Gelfond, Jonathan

10520 Background: Therapeutic options for breast cancer (BC) prevention for high-risk women remain limited, and not all eligible patients opt for endocrine therapy due to concerns related to adverse events (AEs). GLP1RAs are widely used for obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus; their role in BC primary prevention (PP) in high-risk women with obesity has not been evaluated. Methods: Using the TriNetX Global Network (150 million patients, 108 organizations), we analyzed de-identified records of high-risk women aged 18–90 years with a BMI ≥ 30 who had health care encounters between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2025, identified via ICD-10 codes. High risk was defined as at least one of the following: genetic predisposition to BC, family history of BC, atypical ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ, or dense breasts. Patients were grouped as having GLP1-RA use or no GLP-1RA use. Patients with a prior history of BC or use of endocrine therapy were excluded. GLP-1RA users were propensity score-matched 1:1 with non-users based on demographics, comorbidities, social determinants of health, lifestyle factors, BMI, HbA1c, and prior breast imaging. Incident BC served as the primary endpoint, with key AEs as secondary measures. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to assess outcomes, which were further validated through subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: Among 80,480 high-risk women with a BMI ≥ 30, 46,581 were assigned to each cohort. Baseline demographics were balanced between cohorts (mean age: 46 years, 70% White, 21% Black). Median follow-up was 2,790 vs 2,630 days for GLP-1RA users and non-users, respectively. BC incidence was 2.95% in GLP-1RA users (1,164/39,495 cases) vs 3.01% in non-users (1,200/39,057 cases) (3.27 vs. 3.57 cases per 1,000 person-years; HR 0.844; 95% CI, 0.779–0.915). GLP-1RA users exhibited an increased risk of endometrial cancer (HR 1.273; 95% CI, 1.088–1.491) and osteoporosis (HR 1.124; 95% CI, 1.054–1.199). No significant association was observed for venous thromboembolism. Gastrointestinal AEs were significantly higher in the GLP-1RA cohort. Conclusions: GLP-1RA use was associated with a modest reduction in BC incidence among high-risk women with obesity in this real-world study. Prospective randomized trials are needed to validate these associations.

AbstractBackgroundExternal‐beam radiation (EBRT) is a noninvasive therapeutic alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials to assess the clinical efficacy of EBRT versus TACE for HCC as either a definitive monotherapy or as a bridge to transplantation/surgery.MethodsA systematic review and meta‐analysis were performed to include prospective randomized trials comparing EBRT versus TACE. Data was analyzed with random and fixed‐effects models. The inconsistency index (I2) was chosen to assess heterogeneity. Three publications were included with a total of 142 patients. Outcomes included local control (LC), overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and occurrences of grade ≥3 toxicity. Comparisons are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThere were three randomized trials that met inclusion criteria. The EBRT was delivered in three to 15 fractions with a total dose between 30 and 75 gray(Gy). EBRT was associated with significantly improved LC (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08–0.34; I2 = 0%) and PFS (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23–0.60; I2, 0%) compared with TACE. There was no significant difference between EBRT and TACE in OS (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51–1.22; I2 = 0%) or grade ≥3 toxicity (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.31–2.37; I2 = 57%). None of the analyses had statistically significant heterogeneity.ConclusionsCompared with TACE, EBRT yields superior LC and PFS without providing a survival benefit in early and intermediate stage HCC. Additional larger prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to further investigate differences in clinical outcomes amongst patients with more advanced disease.