specific strategies to identify the previously involved axillary lymph nodes when chemotherapy is performed prior to surgery. Dr. Elizabeth Mittendorf presented on breast cancer immunotherapy and surgical implications of these treatments. She noted that one agent, atezolizumab, is currently approved for use in patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer. She noted that there are concerns about wound healing complications with these agents but unfortunately the clinical trials did not specifically assess for this. In addition, she noted that some immunotherapy agents are associated with development of adrenal insufficiency – this complication has only been reported in a small percentage of patients, but it is an important consideration in any patient who is going to have surgery.

A session was held on breast imaging. Dr. Molly Sebastian presented on the impact of breast density on breast cancer risk, noting that it is more difficult to screen patients with dense breasts, and that these patients are also at increased risk for developing breast cancer. The associated breast cancer risk increases with the level of density. Approximately 50% of women in US are considered to have dense breast by mammogram, and she cited a 2010 study that found that 30% of breast cancers could be linked to highly dense breast tissue. Contributors to increased density include younger age, use of hormone replacement therapy, race (Asian), diet (Western), alcohol use, and hereditary factors. She did stress that the presence of a germline genetic mutation (such as BRCA 1/2) conveys a much higher level of risk (regardless of density) than breast density itself. 

Dr. Brigid Killelea discussed balancing high-risk screening (which usually includes MRI) with the concerns about gadolinium toxicity. Gadolinium is a “rare earth heavy metal”, and is used in the contrast material that is administered (using an intravenous line) when breast MRI is performed. Acute allergic reactions are uncommon but as gadolinium is excreted through the kidneys, there are concerns about the potential for kidney damage especially in patients with pre-existing renal insufficiency. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) is an unusual condition that results in progressive deposition of gadolinium in the skin. It has also been found that the number of exposures to the linear form of gadolinium (as opposed to macrocyclic, which is what is most commonly used with breast MRI) correlates with increasing deposits in the brain. More research is needed to determine if this leads to an increased risk of Parkinson’s or other diseases. Studies evaluating “fast” MRI protocols are ongoing but they still use gadolinium contrast. Some work is being done with non-contrast MRI and Dr. Killelea noted that it shows some promise in detecting certain lesions. 

In the session on Ethical Issues in Breast Cancer Surgery, Dr. Rachel Greenup discussed how to manage the situation when the principles of respect for patient autonomy conflict with the standard of care. She noted that patient autonomy allows for us (as physicians) to educate but not to decide care for patients, and that poor physician-patient communication is a key factor in patients opting for non-standard care. Factors associated with patients declining standard therapy include a negative first experience, an uncaring / insensitive / unnecessarily harsh oncologist, fear of side effects, and belief in the efficacy of alternative therapy.  In regards to endocrine therapy for breast cancer, she noted that unmanaged side effects are a significant contributor to stopping therapy. She also presented data showing poorer outcomes in patients who declined standard therapy, and that many, when faced with disease progression, did then opt for conventional treatment. She recommended that physicians review and present evidence to their patients in an understandable way, taking time to acknowledge fears and address patient barriers to treatment, provide time to adjust to diagnosis, suggest a 2ndopinion, and avoid abandonment or fear tactics. She also suggested that physicians be more open (when medically safe) to the combination of alternative and standard therapy. She stressed that patient autonomy is the priority, and that open communication can help align patient-centered care with evidence-based care. 

Dr. Terry Sarantou discussed the ethical issues of obtaining informed consent when performing a new surgical procedure, noting that there is FDA oversight for new drugs and surgical devices, but not for surgical procedures. He stressed that informed consent is a communication process, not a form to be signed. 

Recognizing the role that surgeons play in the current opioid crisis, Dr. Sarah DeSnyder discussed proper prescribing of narcotics in breast surgery. There was also an abstract presentation by Dr. Betty Fan (abstract 5808940, page 27) on this subject. She noted that women who expected postoperative pain or those who reported higher preoperative distress used more postoperative opioids for pain management. She stressed that physician and trainee education about proper prescribing is critical as is setting patient expectations for postoperative pain and providing non-narcotic options. The use of nerve blocks, long-acting local anesthetic agents, acetaminophen (Tylenol) and ibuprofen were also discussed. 

Photographs are an important part of breast and reconstructive surgery to document results both for patient and physician education as well as for quality assurance, and Dr. Toan Nguyen reviewed some of the ethical, legal and technical considerations to protect patient confidentiality and privacy. The ASBrS statement on this issue has been published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology.

In the session covering New Perspectives on Old Problems, Dr. Lee Wilke noted that with improved surgical techniques, breast conservation is now appropriate for select patients with more than one tumor in the breast. She did note that in up to 20-30% of patients with more than one tumor in the breast, the tumors are different subtypes, which may have implications for therapy – so pathologic analysis needs to be performed on all lesions. Dr. Stephen Grobmyer reviewed the current literature on local (in-breast) recurrence, noting that repeat breast conservation may be appropriate in some patients. However, if repeat radiation is performed, there is a higher risk of skin toxicity and potentially unacceptable cosmetic results. In addition, for left-sided breast cancers, repeat radiation raises concerns about cumulative radiation damage to the heart. Repeat lumpectomy without radiation is associated with a 20-40% risk of local recurrence. IORT may be utilized in some patients, but studies are ongoing and data is limited.

Dr. David Euhus discussed that genetic testing does not only potentially impact the surgical procedure that is recommended, but may influence the decision for radiation therapy as well as systemic therapy. In addition, results of genetic testing may impact surveillance for additional breast or other cancers in the patient as well as recommendations for family members. The ASBrS recently updated their genetic testing guideline, recommending that genetic testing be considered for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. (Additional perspective)

In the session on Benign Breast Disease, Dr. Jane Mendez reviewed breast fistulas (persistent drainage through the skin) and infections, and Dr. Vincent Reid reviewed some of the non-malignant masses that can develop in the male breast. Dr. Katrina Mitchell, who is a breast surgeon as well as a certified lactation consultant, provided recommendations for management of post-partum patients who develop mastitis or breast abscess. One of the key recommendations was that patients should continue breast feeding (better than pumping for keeping the breast empty) and that patients do not need to “pump and dump” the milk while on antibiotics. 

Dr. Stephanie Valente discussed breast pain, which is a common problem that frustrates both patients and physicians. Pain is a symptom of breast cancer in less than 2% of cases.  Suggestions for treatment include decrease caffeine, nicotine, and dietary fat intake, and consider supplementation with essential fatty acids such as evening primrose oil (EPO) or vitamin E. However, she noted that that some studies show that EPO and vitamin E are no better than placebo. Both flaxseed and chasteberry have shown to be effective. Diclofenac (a non-narcotic pain medication) gel can be effective but it needs to be used for several weeks before improvement is seen and it is expensive. In severe cases, danazol (an androgen hormone) or tamoxifen can be used but are associated with significant side effects.

