Search

Background: There is a scarcity of data exploring early breast cancer (eBC) in very young patients. We assessed shared and intrinsic prognostic factors in a large cohort of patients aged ≤35, compared to a control group aged 36 to 50., Methods: Patients ≤50 were retrospectively identified from a multicentric cohort of 23,134 eBC patients who underwent primary surgery between 1990 and 2014. Multivariate Cox analyses for DFS and OS were built. To assess the independent impact of age, 1 to 3 case-control analysis was performed by matching ≤35 and 36-50 years patients., Results: Of 6481 patients, 556 were aged ≤35, and 5925 from 36 to 50. Age ≤35 was associated with larger tumors, higher grade, ER-negativity, macroscopic lymph node involvement (pN + macro), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), mastectomy, and chemotherapy (CT) use. In multivariate analysis, age ≤35 was associated with worse DFS [HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.32-1.84; p < 0.001], and OS [HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.60; p = 0.025], as were high grade, large tumor, LVI, pN + macro, ER-negativity, period of diagnostic, and absence of ET or CT (for DFS). Adverse prognostic impact of age ≤35 was maintained in the case control-matched analysis for DFS [HR 1.56, 95%CI 1.28-1.91, p < 0.001], and OS [HR 1.33, 95%CI 1.02-1.73, p = 0.032]. When only considering patients ≤35, ER, tumor size, nodal status, and LVI were independently associated with survival in this subgroup., Conclusions: Age ≤35 is associated with less favorable presentation and more aggressive treatment strategies. Our results support the poor prognosis value of young age, which independently persisted when adjusting for other prognostic factors and treatments., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Alexandre de Nonneville declares Gilead (lecture fees, congress invitations), Daiichi Sankyo (lecture fees, congress invitations), Seagen (consulting fees), Lilly (lecture fees, congress invitations, consulting fees, research grants paid to institution), Novartis (consulting fees), MSD (congress invitations, lecture fees), Pfizer (research grants paid to institution). No conflict of interest declared by others authors., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Local ablative treatment (LAT) is increasingly combined with systemic therapy in oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC), without a high-level evidence to support this strategy. We evaluated the addition of LAT to systemic treatment in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were local control (LC) and toxicity. We sought to identify prognostic factors associated with longer OS and PFS., Methods and Materials: We identified consecutive patients treated between 2014 and 2018 for synchronous or metachronous OMBC (defined as ≤ 5 metastases). LAT included stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), surgery, cryotherapy and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRA). PFS and OS were calculated, and Cox regression models analyzed for potential predictors of survival., Results: One hundred two patients were included (no-LAT, n = 62; LAT, n = 40). Sixty-four metastases received LAT. Median follow-up was 50.4 months (95% CI [44.4; 53.4]). One patient experienced grade 3 toxicity in the LAT group. Five-year PFS and OS were 34.75% (95% CI [24.42-45.26]) and 63.21% (95% CI [50.69-73.37]) respectively. Patients receiving both LAT and systemic therapy had longer PFS and OS than those with no-LAT ([HR 0.39, p = 0.002]) and ([HR 0.31, p = 0.01]). The use of LAT, HER2-positive status and hormone-receptor positivity were associated with longer PFS and OS whereas liver metastases led to worse PFS., Conclusions: LAT was associated with improved outcomes in OMBC when added to systemic treatment, without significantly increasing toxicity. The prognostic factors identified to extend PFS and OS may help guide clinicians in selecting patients for LAT., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Does oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC) deserve a dedicated treatment? Although some authors recommend multidisciplinary management of OMBC with a curative intent, there is no evidence proving this strategy beneficial in the absence of a randomized trial. The existing literature sheds little light on OMBC. Incidence is unknown; data available are either obsolete or biased; there is no consensus on the definition of OMBC and metastatic sites, nor on necessary imaging techniques. However, certain proposals merit consideration. Knowledge of eventual specific OMBC biological characteristics is limited to circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts. Given the data available for other cancers, studies on microRNAs (miRNAs), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and genomic alterations should be developed Finally, safe and effective therapies do exist, but results of randomized trials will not be available for many years. Prospective observational cohort studies need to be implemented., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Institut Claudius Regaud - IUCT-Oncopole. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)