Gene-expression profiling has had a considerable impact on our understanding of breast cancer biology. During the last 15 years, 5 intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2-enriched, Basal-like and Claudin-low) have been identified and intensively studied. In this review, we will focus on the current and future clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes beyond the current pathological-based classification endorsed by the 2013 St. Gallen Consensus Recommendations. Within hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer, the Luminal A and B subtypes predict 10-year outcome regardless of systemic treatment administered as well as residual risk of distant recurrence after 5 years of endocrine therapy. Within clinically HER2-positive disease, the 4 main intrinsic subtypes can be identified and dominate the biological and clinical phenotype. From a clinical perspective, patients with HER2+/HER2-enriched disease seem to benefit the most from neoadjuvant trastuzumab, or dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab/lapatinib, in combination with chemotherapy, and patients with HER2+/Luminal A disease seem to have a relative better outcome compared to the other subtypes. Finally, within triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the Basal-like disease predominates (70-80%) and, from a biological perspective, should be considered a cancer-type by itself. Importantly, the distinction between Basal-like versus non-Basal-like within TNBC might predict survival following (neo)adjvuvant multi-agent chemotherapy, bevacizumab benefit in the neoadjuvant setting (CALGB40603), and docetaxel vs. carboplatin benefit in first-line metastatic disease (TNT study). Overall, this data suggests that intrinsic molecular profiling provides clinically relevant information beyond current pathology-based classifications.

PET/CT underestimates locoregional lymph node staging in large primary breast cancer patients. PET/CT is a valuable tool to discard unsuspected extra-axillary lymph nodes and distant metastases.

No abstract

Background: Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer at the second interim analysis, however follow-up was limited. Here, we present results of the prespecified primary outcome analysis and an additional follow-up analysis. Patients and methods: This global, phase III, open-label trial randomized (1 : 1) 5637 patients to adjuvant ET for !5 years AE abemaciclib for 2 years. Cohort 1 enrolled patients with !4 positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs), or 1-3 positive ALNs and either grade 3 disease or tumor !5 cm. Cohort 2 enrolled patients with 1-3 positive ALNs and centrally determined high Ki-67 index (!20%). The primary endpoint was IDFS in the intent-to-treat population (cohorts 1 and 2). Secondary endpoints were IDFS in patients with high Ki-67, DRFS, overall survival, and safety. Results: At the primary outcome analysis, with 19 months median follow-up time, abemaciclib þ ET resulted in a 29% reduction in the risk of developing an IDFS event [hazard ratio (HR) ¼ 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.87; nominal P ¼ 0.0009]. At the additional follow-up analysis, with 27 months median follow-up and 90% of patients off treatment, IDFS (HR ¼ 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.82; nominal P < 0.0001) and DRFS (HR ¼ 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.83; nominal P < 0.0001) benefit was maintained. The absolute improvements in 3-year IDFS and DRFS rates were 5.4% and 4.2%, respectively. Whereas Ki-67 index was prognostic, abemaciclib benefit was consistent regardless of Ki-67 index. Safety data were consistent with the known abemaciclib risk profile. Conclusion: Abemaciclib þ ET significantly improved IDFS in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer, with an acceptable safety profile. Ki-67 index was prognostic, but abemaciclib benefit was observed regardless of Ki-67 index. Overall, the robust treatment benefit of abemaciclib extended beyond the 2-year treatment period.

Background:Although there are solid findings regarding the detrimental effect of alcohol consumption, the existing evidence on the effect of other dietary factors on breast cancer (BC) risk is inconclusive. This study aimed to evaluate the association between dietary patterns and risk of BC in Spanish women, stratifying by menopausal status and tumour subtype, and to compare the results with those of Alternate Healthy Index (AHEI) and Alternate Mediterranean Diet Score (aMED).Methods:We recruited 1017 incident BC cases and 1017 matched healthy controls of similar age (±5 years) without a history of BC. The association between ‘a priori' and ‘a posteriori' developed dietary patterns and BC in general and according to menopausal status and intrinsic tumour subtypes (ER+/PR+ and HER2− HER2+ and ER−/PR− and HER2−) was evaluated using logistic and multinomial regression models.Results:Adherence to the Western dietary pattern was related to higher risk of BC (OR for the top vs the bottom quartile 1.46 (95% CI 1.06–2.01)), especially in premenopausal women (OR=1.75; 95% CI 1.14–2.67). In contrast, the Mediterranean pattern was related to a lower risk (OR for the top quartile vs the bottom quartile 0.56 (95% CI 0.40–0.79)). Although the deleterious effect of the Western pattern was similarly observed in all tumour subtypes, the protective effect of our Mediterranean pattern was stronger for triple-negative tumours (OR=0.32; 95% CI 0.15–0.66 and Pheterogeneity=0.04). No association was found between adherence to the Prudent pattern and BC risk. The associations between ‘a priori' indices and BC risk were less marked (OR for the top vs the bottom quartile of AHEI=0.69; 95% CI 0.51–0.94 and aMED=0.74; 95% CI 0.46–1.18)).Conclusions:Our results confirm the harmful effect of a Western diet on BC risk, and add new evidence on the benefits of a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, oily fish and vegetable oils for preventing all BC subtypes, and particularly triple-negative tumours.