There were several sessions on oncoplastic surgery. Oncoplastics refers to combining oncologic (cancer) surgery with attention to cosmetic outcomes. Basic principles include placing the incision in the least conspicuous place and closure of as much of the breast tissue once the tumor has been removed as possible to minimize, or preferably avoid, a depression in the area. More advanced techniques include rotation flaps and mastopexy (lift) that may be performed by breast surgeons or breast surgeons collaborating with their plastic surgical colleagues. There was also a session discussing some of the advanced microvascular procedures that are being studied to treat lymphedema as well as a video session showing some basic techniques to perform a better (flat) closure for patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction. 

The keynote address was delivered by the actress Kathy Bates. Ms. Bates underwent a bilateral mastectomy for breast cancer and has bilateral arm lymphedema. She is a spokeswoman for the Lymphatic Education and Research Network, working to educate, support, and advocate for patients who have lymphedema. She delivered a moving and unique address to the group, combining science and her personal patient perspective. An abstract (abstract 581304, page 22) presented during the meeting demonstrated that postoperative surveillance with bioimpedence spectroscopy compared to tape measure resulted in a 10% decrease in the number of patients requiring complex decongestive physiotherapy. However, these results, which were a planned interim data analysis, did not reach statistical significance.

The new ASBrS screening mammography guidelines were released at the meeting. They recommend formal risk assessment starting at age 25 and a risk-based approach to screening, as well as annual mammography starting at age 40 for average-risk women. (Additional commentary)

All of the research abstracts and posters can be found here. There were many interesting and thought-providing presentations, but it is important to remember that abstracts represent incomplete data and have not been subject to the peer-review process. The oral abstracts that were presented will be published in manuscript form later this year. The poster gallery can be found here (not all posters have been uploaded by the presenters).

As usual if anyone is interested in one of the articles referenced but does not have access, or wants additional information, please send your email address to me: contact at drattai dot com and I will be happy to respond.

This post has not been endorsed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

7 April 2019

The Society of Surgical Oncology held their annual meeting in San Diego, CA from March 27-30, 2019. Approximately 1700 surgical oncologists were in attendance. As the organization is geared towards the entire field of surgical oncology, only a portion of the meeting covered breast cancer. Here are some of the highlights:

Genetic Testing and Management
Dr. Judy Garber – Dana Farber
Updates in Testing and Management of BRCA Mutations
BRCA Mutation information from the National Cancer Institute
– Consider repeat testing if original genetic testing was performed prior to 2012 as more genes as well as pathogenic mutations have been discovered
– NCCN guidelines for breast cancer surveillance in BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers:
o Clinical breast exam every 6-12 months starting at age 25
o Annual MRI age 25-75 (individualize after age 75)
o Annual mammogram age 30-75 (individualize after age 75)
– NCCN guidelines for breast cancer prevention in BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers: discuss mastectomy, discuss tamoxifen
– Premenopausal BRCA mutation carriers who undergo oophorectomy experience breast cancer risk reduction. The level of breast cancer risk reduction in BRCA1 carriers is lower than in BRCA2 carriers as BRCA1-associated tumors are more likely to be triple negative
– Prenatal genetic testing is available in mutation carriers, and may be used for selective reproduction
– BRCA 1/2 mutation status does not impact breast cancer outcomes; tumor biology impact on outcomes is independent of mutation status
– BRCA 1/2 are DNA repair genes. Tumors associated with BRCA 1 tend to be triple negative and tumors associated with BRCA 2 tend to be ER/PR+, Her2- (but all combinations have been seen)
– Clinical trials are evaluating the use of cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with BRCA mutations – cancer cells are not able to repair DNA-induced chemotherapy damage due to the defective BRCA gene
– PARP inhibitors interfere with DNA repair and have traditionally been used to treat ovarian cancer. Small studies show some effect in breast cancer in the setting of BRCA mutations. Larger studies are ongoing. So far they only seem to work in breast cancer when there are BRCA mutations
– A challenge to treatment with PARP inhibitors is that there are many mechanisms of resistance, and tumors demonstrate a variable response to therapy – tests are being developed to predict response
– Lurbinectedin – a drug from sea slugs (!) may have some effect
– A very interesting comment – Dr. Garber noted that DNA breaks may be immunogenic, so there may be a role to combine PARP inhibitors and immunotherapy treatments
– Denosumab, a RANK-ligand used for bone protection in breast cancer patients, may have breast cancer risk-reducing activity – a randomized trial is pending to assess its activity as a preventative agent

Thuy Vu, Genetic Counselor – Wake Forest
What Genetic Test Should I Order?
– Once the appropriate patient for genetic testing has been identified, how to decide what lab to use? Consider lab experience, as well as cost and insurance support
– Patients with a complicated family history (multiple different cancers in scattered relatives), absent family history (adopted), and evidence of multiple cancer syndromes will benefit from NGS (next-generation sequencing) genetic panel testing
– A disadvantage of broad genetic panel testing is that there is currently incomplete information on all of the mutations that may be identified. Risk for cancers unrelated to the current diagnosis may be identified. In addition, there will be an increased prevalence of variants of uncertain significance (VUS)
– She noted to use caution when patients bring in test results from ancestry.com and similar companies – these sites often assess for SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), which is not the same as testing for a genetic mutation, and full genetic testing may need to be repeated
– She acknowledged that there is a shortage of genetic counselors, even in large university centers. Many testing companies and labs now have associated genetic counselors, and there are some independent companies offering telephone counseling services

Dr. David Euhus – Johns Hopkins
ATM, CHEK2 and Other Genes
– While multiple gene mutations influencing breast cancer risk have been identified, they do not all convey the same level of risk
– As testing for multiple genes has increased, BRCA mutations are no longer the most common mutations found
– High risk genes include BRCA 1/2, TP53, PTEN, PALB2, STK11, CDH1
– Moderate risk genes include ATM, CHEK2, NBN, NF1
– These and other genes explain approximately 14-28% of genetic risk for breast cancer – most patients with a strong family history of breast cancer do not have an identifiable mutation
– There is a range of risk associated with all of the genes that in part depends on the mutation type – what type of damage does the mutation cause to the DNA. Family history of breast cancer can modify risk.
– For most of these patients, NCCN guidelines recommend annual MRI in addition to mammograms. Age to start supplemental screening depends on the mutation.
– He noted that increased screening for other associated cancers when there is no clinical benefit leads to patient harms – financial, emotional, and physical
– A good question from the floor about the role of ultrasound as supplemental screening (in addition to MRI) – Dr. Euhus states he uses 3D mammogram / tomosynthesis and does not use ultrasound unless the patient is pregnant / lactating

