639 Background: Large cohort studies have shown a survival benefit with the use of GLP1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RA) in cancer patients. The impact of GLP1 RA usage in breast cancer (BC) and the different subtypes is unknown. To investigate the potential influence of GLP1 RA usage on BC survival, a study was conducted on a large institutional database. Methods: A de-identified institutional database identified newly diagnosed Stage I, II, and III BC patients from 2005 to present and use of GLP1 RA. The study compared survival rates for BC patients with and without GLP1 RA and further stratified by BC subtype [ER+HER2-, HER2+, ER-PR-HER2-(triple negative BC (TNBC))], BMI, and age. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate overall survival. This study analyzed de-identified data accessed through Mayo Clinic Platform Discover. Per 45 CFR 46.102, this activity did not require IRB review. Data was extracted using an established privacy-preserving protocol and de-identified via expert determination under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Raw EHR data and other unreported data cannot be shared due to de-identification parameters. Results: 88015 BC patients were identified, of which 3919 (4.5%) received GLP1 RA. The 5-year survival rate was 98.5% with vs 85.5% without GLP1 RA (p-value <0.0001). The survival benefit persisted for different BMI’s and ages: BMI >30 (98.4% vs 85.1%), >25 (98.4% vs 85.4%), and age <50 (99.5% vs 89.3%) and >50 (98.1% vs 84.8%) [all p<0.0001]. 21770 patients with ER+ disease were identified, of which 1412 (6.5%) received GLP1 RA. The 5-year survival rate was 99.0% vs 87.7% (p-value <0.0001). The survival benefit persisted by BMI and age: BMI >30 (99.0% vs 86.2%), >25 (98.9% vs 87.1%) and age <50 (99.6% vs 90.5%) and >50 (98.7% vs 87.2%) [all p<0.0001]. 3599 patients with HER2+ disease were identified, of which 202 (5.6%) received GLP1 RA. The 5-year survival rate was 99.3% vs 80.1% (p-value <0.0001). The survival benefit persisted by stratification: BMI >30 (100.0% vs 80.0%, p-value <0.0004), and <25 (97.7% vs 76.2%, p-value <0.019), and age <50 (100% vs 87.0%, p-value <0.043) and > 50 (99.0% vs 77.2%, p-value <0.0002). 8389 patients with TNBC disease were identified, of which 360 (4.3%) received GLP1 RA. The 5-year survival rate was 91.0% vs 71.9% (p-value <0.0001). The survival benefit persisted by stratification: BMI >30 (96.4% vs 72.9%, p-value <0.0001), >25 (93.2% vs 71.8%, p-value <0.0001), and age <50 (96.0% vs 73.0%, p-value <0.0028) and >50 (88.9% vs 71.8%, p-value <0.0001). For those TNBC patients who received GLP1 RA, having a BMI >30 conferred a protective effect with a 5-year survival rate was 97.9 vs 89.8% (p-value <0.0014). Conclusions: The study suggests that GLP1-RA improves 5-year survival rates of patients with BC and this applies to all subtypes of BC. These results suggest that further study of the impact of GLP1-RA on BC patients is warranted.
