Prognosis of basal breast cancers is poor but heterogeneous. Medullary breast cancers (MBC) display a basal profile, but a favorable prognosis. We hypothesized that a previously published 368-gene expression signature associated with MBC might serve to define a prognostic classifier in basal cancers. We collected public gene expression and histoclinical data of 2145 invasive early breast adenocarcinomas. We developed a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier based on this 368-gene list in a learning set, and tested its predictive performances in an independent validation set. Then, we assessed its prognostic value and that of six prognostic signatures for disease-free survival (DFS) in the remaining 2034 samples. The SVM model accurately classified all MBC samples in the learning and validation sets. A total of 466 cases were basal across other sets. The SVM classifier separated them into two subgroups, subgroup 1 (resembling MBC) and subgroup 2 (not resembling MBC). Subgroup 1 exhibited 71% 5-year DFS, whereas subgroup 2 exhibited 50% (P = 9.93E-05). The classifier outperformed the classical prognostic variables in multivariate analysis, conferring lesser risk for relapse in subgroup 1 (HR = 0.52, P = 3.9E-04). This prognostic value was specific to the basal subtype, in which none of the other prognostic signatures was informative. Ontology analysis revealed effective immune response (IR), enhanced tumor cell apoptosis, elevated levels of metastasis-inhibiting factors and low levels of metastasis-promoting factors in the good-prognosis subgroup, and a more developed cell migration system in the poor-prognosis subgroup. In conclusion, based on this 368-gene SVM model derived from an MBC signature, basal breast cancers were classified in two prognostic subgroups, suggesting that MBC and basal breast cancers share similar molecular alterations associated with aggressiveness. This signature could help define the prognosis, adapt the systemic treatment, and identify new therapeutic targets.

No abstract

Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is an effective treatment in brain metastases and, when combined with local treatments such as surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery, gives the best brain control. Nonetheless, WBRT is often omitted after local treatment due to its potential late neurocognitive effects. Publications on radiation-induced neurotoxicity have used different assessment methods, time to assessment, and definition of impairment, thus making it difficult to accurately assess the rate and magnitude of the neurocognitive decline that can be expected. In this context, and to help therapeutic decision making, we have conducted this literature review, with the aim of providing an average incidence, magnitude and time to occurrence of radio-induced neurocognitive decline. We reviewed all English language published articles on neurocognitive effects of WBRT for newly diagnosed brain metastases or with a preventive goal in adult patients, with any methodology (MMSE, battery of neurcognitive tests) with which baseline status was provided. We concluded that neurocognitive decline is predominant at 4 months, strongly dependant on brain metastases control, partially solved at later time, graded 1 on a SOMA-LENT scale (only 8% of grade 2 and more), insufficiently assessed in long-term survivors, thus justifying all efforts to reduce it through irradiation modulation.

Most of available studies appear to advocate for TT or ICI combination with radiation therapy, without altering the clinical safety profiles, allowing the maintenance of systemic treatments when stereotactic radiation therapy is considered. Cognitive functions, health-related quality of life and radiation necrosis risk remain to be assessed. The results of prospective studies are awaited in order to complete and validate the above discussed retrospective data.

BackgroundThree randomized trials have concluded at non inferiority of omission of complementary axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) for patients with involved sentinel node (SN). However, we can outline strong limitations of these trials to validate this attitude with a high scientific level. We designed the SERC randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01717131) to compare outcomes in patients with SN involvement treated with ALND or no further axillary treatment. The aim of this study was to analyze results of the first 1000 patients included.MethodsSERC trial is a multicenter non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent factors associated with adjuvant chemotherapy administration and non-sentinel node (NSN) involvement.ResultsOf the 963 patients included in the analysis set, 478 were randomized to receive cALND and 485 SLNB alone. All patient demographics and tumor characteristics were balanced between the two arms. SN ITC was present in 6.3% patients (57/903), micro metastases in 33.0% (298), macro metastases in 60.7% (548) and 289 (34.2%) were non eligible to Z0011 trial criteria.Whole breast or chest wall irradiation was delivered in 95.9% (896/934) of patients, adjuvant chemotherapy in 69.5% (644/926), endocrine therapy in 89.6% (673/751) and the proportions were similar in the two arms. The overall rate of positive NSN was 19% (84/442) for patients with cALND. Crude rates of positive NSN according to SN status were 4.5% for ITC (1/22), 9.5% for micro metastases (13/137), 23.9% for macro metastases (61/255) and were respectively 29.36% (64/218), 9.33% (7/75) and 7.94% (10/126) when chemotherapy was administered after cALND, before cALND and for patients without chemotherapy.ConclusionThe main objective of SERC trial is to demonstrate non inferiority of cALND omission. A strong interaction between timing of cALND and chemotherapy with positive NSN rate was observed.Trial registrationThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01717131 October 19, 2012.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5053-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundLobular carcinomas in situ (LCIS) represent 1-2% of all breast cancers. Both significance and treatment remain widely debated, as well as the possible similarities with DCIS.Materials and methodsTwo hundred patients with pure LCIS were retrospectively analyzed in seven centres from 1990 to 2008. Median age was 52 years; 176 patients underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and 24 mastectomy. Seventeen patients received whole breast irradiation (WBRT) after BCS and 20 hormonal treatment (15 by tamoxifen).ResultsWith a 144-month median follow-up (FU), there were no local recurrences (LR) among 24 patients treated by mastectomy. With the same FU, 3 late LR out of 17 (17%) occurred in patients treated by BCS and WBRT (with no LR at 10 years). Among 159 patients treated by BCS alone, 20 developed LR (13%), but with only a 72-month FU (17.5% at 10 years). No specific LR risk factors were identified. Three patients developed metastases, two after invasive LR; 22 patients (11%) developed contralateral BC (59% invasive) and another five had second cancer.ConclusionsLCIS is not always an indolent disease. The long-term outcome is quite similar to most ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS). The main problems are the accuracy of pathological definition and a clear identification of more aggressive subtypes, in order to avoid further invasive LR. BCS + WBRT should be discussed in some selected cases, and the long-term results seem comparable to DCIS.

No abstract

No abstract