Dr. Kevin Hughes – Massachusetts General Hospital
What the Surgeon Needs to Know about Genetic Testing
– High cost of testing is not the problem – interpretation of the results is the challenge
– Assuming that approximately 10% of breast cancers are hereditary, over 51,000 breast cancers could have been prevented with testing
– For the breast surgeon, understanding BRCA 1/2 is not enough. There are many genes, each have different spectrum of associated cancers and associated risk; treatment needs to be individualized for the patient taking into account their specific mutation and family history
– He emphasized the point Dr. Garber made that if testing on a breast cancer survivor was performed prior to 2012, those patients should be re-tested
– Recent American Society of Breast Surgeons guidelines call for consideration of genetic testing in all breast cancer patients
– Dr. Hughes notes that this is already a standard recommendation for other cancers such as ovarian, pancreas and others
– The field is becoming more complicated – it is not expected that anyone can memorize this – go to the internet and look it up!

Resources:
ASK2ME – All Syndromes Known to Man Evaluator
ClinVar – look up specific mutations to see how they have been classified
PROMPT registry for patients with rare mutations

Breast Cancer Treatments in the Young and Elderly
Dr. Mina Sedrak – City of Hope
Treatment Strategies in Octogenarians with Early Stage, High-Risk Breast Cancer
– Incidence and mortality from breast cancer increase with age; the number of older adults in the US is increasing
– Breast cancer outcomes are often worse for older (as well as younger) women
– Older adults are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials – 1/3 of patients with breast cancer are over the age of 70, but only a small percentage of them are included in clinical trials
– Because of lack of clinical trial data in older women, patients may be under- or over-treated [DJA note – we have a similar situation in men with breast cancer].
– There is no universal definition of “old”. Aging is a continuous spectrum, and chronological age does not accurately predict functional age. The ASCO Guidelines Geriatric Assessment can help understand factors other than chronological age to predict morbidity and mortality. US Life Tables can also be used to estimate life expectancy, as well as ePrognosis. Estimation of life expectancy should be performed for all older patients before making a treatment plan
– How to best treat cancer in the elderly patient: it depends on life expectancy, aging concerns, risks / benefits of treatment and the potential impact of co-existing medical problems
– What risks can we modify and what are the patient preferences? There is no “one size fits all”

Dr. Tyler Chesney – University of Toronto
Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Older Women after Breast Conserving Surgery
– 4 randomized clinical trials addressed if elderly patients with low-risk breast cancer need radiation therapy after breast conserving therapy: NSABP B-21, A. Fyles, CALGB 9343, and PRIME II studies
o Meta-analysis of these 4 studies: 2387 patients across all trials, early stage breast cancer, hormone receptor positive. Addition of radiation therapy reduces local recurrence from 60 versus 10 / 1000 at 5 years. 2 trials had 10 year follow up, noting recurrence was 80 versus 20 / 1000 women.
o 3 of the trials provided data on axillary recurrence: absolute benefit was small, 12 versus 3 / 1000 women. No difference in distant recurrence or overall survival
– Prime I study showed that older women who underwent radiation therapy had increased fatigue over 5-10 years but similar overall health-related quality of life
– Accelerated partial breast irradiation may be an option, but some studies have shown higher local recurrence and poorer cosmetic result (depending on treatment method)
– While toxicities of radiation therapy have improved with more modern techniques, logistical concerns such as time, need to travel, and cost may be of higher concern for older women

Dr. Laura Dominici – Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Reconstruction and Body Image in Young Patients
– More than 13,000 women under the age of 40 are diagnosed with breast cancer annually in the US, approximately 7% of all new diagnoses
– Younger women newly diagnosed with breast cancer have been shown to have higher rates of anxiety and distress after diagnosis, they have historically received more aggressive treatment, and have a long survivorship period
– More aggressive surgery such as mastectomy does not lead to improved overall or breast cancer specific survival. Local recurrence is related to tumor biology, not age of the patient
– Mastectomy (single and bilateral) rates are rising, especially among younger women. Rates of reconstruction are increasing, as are rates of post mastectomy radiation
– A growing number of patients are “going flat” after mastectomy, opting for no reconstruction
– Dana Farber young women’s multicenter prospective cohort study: poorer satisfaction with breast-related, psychosocial and sexual well-being after unilateral and bilateral mastectomy. Other factors impacting poorer satisfaction include financial status, lymphedema, and the need for radiation
– 42% of women age 50 and younger (in the Dana Farber study) regret their surgical decision including primary surgery and reconstruction decision. Patients in this study were not asked what the actual regret was – doing too much or too little
– Important for patients to understand the oncologic outcomes of their decisions, and for physicians to promote shared decision making that takes into account patient preferences and concerns

Dr. Jo Chien – University of California, San Francisco
Fertility in Young Breast Cancer Patients
– 51% of women under age 40 with breast cancer are concerned about fertility; 38% desire to have future children but up to 97% are at risk of treatment related infertility. 26% report that their concerns about infertility affected their treatment decisions
– Loss of reproductive potential after cancer treatment results in worse long-term quality of life, unresolved grief / depression, reduced life satisfaction. Fertility preservation associated with less regret among young cancer survivors
– Less than 25% of general oncologists refer young breast cancer patients to fertility specialists
– Factors impacting risk of chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure: older age, baseline ovarian reserve, type of chemotherapy, and chemotherapy dose / duration
– Menses is not a surrogate marker for fertility. Fertility decline occurs ~10 years before onset of menopause. For women who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy, the majority enter menopause prematurely
– Options for fertility preservation: ovarian stimulation and cryopreservation of embryos / oocytes, GnRH agonists, and experimental techniques such as cryopreservation of ovarian tissue and immature oocyte retrieval with in vitro maturation
– Several studies have evaluated safety of letrozole-gonadotropin protocol in women with breast cancer and have found no difference in relapse-free survival. Very limited data on safety of ovarian stimulation in the neoadjuvant setting. In subset (82 patients – 34 stimulation / 48 controls) of I-SPY2 trial, no delay in start of neoadjuvant treatment and no significant difference in pCR or recurrence or mortality rates in patients who underwent ovarian stimulation before chemotherapy
– As discussed in the genetics session, Dr. Chien noted that for BRCA mutation carriers, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is an option. Multiple follicles / embryos are required, often needing multiple stimulation cycles
– Observational studies suggest that pregnancy is safe after breast cancer.
– When is it safe to become pregnant after treatment? It comes down to patient’s underlying risk and likely their risk aversion. Dr. Chien prefers to wait to 2-3 years, but notes there is no data to support that. The POSITIVE trial is studying the impact of adjuvant endocrine therapy interruption to allow for pregnancy

Key papers
Dr. Kandace McGuire from Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center provided an overview of 3 practice-changing papers from 2018. She noted at the start of her talk that while this is a surgical audience, all of the studies were from the medial oncology literature. This comment highlighted the multidisciplinary nature of breast cancer care – the entire treatment team needs to be aware of the latest advances and updates.