Abstract PD4-04: Impact of Polygenic Risk Scores on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Clinical Decision Making in Carriers of Germline Pathogenic Variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2: Results from the Prospective Multisite GENRE-2 Clinical Trial
Abstract Background: Incorporation of Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) can refine traditional breast cancer (BC) risk assessment models to provide precise estimates of BC risk. However, the impact of such an integrated model on BC risk estimates and clinical decision-making related to BC screening and preventive strategies in germline pathogenic variant (PV) carriers is not fully understood. Methods: The GENRE-2 is a prospective single-arm multisite clinical trial (NCT04474834) incorporating 313-PRS into standard BC risk assessment models to determine the impact of PRS on risk estimates and clinical decisions on prevention and screening. All women received pre- and post-PRS BC risk estimates and completed surveys on their screening and cancer prevention decisions before and after integrating PRS estimates. Herein, we report on the impact of integrating PRS into CanRisk-based BC risk estimates among women enrolled in GENRE-2 due to PVs in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2. Women were categorized into average risk (<20%), moderate risk (20-40%), or high risk (>40%) for BC based on clinically relevant lifetime risk thresholds for supplemental MRI screening and risk-reducing bilateral mastectomies. Changes in categories of lifetime BC risk estimates were then evaluated before and after integration of PRS. Impact of PRS on patient decisions to undertake screening or preventive action (medication or prophylactic mastectomy) was evaluated based on pre- and post-PRS surveys. Results: Between 2020 and 2025, 933 women were enrolled, 633 received PRS results and completed a survey to date. Of those who received PRS results, 214 (33.8%) were PV carriers (ATM: 24, BRCA1: 54, BRCA2: 73, CHEK2: 54 and PALB2: 9). Among PV carriers, the CanRisk-based median 10-year and lifetime pre-PRS risk estimates were 6.0% and 23.9% for ATM, 22.5% and 77.5% for BRCA1, 17.9% and 77.6% for BRCA2, 7.1% and 26.6% for CHEK2, and 16.6% and 42.4% for PALB2, respectively. A total of 7 (29.2%) ATM PV carriers had a shift in lifetime BC risk categories after integration of PRS, with 1 (4.2%) shifting from average to moderate-risk, 3 (12.5%) shifting from moderate to average-risk category, and 3 (12.5%) shifting from moderate to high-risk category. Among CHEK2 PV carriers, 9 (16.7%) had a shift in lifetime risk categories, with 4 (7.4%) shifting from moderate to average-risk, 2 (3.7%) shifting from moderate to high-risk, and 3 (5.6%) shifting from high to moderate-risk. None of the BRCA1 and 4.1% of BRCA2 PV carriers had a shift in lifetime risk categories after PRS integration. Only 1 (11.1%) PALB2 PV carrier had a change in lifetime risk category after integration of PRS, although this was limited by a small sample. A significantly higher proportion of PV carriers with a high lifetime risk intended to take preventative action compared to the PV carriers with average lifetime risk (41.4% vs. 20.0%, p=0.007). Conclusions: Integration of PRS into BC lifetime risk estimates led to a clinically meaningful change in risk categories in 29.2% of ATM PV carriers and 16.7% of CHEK2 PV carriers, but in <5% of BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV carriers. These findings suggest that PRS may be helpful for BC risk stratification in moderate-risk genes such as ATM and CHEK2 but may have limited clinical utility in high-risk genes such as BRCA1 or BRCA2. Citation Format: S. Yadav, C. Klassen, D. Stan, J. Fraker, S. Sahni, S. A. Khan, L. Khatri, C. Vachon, D. Schaid, J. P. Sinnwell, E. Carlson, L. Hasadsri, F. J. Couch, S. Pruthi. Impact of Polygenic Risk Scores on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Clinical Decision Making in Carriers of Germline Pathogenic Variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2: Results from the Prospective Multisite GENRE-2 Clinical Trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD4-04.
Clinical impact of integrating polygenic risk scores with breast cancer risk assessment models: Results from the prospective multisite GENRE-2 clinical trial.
10544 Background: Incorporation of Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) can refine traditional breast cancer risk assessment models to provide precise estimates of breast cancer risk. However, the impact of such an integrated model on clinical decision-making related to breast cancer surveillance and preventive strategies is not fully understood. Methods: The GENRE-2 is a prospective single-arm multisite clinical trial (NCT04474834) incorporating PRS into standard breast cancer risk assessment models to determine the impact of PRS on clinical decisions on breast cancer prevention and surveillance. Women at high risk of breast cancer due to NCI-BCRAT 5-year risk of ≥ 3%, or IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzik) 10-year breast cancer risk of ≥5%, biopsy-proven high-risk breast lesion, or a pathogenic variant (PV) in ATM , BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 or PALB2 , were enrolled from five sites in the United States. All women were invited to complete surveys on their breast surveillance and cancer prevention decisions based on pre-PRS standard risk models and post-PRS risk estimation, and further annual surveys are planned for 10 years. Results: Among 902 women enrolled in the study, 605 (median age: 52 years) received PRS results and completed a survey to date. Of those who received PRS results,195 (32.2%) were PV carriers. Among non-carriers, the median 10-year and lifetime pre-PRS IBIS-based risk was 10.0% and 28.7%, respectively. Among PV carriers, the CanRisk-based 10-year and lifetime pre-PRS risk estimates were 6.3% and 25.2% for ATM , 22.3% and 77.6% for BRCA1 , 18.5% and 77.7% for BRCA2 , 7.1% and 25.7% for CHEK2 , and 16.8% and 38.0% for PALB2 PV carriers, respectively. After the incorporation of PRS, the lifetime risk of breast cancer increased by at least 10% in 31% of non-carriers and 7.7% of PV carriers and decreased by at least 10% in 10.7% of non-carriers and 7.7% of PV carriers. The proportion of non-carriers with lifetime risk < 20% or > 40% changed from 17.3% and 22.0%, respectively, in the pre-PRS evaluation to 24.4% and 32.9%, in the post-PRS evaluation. A higher lifetime post-PRS score was associated with intent to take preventive action (surgery or endocrine agents). In non-carriers, the proportion of women with a lifetime risk < 20% with intent to take preventive action was 11%, compared to 36.8% of those with a lifetime risk > 40% (p < 0.001). Similarly, in PV carriers, the proportion of women with lifetime risk < 20% with intent to take preventive action was 20.8% compared to 41.1% of those with lifetime risk > 40% (p = 0.015). Conclusions: The GENRE-2 trial demonstrates that the incorporation of PRS into breast cancer risk assessment models in high-risk women is feasible and leads to clinically meaningful changes in breast cancer risk estimates and decision-making regarding preventive strategies. Evaluation of the implementation of breast cancer risk management strategies in study participants is ongoing and will be reported. Clinical trial information: NCT04474834 .