Biological changes that occur during metastatic progression of breast cancer are still incompletely characterized. In this study, we compared intrinsic molecular subtypes and gene expression in 123 paired primary and metastatic tissues from breast cancer patients. Intrinsic subtype was identified using a PAM50 classifier and χ2 tests determined the differences in variable distribution. The rate of subtype conversion was 0% in basal-like tumors, 23.1% in HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors, 30.0% in luminal B tumors, and 55.3% in luminal A tumors. In 40.2% of cases, luminal A tumors converted to luminal B tumors, whereas in 14.3% of cases luminal A and B tumors converted to HER2-E tumors. We identified 47 genes that were expressed differentially in metastatic versus primary disease. Metastatic tumors were enriched for proliferation-related and migration-related genes and diminished for luminal-related genes. Expression of proliferation-related genes were better at predicting overall survival in metastatic disease (OSmet) when analyzed in metastatic tissue rather than primary tissue. In contrast, a basal-like gene expression signature was better at predicting OSmet in primary disease compared with metastatic tissue. We observed correlations between time to tumor relapse and the magnitude of changes of proliferation, luminal B, or HER2-E signatures in metastatic versus primary disease. Although the intrinsic subtype was largely maintained during metastatic progression, luminal/HER2-negative tumors acquired a luminal B or HER2-E profile during metastatic progression, likely reflecting tumor evolution or acquisition of estrogen independence. Overall, our analysis revealed the value of stratifying gene expression by both cancer subtype and tissue type, providing clinicians more refined tools to evaluate prognosis and treatment.

Purpose: The therascreen PIK3CA mutation assay and the alpha-specific PI3K inhibitor alpelisib are FDA-approved for identifying and treating patients with advanced PIK3CA-mutated (PIK3CAmut) breast cancer (BC). However, it is currently unknown to what extend this assay detects most PIK3CA mutations in BC. This information is critical as patients and clinicians are using this and other genomic assays to indicate alpelisib. Methods: Data from 6338 patients with BC was explored across 10 publicly available studies. The primary objective was to evaluate the proportion and distribution of PIK3CA mutations in BC. Secondary objectives were (1) to evaluate in silico the spectrum of PIK3CA mutations in BC that would be captured by the therascreen panel; (2) to evaluate the proportion and distribution of PIK3CA mutations in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/ HER2−), HER2+, and triple-negative BC (TNBC); and (3) to explore the identification of PIK3CA mutations in a cohort of 48 HR+/HER2− advanced BC patients by the Guardant B360 circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assay. Results: Patients with PIK3CAmut tumors represented 35.7% (2261/6338). Five PIK3CA mutations comprised 73% of all PIK3CA mutations: H1047R (35%), E545K (17%), E542K (11%), N345K (6%), and H1047L (4%). Therascreen gene list would capture 72% of all PIK3CA mutations and 80% of patients with a known PIK3CAmut BC. Among patients with double PIK3CAmut tumors (12% of all PIK3CAmut), the therascreen panel would capture 78% as harboring 1 single PIK3CA mutation, 17% as PIK3CAmut undetected, and 5% as PIK3CA double-mut. PIK3CA mutation rates were lower in TNBC (16%) compared to HR+/HER2 (42%) and HER2+ (31%) BC; however, the distribution of the 4 main PIK3CA mutations across subtypes was similar. Finally, 28% of PIK3CA mutations identified in ctDNA in 48 patients with advanced HR+/HER2− BC were not part of the therascreen panel.

As compared with adjuvant FAC, adjuvant TAC improved the rate of disease-free survival among women with high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. (Funded by GEICAM and Sanofi-Aventis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00121992.).