The TAILORx study assessed Oncotype Dx results and noted that many patients previously classified as intermediate risk could now be classified as low risk. Therefore, a larger percentage of patients do not need chemotherapy. However, questions remain for patients under the age of 50.

The TEXT / SOFT trials evaluated the use of ovarian suppression in premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Ovarian suppression resulted in improved disease free and overall survival, but the magnitude of improvement varied according to recurrence risk. High risk patients may have 10-15% improvement. However, quality of life and fertility may be impacted by ovarian suppression in these younger women

The KATHERINE study assessed the use of TDM1 in patients with Her2/neu over-expressed tumors who did not exhibit a pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant (before surgery) chemotherapy. Those who received adjuvant TDM1 versus trastuzumab showed an improved disease free survival, but more study is needed to assess the effect on overall survival.

Dr. V. Craig Jordan delivered the American Cancer Society / SSO Basic Science Lecture: The SERM Saga: Something From Nothing. Dr. Jordan’s presentation was a nice history lesson about the discovery and use of tamoxifen as a treatment for breast cancer.
– Dr. Jordan noted the early clues that endocrine therapy might be effective for some breast cancers – removal of the ovaries, adrenal glands, and even part of the pituitary gland led to improved outcomes (with a fair amount of associated risk)
– Tamoxifen was initially developed as a contraceptive agent, but it was not successful and was going to be discarded by the manufacturer
– The link to endometrial cancer and tamoxifen was initially denied, despite some interesting studies by Dr. Jordon noting the association. He noted that the early studies evaluating tamoxifen simply did not assess for endometrial cancer
– He noted that the cumulative frequency of uterine cancer with 2 years of tamoxifen is ~1.5%, and with 5 years of tamoxifen ~5.5%. He commented that if the studies were performed today, the data monitoring committees would “go apoplectic” over these results
– Raloxifene in early studies showed decrease in breast cancer but also decrease in bone fractures – this led to the STAR trial which assessed the ability of raloxifene and tamoxifen to reduce breast cancer development in high-risk women
– He discussed other drugs, derived from tamoxifen, that are being developed – searching for those with improved side effect profiles
– He quoted George S. Patton: “If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn’t thinking”

Presidential Address – Serendipity and Strategy on the Path of Progress
Dr. Armando Giuliano, known to some as the “father” of the sentinel node biopsy, provided some interesting details on how his research process unfolded. He noted that “my success has been due to good luck, mixed with hard work, strategic planning, and serendipity.” Like those before him who proposed less aggressive surgical therapy for breast cancer, he was met with a fair amount of criticism. Patients and surgeons have benefited from his perseverance and dedication.

All of the research abstracts and posters can be found here. There were many interesting and thought-providing presentations, but it is important to remember that abstracts have not been subject to the peer-review process, and may represent incomplete data.

As usual if anyone is interested in one of the articles but does not have access, please send your email address to me: contact at drattai dot com and I will be happy to send you a copy.

This post has not been endorsed by the Society of Surgical Oncology.

12 February 2019

The American Society of Breast Surgeons has issued updated genetic testing guidelines for patients who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. The new guidelines recommend that genetic testing to include BRCA 1/2 and PALB2 mutations (and other genes as appropriate based on clinical scenario and family history) be made available to all newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. They also recommend re-evaluation and consideration of updated testing for patients tested prior to 2014.

Traditional guidelines for genetic testing have focused on age at diagnosis and family history of breast, ovarian and other cancers. However, recent studies have demonstrated that a percentage of patients who do not meet testing guidelines will be found to carry a deleterious mutation that may change surgical and other treatment recommendations. This information could also be helpful to family members who could participate in enhanced screening protocols or consider prophylactic surgery.

Not all genetic mutations are alike. Abnormalities in the BRCA 1 and 2 genes are the most common mutations associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Mutations in other genes, such as PALB2, CHEK2, PTEN, ATM and others do not convey as high a risk. Treatment decisions in these patients needs to consider family history and other risk factors.

Another important factor to consider is that not all mutations are meaningful. Genetic testing may find a “variant of uncertain or unknown significance (VUS)” – this indicates that there is a mutation in the gene, but there is not sufficient evidence to classify it as harmful or not. Many VUS cases will be re-classified over time to reflect no impact on cancer risk. A smaller number may be re-classified as harmful.

Finally, treatment recommendations and decisions based on genetic testing status need to take into account the individual patient – their age, other medical problems, and their personal preferences.

There are currently several companies that provide comprehensive genetic testing, and costs have come down considerably. It is hoped that other national organizations, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) will update their testing guidelines, and that insurers will broaden coverage for testing. Despite some cautions, these new guidelines are an important step to help ensure that breast cancer patients, their treatment team, and their families have the information necessary to make more informed decisions.

Additional Information: Washington Post

10 May 2018

The American Society of Breast Surgeons held their Annual Meeting in Orlando, FL from May 2nd – 6th. As usual, it was well attended – the meeting is known for being very practical and full of information that breast surgeons can bring back to their practices to help improve patient care.

I’ve picked a few topics to highlight in this post: Genetics, Imaging, Local Therapy, Systemic Therapy, Immunotherapy, Liquid Biopsy, Diet and Hormone Therapy, and Changing Paradigms. The following are comments expressed by the meeting speakers. My own comments will be noted in bold italics.