Prospective Study of Supplemental Screening With Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Women With Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer: Results of the Prevalence Round
PURPOSE Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have shown similar diagnostic performance in detection of breast cancer. Limited CEM data are available for high-risk breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to prospectively investigate the efficacy of supplemental screening CEM in elevated risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective, single-institution, institutional review board–approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic elevated risk women age 35 years or older who had a negative conventional two-dimensional digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammography (MG) and no additional supplemental screening within the prior 12 months. RESULTS Four hundred sixty women were enrolled from February 2019 to April 2021. The median age was 56.8 (range, 35.0-79.2) years; 408 of 460 (88.7%) were mammographically dense. Biopsy revealed benign changes in 22 women (22/37, 59%), high-risk lesions in four women (4/37, 11%), and breast cancer in 11 women (11/37, 30%). Fourteen cancers (10 invasive, tumor size range 4-15 mm, median 9 mm) were diagnosed in 11 women. The overall supplemental cancer detection rate was 23.9 per 1,000 patients, 95% CI (12.0 to 42.4). All cancers were grade 1 or 2, ER+ ERBB2–, and node negative. CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.875 [95% CI, 0.844 to 0.906]), high NPV (0.998 [95% CI, 0.993 to 1.000), moderate PPV1 (0.164 [95% CI, 0.076 to 0.253), moderate PPV3 (0.275 [95% CI, 0.137 to 0.413]), and high sensitivity (0.917 [95% CI, 0.760 to 1.000]). At least 1 year of imaging follow-up was available on all patients, and one interval cancer was detected on breast MRI 4 months after negative screening CEM. CONCLUSION A pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 23.9 per 1,000 in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. Larger, multi-institutional, multiyear CEM trials in patients at elevated risk are needed for validation.
Beyond the discomfort: understanding and managing sexual pain in women, a comprehensive case-based discussion
Abstract Introduction Sexual pain has a profound impact on individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and affects women more often than men. It adversely affects both sexual function and interpersonal relationships. Despite its prevalence, sexual pain in women often remains unaddressed and untreated. Various underlying causes contribute to sexual pain, sometimes involving multiple factors. We explore treatment options and offer clinical insights into the evaluation and management of 4 common conditions which cause sexual pain in women. In this article, we use the term “women” to indicate cisgender women. Objectives Our aim is to highlight the most common clinical scenarios of sexual pain and provide comprehensive discussions on each, to improve patient care and outcomes in the management of sexual pain. Methods We conducted a comprehensive review of literature and clinical cases to explore the various causes and management strategies for sexual pain in women. We systematically searched databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and relevant medical journals. We included peer-reviewed articles, case studies, and clinical trials published between 2000 and 2023. Additionally, we analyzed real-life cases from our clinical practice at our academic institution. Results Our review identified various factors contributing to sexual pain in women, ranging from hormonal imbalances to neuroproliferative and inflammatory conditions affecting the genitourinary system. Each case should be approached individually to offer optimal management strategies accordingly. Conclusion The management of sexual pain in women requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the multifactorial nature of the condition. Patient education and counseling play a crucial role in the management of sexual pain, empowering individuals to advocate for their own health and well-being. The collaboration between healthcare providers and patients can improve our understanding and management of this complex condition.