Search

Simple Summary: Cardiovascular diseases are among the most frequent, although rare, long-term sequalae in adolescents and young adult survivors of breast cancer. However, no dedicated tool exists to help clinicians with planning personalized follow-up strategies for these patients. To make up for this lack, in this work, we developed a Bayesian network, an artificial intelligence model, to predict the 5-year risk for cardiovascular diseases in these patients, leveraging real-world data from two different cohorts. The model showed a very good ability to identify patients at risk and select those that should be prioritized because they are at higher risk, making it useful for guiding clinicians in everyday practice. Finally, the methodological approach proposed in this work is particularly interesting for all researchers who aim at developing causally interpretable tools, also dealing with real-world data and their biases. Background: In the last decades, the increasing number of adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors of breast cancer (BC) has highlighted the cardiotoxic role of cancer therapies, making cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among the most frequent, although rare, long-term sequalae. Leveraging innovative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and real-world data (RWD), we aimed to develop a causally interpretable model to identify young BC survivors at risk of developing CVDs. Methods: We designed and trained a Bayesian network (BN), an AI model, making use of expert knowledge and data from population-based (1036 patients) and clinical (339 patient) cohorts of female AYA (i.e., aged 18 to 39 years) 1-year survivors of BC, diagnosed in 2009–2019. The performance achieved by the BN model was validated against standard classification metrics, and two clinical applications were proposed. Results: The model showed a very good classification performance and a clear causal semantic. According to the predictions made by the model, focusing on the 25% of AYA BC survivors at higher risk of developing CVDs, we could identify 81% of the patients who would actually develop it. Moreover, a desktop-based app was implemented to calculate the individual patient's risk. Conclusions: In this study, we developed the first causal model for predicting the CVD risk in AYA survivors of BC, also proposing an innovative AI approach that could be useful for all researchers dealing with RWD. The model could be pivotal for clinicians who aim to plan personalized follow-up strategies for AYA BC survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the efficacy, and the acute and late toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy (Hypo‐RT), and the impact of age and comorbidities on disease progression and death in elderly breast cancer (BC) patients. Women aged ≥65 years who received Hypo‐RT (42.4 Gy in 16 fractions, plus a boost for high‐risk patients) were considered for the present analysis. Competing risk analysis was used to estimate the 5‐year cumulative incidence of BC progression and BC‐related death, calculating the adjusted subhazard ratios (SHR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) in relation to age, hypertension‐augmented Charlson Comorbidity Index (hCCI), tumor characteristics, and chemotherapy. The sample included 794 patients with a median age of 74 years (range 65‐91 years). At the baseline, 70% of these patients had at least one comorbidity. With a median follow‐up of 48.3 months, the 5‐year cumulative incidence of BC progression and BC‐related death was 6.7% (95%CI 4.8%‐9.2%) and 2.3% (95%CI 1.2%‐3.9%), respectively. Old age (≥80 years) and a high burden of comorbidity (hCCI ≥ 2) were independently associated with BC progression. Hypo‐RT is safe in elderly BC patients, but age and comorbidities influence BC progression. Further studies are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Optimal therapy following breast-conserving surgery in older adults with low-risk, early-stage breast cancer remains uncertain. The EUROPA trial aims to compare the effects of radiotherapy and endocrine therapy as single-modality treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) outcomes in this population., Methods: This non-inferiority, phase 3, randomised study was conducted at 18 academic hospitals across Italy (17 centres) and Slovenia (one centre). Eligible patients were women aged 70 years or older with histologically confirmed, stage I, luminal A-like breast cancer, who had undergone breast-conserving surgery and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive single-modality endocrine therapy or radiotherapy. Endocrine therapy consisted of daily oral aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen, for a total planned duration of 5-10 years as per clinical discretion, while radiotherapy was administered as either whole breast or partial breast irradiation, delivered in 5-15 fractions. Randomisation was stratified by health status according to the Geriatric 8 (G8) screening tool and by age, with allocation concealed and no blinding. The co-primary endpoints were the change in HRQOL, assessed by the global health status (GHS) scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module at 24 months, and 5-year IBTR rates (not reported here). This preplanned interim analysis was performed once at least 152 patients completed the 24-month GHS HRQOL assessment. The safety population comprised patients who received the study intervention at least once after randomisation. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04134598, and is ongoing and actively recruiting., Findings: Between March 4, 2021, and June 14, 2024, 731 women were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy (n=365) or endocrine therapy (n=366). This analysis included 104 patients in the radiotherapy group and 103 in the endocrine therapy group, with a median follow-up of 23·9 months (IQR 22·9-24·2). Patients were predominantly White (204 [99%] of 207) and the median age was 75·0 years (IQR 73·0-80·0) in the radiotherapy group and 74·0 years (72·0-80·0) in the endocrine therapy group. 86 patients in the radiotherapy group and 75 in the endocrine therapy group completed the 24-month HRQOL assessment. The mean baseline GHS score was 71·9 (SD 19·1) in the radiotherapy group and 75·5 (19·3) in the endocrine therapy group. At 24 months, the age-adjusted, G8 score-adjusted mean change from baseline in GHS was -3·40 (95% CI -7·82 to 1·03; p=0·13) in the radiotherapy group and -9·79 (-14·45 to -5·13; p<0·0001) in the endocrine therapy group, with an adjusted mean difference of 6·39 (0·14 to 12·65; p=0·045) favouring radiotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events were less frequent in the radiotherapy group (65 [67%] of 97 patients) compared with the endocrine therapy group (76 [85%] of 89). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were arthralgia (six [7%] of 89 in the endocrine therapy group vs 0 of 97 in the radiotherapy group), pelvic organ prolapse (three [3%] vs 0), fatigue, hot flashes, myalgia, bone pain, and fractures (two [2%] vs 0 for each). Serious adverse events were reported in 15 (15%) patients in the radiotherapy group and 13 (15%) in the endocrine therapy group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group., Interpretation: Endocrine therapy was associated with a greater reduction in HRQOL, as measured by GHS, compared with radiotherapy at 24 months. While these interim results suggest radiotherapy might better preserve HRQOL in older women with low-risk early breast cancer, further data on disease control outcomes and final patient accrual are needed to draw definitive conclusions., Funding: Fondazione Radioterapia Oncologica., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests IM has received occasional fees for advisory board participation supported by Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Menarini StemLine, outside the submitted work. ML has reported advisory roles supported by Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, and Menarini StemLine; speaker honoraria from Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Ipsen, Sandoz, Libbs, Knight, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Menarini StemLine; and travel grants from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. VS has reported honoraria from Nucletron and Elekta. TS discloses unrestricted grants for programmes of Europa Donna Slovenia, as well as speaker honoraria from Pfizer, MSD, Roche, and AstraZeneca. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Radiotherapy plays an essential role in the treatment of breast cancer (BC). Recent advances in treatment technology and radiobiological knowledge have a major impact in BC patients with locoregional disease as the majority are now long-term survivors. Over the last three decades, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) techniques, together with the increasing adoption of moderately hypofractionated and ultra-hypofractionated treatment schedules as well as the possibility to offer partial breast radiotherapy to a well-defined patient subset have significantly changed radiotherapy for BC patients. As dose-volume constraints (DVCs) have to be adapted to these new treatment paradigms we have reviewed available evidence-based data concerning dose-constraints for the main organs at risk (OARs) that apply to the treatment of whole breast/chest wall radiotherapy, whole breast/chest wall radiotherapy including regional nodal irradiation (RNI) and partial breast irradiation (PBI), for the most relevant fractionation schedules that have been introduced recently. This narrative review provides a comprehensive summary that may help to harmonize treatment planning strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)