Genetics:

  • BRCA 1 mutation carriers are more likely to have triple negative breast cancer.
  • BRCA 2 mutation carriers are more likely to have ER positive, Her2/neu negative breast cancers.
  • The risk of a 2nd breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers on average is about 2% per year depending on the specific mutation and the age of affected relatives. It can approach 60-80% in some patients. This increased risk of a new breast cancer is why bilateral mastectomy is often recommended. Removal of the opposite breast may result in improved overall survival but results from studies are mixed.
  • For BRCA mutation carriers, it is recommended that clinical breast exam (breast exam by the physician) be performed every 6-12 months. From age 25-29 annual MRI is recommended, and from age 30-75 annual mammogram (3D mammogram or tomosynthesis was recommended) along with MRI was recommended. It was stated that this screening regimen has not been shown to improve survival, but the screen-detected cancers were less likely to have lymph node involvement. No specific recommendation was made for imaging or exam after bilateral mastectomy.
  • MRI every 6 months has been suggested by some, but there are concerns about gadolinium (a heavy metal material which is the contrast agent used for breast MRI) buildup.
  • Removal of the ovaries is recommended around age 40.
  • In patients with BRCA mutations who undergo salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes), estrogen replacement therapy has not been shown to increase subsequent breast cancer risk. However, combined estrogen / progesterone therapy may increase subsequent breast cancer risk. It was suggested to consider removing the uterus at the time of ovary removal, so that estrogen alone could be used (if the uterus is not removed, estrogen alone could increase the risk of uterine cancer).
  • There are many other genetic mutations that have been identified that have a variable association with increased breast cancer risk. It was stressed that family history and other factors need to be considered when these less common mutations (such as CHEK2, ATM, PALB2 and many more) are present, before recommending mastectomy.
  • It was stressed that the presence of a variant of unknown significance (VUS) should NOT prompt aggressive surgery.
  • A study was presented that demonstrated that current breast cancer genetic testing guidelines exclude almost half of high-risk patients, and a recommendation was made for testing of all breast cancer patients regardless of age, family history or other factors.

Breast Imaging:

  • Dense breast (as determined by mammogram) reduces the sensitivity of mammograms, and also is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.
  • It was stressed that determination of breast density is subjective and studies have shown significant variability in grading of breast density. Automated methods of assessing density are being evaluated.
  • 34 states have dense breast notification legislation. Some have supplemental screening (such as ultrasound) legislation (California does not).
  • An advantage of tomosynthesis (also known as 3D mammogram) in patients with dense breasts is that it decreases the likelihood of callbacks and improves the cancer detection rate
  • Abbreviated (3 minute scan) MRI shows promise for screening.
  • There is an ECOG/ACRIN study planned which will evaluate abbreviated MRI versus tomosynthesis in women with dense breasts.
  • Contrast-enhanced mammography is superior to digital mammography but it requires an IV contrast dye, and there is currently no ability to biopsy lesions seen only with this technique.
  • It was stressed that automated whole breast ultrasound (ABUS) should not replace mammography.
  • Molecular breast imaging has a much higher radiation dose due to the need to inject a radioactive material and cost is higher than other imaging modalities. There are only about 100 units in the US.
  • In addition to BRCA mutation carriers, patients who have a history of chest wall radiation at a young age (most commonly for treatment of Hodgkin’s lymphoma) or those who have a lifetime risk of breast cancer over 20% (assessed by various computer modes) should have annual MRI in addition to mammograms for surveillance.

Loco-Regional (breast and underarm lymph nodes) Therapy:

  • Recurrence of cancer in the breast (known as a local recurrence) was previously thought to be related to “disease burden” – the amount of tumor and size of clear margins. According to Dr. Monica Morrow, this has led to an “obsession” with margins, wider surgical resection than necessary, and the overuse of MRI.
  • Due to improvements in systemic therapy (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy), local recurrences have decreased over time.
  • Local recurrences are largely a function of tumor biology – more aggressive tumor types are more likely to recur. Bigger surgery does not overcome bad biology.
  • The rates of contralateral (opposite side) new breast cancer have been decreasing in the US; currently <1% at 5 years for patients who do not have a genetic mutation.
  • Updated 2018 ASTRO guidelines endorse hypofractionation (a shorter course of radiation therapy) in a larger group of patients.
  • There are 3 trials that will evaluate whether or not radiation therapy can be avoided in selected patients – LUMINA, IDEA and PRECISION.
  • ~30% of patients undergoing “direct to implant” reconstruction (no temporary tissue expander) need a second surgery. One of the plastic surgeons that I work with notes that “reconstruction is a process not a procedure!”
  • Managing expectations of the reconstruction process is important so patients don’t get frustrated and feel like their reconstruction has “failed.”
  • Post mastectomy radiation worsens outcome from implant reconstruction; severe capsular contracture occurs in about 30% of patients.
  • If radiation is performed on the permanent implant instead of the tissue expander, the rate of reconstruction failure goes down by 50%.
  • Many plastic surgeons prefer that autologous (patient’s own body) reconstruction be performed after radiation to avoid shrinkage of the flap. A tissue expander could be placed at the time of mastectomy which will be removed after radiation when the flap procedure is performed.
  • Lymphedema risk is about 25% with axillary node dissection versus 6-8% with sentinel node biopsy. In certain patients over age 70 with ER+ breast cancer, sentinel node biopsy can be avoided – this was also covered in the Society of Surgical Oncology’s Choosing Wisely statements. However, it is also important to take into account whether or not the patient will be treated with radiation and/or endocrine therapy. Sentinel node biopsy is also not recommended for most patients undergoing lumpectomy for DCIS. The SOUND trial is evaluating the use of axillary ultrasound to try to determine if this can help select patients who do not need sentinel node biopsy.

 Systemic Therapy:

  • The use of genomic tumor testing could avoid the use of ineffective (for the specific patient depending on tumor profile) chemotherapy in up to 50,000 patients per year.
  • Neoadjuvant (before surgery) chemotherapy is most commonly used to decrease tumor size so that patients have a higher likelihood of being able to undergo lumpectomy instead of mastectomy.
  • About 50% of patients who have positive lymph nodes before chemotherapy are converted to node-negative due to chemotherapy prior to surgery, and they may be able to avoid full axillary node dissection.
  • Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy varies by tumor subtype. Her2/neu and triple negative breast cancers are more likely to respond compared to ER+ and Her2/neu negative tumors.
  • Technical considerations to improve the accuracy of sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy including the use of 2 dye agents to map the nodes and removal of at least 3 lymph nodes.
  • A multidisciplinary approach for management of patients who are being considered for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was stressed.
  • Recurrence patterns are different for ER+ versus ER- disease. Patients with ER+ breast cancer are at risk for late recurrence, even 20 years after treatment – the highest risk is in patients with multiple involved lymph nodes. Patients with ER- disease tend to recur earlier (within the first 2-5 years), and then the likelihood of recurrence decreases.
  • Recurrence in the breast is a marker of increased risk for development of metastatic disease.
  • Premenopausal patients who have “low risk” disease could consider stopping tamoxifen after 5 years. It is recommended that patients with “high risk” disease consider 10 years of tamoxifen therapy.
  • Postmenopausal patients who are considered “high risk” could consider 10 years of an aromatase inhibitor, although there is not currently data that shows this approach improves survival. Prolonged therapy in these patients does reduce the likelihood of developing a new breast cancer and reduces the likelihood of breast cancer recurrence.

Immunotherapy / Liquid Biopsy:

  • A brief session was held covering immunotherapy and liquid biopsy.
  • Immunotherapy for breast cancer has not had the success seen in melanoma, lung cancer, colon cancer and bladder cancer.
  • The combination of chemotherapy and a modified herpes virus has shown some promise in patients with triple negative breast cancer.
  • It is likely that immunotherapy treatments will vary depending on tumor subtype.
  • Circulating tumor DNA may predict metastatic disease 8-12 months before evidence of tumor spread – but we are not yet able to improve patient outcomes based on this information. Therefore, circulating tumor cell and circulating cancer cell DNA assessments are not recommended for routine clinical use.
  • It was predicted that “liquid biopsy” will eventually be used routinely to help manage breast cancer patients.

 

Diet and Hormone Replacement Therapy:

  • A low fat diet improved the likelihood of death from breast cancer only in obese women.
  • Currently there is more information regarding the impact of dietary fat versus dietary sugar on breast cancer risk. Dr. Rowan Chlebowski, who has been a lead author on the Women’s Health Initiative studies, stated that due to an increasing number of reports suggesting that sugar may impact breast cancer development, they plan to look more closely at this.
  • Insulin resistance is associated with cancer specific and all-cause mortality in postmenopausal women.
  • One of Dr. Chlebowski’s conclusions was to “avoid body fatness.” Unfortunately, specific guidance on how to best accomplish this was not discussed!
  • The risk of breast cancer associated with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is greater if it is started around the time of menopause versus 3-5 years later.
  • Breast cancer risk in women taking HRT is higher in women with extremely dense breast versus fatty replaced breasts. The biggest risk from HRT is in lean women with extremely dense breasts. The lowest risk from HRT is in women with a body mass index (BMI) > 35 with fatty replaced breasts.
  • Combination estrogen / progesterone HRT should be avoided in lean (BMI <25) women especially if they have dense breast tissue.
  • The Black Women’s Health Study found no increased breast cancer risk if HRT use was <10 years, but cancer risk was increased if use was >10 years. Other studies showed either no risk or no association of risk from HRT with race.

 

Changing Paradigms – Avoiding Surgery for DCIS and Neoadjuvant Patients

  • Active surveillance is being evaluated for ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS). Over 60,000 cases of DCIS are diagnosed per year in the US. Not all cases of DCIS will progress to invasive cancer, and the likelihood of progression is lowest in low grade DCIS. In these patients, less than 10% develop invasive cancer in the same breast after 10 years and over 20% die from other causes within 10 years of diagnosis.
  • There are 3 ongoing clinical trials are evaluating active surveillance for low risk DCIS (LORIS, LORD, and COMET). The COMET trial is the only study open in the US. DCISOptions.org has additional information about DCIS and the COMET trial.
  • Some patients who undergo chemotherapy prior to surgery are found to have no residual tumor after the area has been removed, termed pathologic complete response (pCR).
  • Prompted by patients asking “why do I need surgery?” if it appears that all cancer has resolved after chemotherapy, researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center are evaluating whether surgery can be omitted in patients who appear to have a pCR after chemotherapy. Patients who have no apparent tumor based on post-chemotherapy imaging (including MRI) undergo core needle biopsies. If these biopsies show no tumor, patients taking part in the study will undergo radiation without surgery.
  • Similar studies are taking place in the Netherlands, Germany, and the UK.
  • Henry Kuerer from MD Anderson stated that “surgeons have an obligation to study possibility of no surgery – and we must ensure safety and efficacy with well-designed trials.
  • Several types of ablative therapy (destroying the tumor without surgery) are being evaluated including cryoablation (freezing), laser, and transcutaneous (no needle puncture or scar) high frequency ultrasound.

Lifetime Achievement Award

Dr. Ernie Bodai, the breast surgeon who spearheaded the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, was honored with a lifetime achievement award. It was fascinating to hear his story and how one man (with a little help) got congress to change a law.

This post has not been endorsed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons

8 March 2018

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just approved an at-home test for certain DNA abnormalities known to be associated with an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. This is the first approval for a direct-to-consumer (DTC) breast cancer genetic test.

Approximately 15% of patients diagnosed with breast cancer will be found to carry a specific mutation in their DNA. The most common mutations occur in the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes. These genetic mutations have been identified in every racial and ethnic group, but are much more prevalent in the Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish (AJ) population. In AJ breast cancer patients, genetic testing is recommended regardless of age of breast cancer diagnosis. In non-AJ patients, testing is generally recommended in patients diagnosed under the age of 50 (under age 60 if “triple negative” breast cancer), or in those with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCI BRCA1 / BRCA2 Genetic Testing Fact Sheet is a good resource for information on genetic testing.

In AJ patients, “3 site” testing is usually the first test performed – it tests for the 3 BRCA mutations most commonly found in this group of patients. If the test reveals no abnormality, more comprehensive testing is performed (using the same blood or saliva sample). There are well over 1000 known BRCA 1 and 2 mutations, and there are many more mutations that have been identified on other genes that are also associated with increased risk. The test that was just approved is for 23andMe’s 3 site BRCA mutation testing. This testing is not applicable to non-AJ patients, or to those who have a different, known mutation in their family. A negative 23andMe test may lead some patients to falsely assume that they are not at increased risk.

National guidelines recommend that genetic testing should be accompanied by both pre-and post-test counseling. Genetic test results may be complicated by indeterminate findings (known as variants of uncertain significance, or VUS), and a negative test result does not always mean no increased risk of breast or other cancers. There can be many implications of positive and negative test results, not only for the patient, but for family members as well. As genetic testing becomes less expensive, there will likely be other companies that offer DTC testing. It is important that patients who are interested in such testing first do their research and I strongly recommend that patients initiate a discussion with their physician.

Additional Information:
Scientific American: FDA Approves First Direct-to-Consumer Test for Breast Cancer Risk
ASCO Post: FDA Authorizes Direct-to-Consumer Test That Reports Three Mutations in the BRCA1/BRCA2 Breast Cancer Genes
The Atlantic: 23andMe Will Now Test for BRCA Breast Cancer Genes
Statement from FORCE (Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered)

18 August 2017

Approximately 15%  of women diagnosed with breast cancer will be found to carry a mutation in one or more genes that significantly increases the risk of developing breast and other cancers. The most common mutations are in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. These genes are tumor suppressor genes – if mutated, they do not function properly and can result in a higher likelihood of cancer development. Most often, we see these abnormal gene mutations in women under the age of 50, and in those with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. However, because the mutation may be present in a family member without disease, guidelines recommend testing even without a family history in patients that meet criteria (NCI BRCA1 / BRCA2 Genetic Testing Fact Sheet).

A study recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that fewer than 1 in 5 women with a history of breast or ovarian cancer underwent genetic testing, and many had not discussed the possibility with their treatment team. Identifying a genetic abnormality can change the surgical recommendations in a patient who has been diagnosed with breast cancer (such as considering double mastectomy due to increased future risk) as well as have implications for family members. Take a few minutes to review the fact sheet linked above, and be aware of your family history. If genetic testing is not offered, ask whether or not it should be considered in your case.

8 May 2017

As a past-president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons I am probably more than a little biased. However, as always, the annual meeting held April 26-30th in Las Vegas was terrific. Topics including the full spectrum of breast disease, including benign and high risk lesions, genetic testing, breast cancer diagnosis and treatment including medical and radiation oncology updates, and metastatic disease.

The press briefing highlighted 3 abstracts which showed that:

  • Modern therapy for inflammatory breast cancer is associated with better outcomes than historically seen
  • Post-treatment lymphedema is related to a combination of treatments including surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy – not just from surgery
  • Patients with DCIS have a 5 year risk of developing a cancer in the other breast of 2.8% and a 10 year risk of 5.6%, and patients should be discouraged from undergoing bilateral mastectomy for this condition. Developing a new cancer in the previously treated breast was twice as likely as developing a new cancer in the opposite breast, and the use of tamoxifen reduced the likelihood of any recurrence.

Dr. Nathalie Johnson moderated a pre-meeting course on Building a Breast Cancer Survivorship Program. I was invited to speak on Traditional Versus Virtual – Options for Patient Support and Education. Just as it can be challenging to choose between cake and ice cream (2 really good things), patients note advantages to both in person and online support and education. It doesn’t have to be one or the other – do what works for YOU! My slides are posted on SlideShare.

During the general sessions, a few topics stood out to me:

Dr. Shelley Hwang from Duke University spoke on DCIS subtyping and overtreatment. She noted that DCIS now comprises over 20% of all mammographically detected breast cancer. It is considered a “non-obligate precursor” of invasive cancer – the rate and likelihood of progression to invasive cancer are not clearly known. However, it is clear that some patients will never exhibit progression to invasive disease, and she discussed this in the context of thyroid and prostate cancer – two situations where we know that treatment in some patients will not provide the patient any benefit. The challenge is to sort out which patients will benefit from treatment and which ones will not. The COMET study is currently enrolling patients with low grade DCIS to in an attempt to help answer these questions.

Dr. Virginia Herrmann from Washington University in St. Louis spoke on non-genetic breast cancer risk factors. This is an important topic and I believe one that doesn’t get covered enough. She noted that hormone replacement therapy does increase risk – although the incremental risk is small and is seen only after about 5 years of use. However, longer term use does result in higher risk. Increased body mass index (BMI) is associated with risk – the risk of breast cancer is 30% higher in patients with a BMI greater than 31 kg/m2 compared to a BMI of 20 kg/m2. She noted that there is a linear relationship between alcohol intake and cancer risk, noting a 10% increase in risk for each 10 gm/day (for wine this is a little over 3 oz) increment in alcohol consumption. The risk is most associated with post-menopausal breast cancer, although in the study she quoted, only alcohol intake during age 50s was associated with an increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. She noted the association of ionizing radiation and breast cancer, and young women who received mantle (chest area) radiation for Hodgkin’s lymphoma have a markedly increased risk for developing breast cancer. She noted that breast cancer risk is increased in smokers, correlated with smoking intensity and duration. Finally, she noted the increased risk of breast cancer among soldiers stationed at Camp LeJune related to contaminated drinking water (tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene).

Dr. Tiffany Traina, a Memorial Sloan Kettering medical oncologist, gave a brief presentation about triple negative breast cancer: Searching For the Magic Bullet. There are several promising treatment strategies including targeting androgen receptors, the use of PARP-inhibitors in patients who have BRCA gene mutations, antibody-drug conjugates, immune modulating approaches, and targeted therapies based on tumor genomic profiles. Stay tuned – much more to come over the next few years related to this aggressive breast cancer subtype.

Dr. Lisa Newman, from the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, spoke on Breast Cancer Outcomes: Disparities versus Biology. I have heard her speak on this topic multiple times over the years and always enjoy her excellent presentations. She noted that the incidence of breast cancer in black women is increasing, now close to that in white women. However, mortality rates for black women are higher than those for white women. There is an increased frequency of triple negative breast cancer in black women. She is involved in a research initiative evaluating the association between African ancestry and high risk breast cancer in white American women, African American women, and women in Ghana, including studying novel aspects of tumor biology and breast cancer stem cells – she is asking the question “are there differences in the oncogenic potential of mammary tissue that are associated with ancestry”? She concluded with what I felt was a powerful slide – 60% – 43% – 20%. Those were the survival rates for passengers on the Titanic who were in 1st – 2nd – 3rd class. She noted that healthcare outcomes are often dependent on access to care, and ended with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Of all the forms of injustice, inequality in health care is the most shocking and inhumane”.

Dr. Stephen Edge, from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, gave an update on the new American Joint Commission on Cancer staging system (AJCC 8th edition). Currently we stage breast cancer based on tumor size and lymph node status. However, it is recognized that that tumor biology plays an important role in prognosis and in some patients it may be more important that tumor size. The new staging system will incorporate tumor grade, Her2/neu status, ER/PR status, and Oncotype Dx status (if available) and should more accurately reflect prognosis. There are 422 lines in the new staging system – it will be impossible to memorize! Thankfully, he noted that the AJCC is working on a staging app.

The last day of the meeting held some great sessions, and the meeting room remained packed up until the very last minute. Dr. Ann Partridge from Dana Farber discussed special considerations in the young breast cancer patient. She noted that the disease is different, the patients are different, and the treatments should be different. Younger women have a higher likelihood to have more aggressive subtypes such as Her2/neu over-expressed and triple negative, and have lower survival rates than older women – even in those with the ER positive breast cancer. However, she cautioned not to over-treat patients based only on age. She noted that young age is not a contraindication for breast conservation, and that there is no clear improvement in mortality in patients who undergo more extensive surgery. She noted the need for improvements in treatment and support, including focused research and guidelines, which should lead to better outcomes.

Dr. Irene Wapnir from Stanford spoke on fertility preservation issues. She noted the various fertility options including medications and procedures. She also reviewed the POSITIVE trial, which will be assessing the risk of breast cancer relapse in patients who temporarily stop endocrine therapy to permit pregnancy, as well as to evaluate factors associated with successful pregnancy after interruption of endocrine therapy. She also stressed that fertility preservation should be discussed with any woman of childbearing age, whether or not she has had a prior pregnancy or a child – physicians won’t know what is important to their patients unless we ask!

Dr. Katherina Zabicki Calvillo from Dana Farber discussed breast cancer in pregnancy. She noted that 0.2-4.0% of breast cancers are diagnosed in pregnant patients – about 1 in 3000 pregnancies. She also noted that given the overall delay in childbearing (and the association of increasing age with breast cancer), the incidence of pregnancy-associated breast cancer will increase. Delays in diagnosis are related to hormonal changes which affect breast tissue making the exam more challenging, and that many patients and physicians assume that masses are related to pregnancy. She stressed that pregnancy termination is usually NOT required, but a multidisciplinary team approach is required. Many of these patients present in more advanced stages, but stage-for-stage, the prognosis is similar to non-pregnant patients with breast cancer. Chemotherapy can be given after the first trimester, but hormonal and Her2/neu targeted therapy should be avoided. She noted that mastectomy should be performed in the first and early 2nd trimester, and discussed the challenges of immediate reconstruction. Breast conservation could be considered in the late 2nd or 3rd trimester with post-lumpectomy radiation planned for after delivery.

Dr. Kevin Hughes from the Massachusetts General Hospital reviewed research studies that have found that in women over the age of 70 with early stage breast cancer, radiation therapy after lumpectomy may not be necessary.  The CALGB 9343 study showed that survival rates were the same whether women received radiation therapy or not. Radiation therapy did reduce the likelihood of cancer returning in the breast (local recurrence) from about 4% in the untreated patients to about 1% in the treated patients (after 5 years of follow up). However it is important to realize that the majority of women in that study were treated with endocrine therapy, which can help reduce the risk of local recurrence. As with many decisions regarding breast cancer treatment, a careful discussion of the risks and benefits of each option is necessary.

Dr. Tina Hieken from the Mayo Clinic gave a very interesting talk on the microbiome and the impact on breast cancer. We normally co-exist with many bacteria – we have ten times the more microbial cells compared to human cells. These microbes carry out metabolic reactions that can be essential to human health. The genetic material (genome) of our microorganisms is called the microbiome. She and her colleagues studied breast tissue from women with and without breast cancer and found that the background breast microbiome is different in women with breast cancer compared to those with benign conditions. She concluded by noting that the future may involve using a microbial pattern to predict breast cancer risk, exploiting the microbiome to enhance treatment response, and that there may also be implications for a cancer prevention vaccine. The Washington Post recently covered her research – definitely worth a read for more information.

Dr. Anthony Lucci from MD Anderson discussed the “Ongoing Saga of Circulating Tumor Cells”. We would all like to see the day when a blood test can tell us with certainty if cancer has developed or returned – but we’re not there yet. After reviewing several studies evaluating both circulating tumor cells (CTC) and circulating “cell free” DNA, he concluded that this information does provide prognostic information in both metastatic and non-metastatic patients, but is not in the current ASCO or NCCN guidelines for guiding treatment. Combining the CTC status with response to preoperative chemotherapy may identify a low risk subset of patients, but noted that additional studies are needed before we can reach the ultimate goal which is improving outcomes by monitoring and responding to CTC and cell free DNA levels.

Dr. Manjeet Chadha from Mount Sinai spoke on repeat lumpectomy after prior lumpectomy and breast radiation. Traditionally, mastectomy has been recommended if cancer returns after lumpectomy and radiation therapy. On average, there is about a 10% risk of “in breast” recurrence after lumpectomy and radiation, but this will vary based on tumor and treatment type. She reviewed several studies evaluating the different types of focused or partial breast radiation that may be used in selected patients who experience recurrence of their breast cancer. She also called for additional studies in this area.

One of the last talks was by Dr. Mehra Golshan from Dana Farber. He spoke about the decision whether or not to operate on patients with breast cancer who present with Stage IV (metastatic) disease. Traditionally, we have not recommended surgery for patients with metastatic breast cancer as these patients were not expected to have long survival, and it was not felt that removal of the main tumor would impact survival. Evaluating existing studies has also been challenging because while some have shown a benefit to removal of the main tumor, the patients who underwent surgery in those studies tended to be younger and healthier. He concluded by noting that surgery in patients with Stage IV breast cancer is not standard of care, but some studies do support this practice. It is recommended that these patients be evaluated in a multidisciplinary forum and that treatment choices be individualized.

 I returned from the meeting exhausted but energized. In addition to the scientific content, the meeting is an opportunity to connect with friends and colleagues across the country. I’m already looking forward to ASBrS 2018!

This post has not been endorsed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

7 February 2017

A research letter recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that patients diagnosed with breast cancer were not appropriately referred for genetic counseling and testing.

The researchers used the SEER Registry to study the records of patients diagnosed between July 2013 – September 2014. Registry patients in the state of Georgia and Los Angeles County were mailed surveys which asked about their genetic counseling and testing experiences. Of the 2529 women who responded to the survey, 773 were considered to be high risk, in accordance with national guidelines. Of these high risk patients, only 39.6% reported having a genetic counseling session and only 52.9% had a genetic test. High risk patients reported lack of physician recommendation, not expense, as primary reason for not testing.

The authors noted that the lack of genetic testing in these patients was a missed opportunity to prevent ovarian and other cancer deaths among mutation carriers and their families. They concluded that the need for genetic testing may not be recognized by physicians, and they recommended that steps be taken to improve physician assessment of risk, assessment of patient desire for testing, and to optimize genetic counselor referral.

Limitations fo the study include that it was a retrospective (after the fact) survey. Patients may have received a recommendation for genetic testing but did not remember – this is often covered during the initial consultation which is a time of intense emotion. The study also only assessed patients from a limited geographic area – the state of Georgia and Los Angeles county. Despite these limitations, the study confirms others like it that demonstrate underutilization of genetic testing.

BRCA 1 and 2 genes are known as tumor suppressor genes, which code for proteins that repair DNA damage. When mutated, DNA damage cannot be repaired, and these patients are at high risk for developing breast, ovarian, and other cancers. Patients who have no signs of cancer may consider prophylactic surgery (made “famous” by Angelina Jolie). In these patients, prophylactic surgery can significantly reduce the risk of developing cancer. In patients who have already been diagnosed breast cancer and are found to carry a BRCA mutation, bilateral mastectomy is often recommended due to the high likelihood of developing another breast cancer, especially in BRCA 1 mutation carriers.

Guidelines for testing have changed over the years. If you were diagnosed with breast cancer several years ago, did not undergo testing, but currently meet one of the criteria for testing, discuss this with your physician. While you may not want to have any additional surgery, you may meet criteria for more intensive surveillance such as with MRI. In addition, test results coud have implications for other family members.

For more information:
FORCE – Facing our Risk of Cancer Empowered
National Cancer Institute – BRCA 1 and 2 Testing