Plichta, Jennifer K.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate are intended to serve as a resource for health care providers to identify individuals who may benefit from cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling and testing; help guide decisions related to genetic testing; and facilitate a multidisciplinary approach in the comprehensive care of individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. The current guidelines focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants associated with increased risk of these cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s most recent recommendations regarding screening for prostate cancer and pancreas cancer, as well as testing criteria for nonepithelial ovarian cancer.

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) collects data from approximately 1,500 Commission on Cancer (CoC) facilities and represent 73.7% of newly diagnosed cancers nationwide. The American College of Surgeons Cancer Program developed it first annual report from the NCDB 2021 participant user file reporting new observations and recent trends of cancer diagnoses, patient demographics, and treatments as well as an in-depth report on treatment and outcomes in breast, pancreas, and colon cancers. Of the 1,328,131 cancers diagnosed in 2021 at 1,281 reporting CoC hospitals, one-fifth continue to be female breast cancer. In 2021, the NCDB’s 5 most common adult cancers were breast, prostate, lung, colon, and melanoma and varied by patient sex. Use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy increased in recent years in pancreas, breast, and urinary bladder cancer, although a slight decrease in pancreas and breast cancer was observed in 2021. Breast cancer has high survival rates, especially in lower-stage disease and estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative disease. There is increase in neoadjuvant systemic therapy use, especially in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive disease and estrogen receptor-negative disease. Colon cancer presents most commonly as stage III or II with a primary in the cecum or ascending colon in 38.9%. The majority are microsatellite instability stable, Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue normal, and CEA positive. Survival is most dependent on stage but also associated with microsatellite instability stability, abnormal Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, and positive CEA. Pancreatic cancer presents with stage IV disease in nearly half, although an increase in stage I disease is seen. The most common location is pancreatic head. Survival is relatively low and most dependent on stage.

With improved medical treatments, the prognosis for many malignancies has improved, and more patients are presenting for transplant evaluation with a history of treated cancer. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with a prior malignancy are at higher risk of posttransplant recurrence or de novo malignancy, and they may require a cancer surveillance program that is individualized to their specific needs. There is a dearth of literature on optimal surveillance strategies specific to SOT recipients. A working group of transplant physicians and cancer-specific specialists met to provide expert opinion recommendations on optimal cancer surveillance after transplantation for patients with a history of malignancy. Surveillance strategies provided are mainly based on general population recurrence risk data, immunosuppression effects, and limited transplant-specific data and should be considered expert opinion based on current knowledge. Prospective studies of cancer-specific surveillance models in SOT recipients should be supported to inform posttransplant management of this high-risk population.

Abstract Background Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) breast cancer staging considers contralateral axillary metastasis (CAM) stage IV disease (M1). Retrospective studies suggest that women with CAM have improved overall survival (OS) compared to those with distant metastasis (M1) and/or comparable OS to locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). These studies support consideration of curative intent treatment; however, they contain heterogeneous cohorts with highly variable treatment strategies. We sought to evaluate treatment and outcomes in a well-defined CAM cohort treated with contemporary systemic and locoregional therapy. Methods We performed a retrospective multi-institution cohort study to compare OS of patients with CAM matched 1:3 on age +/- 5 years to LABC (defined as cN2-3 and/or pN2-3), and to non-CAM M1. CAM patients classified as type 1) de novo CAM, synchronous with the contralateral primary, 2) metachronous isolated CAM in the setting of prior surgical and/or radiation treatment to primary index cancer, 3) synchronous with, or 4) metachronous after an in-breast or axillary nodal recurrence of the primary index cancer. The M1 cohort included de novo and recurrent metastasis with varied sites and number of metastasis. OS was defined as time from CAM diagnosis to death or last follow-up for CAM patients; time from primary diagnosis to death or last follow-up for LABC; and time from metastatic diagnosis to death or last follow-up for M1. Unadjusted OS was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of group with OS after adjustment for covariates Results We identified 57 CAM and 155 LABC from 8 institutions (2016-2022), and 632 M1 from a single institution. The median age was similar between groups (CAM=59 years, LABC=58, M1=57, p=0.44), and there were no statistically significant differences in hormone receptor status (p=0.25). There were more Non-Hispanic Black patients in the M1 cohort compared to CAM or LABC (p< 0.001). The majority of CAM cases were delayed metachronous from the index cancer (type 2, 35.1%), or synchronous with a recurrence (type 3, 33.3%). Type 1 (de novo, 14%) and type 4 (delayed metachronous after breast cancer recurrence, 17.5%) were less frequent. Among CAM patients, 49.1% were hormone receptor positive (HR+)/HER2-negative (HER2-), 22.8% HR-/HER2-, 10.5% HR+/HER2+, and 5.3% HR-/HER2+. Comparing CAM versus LABC, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) was more commonly seen in CAM (82.5% vs 66.5%), as was grade 3 (45.6% vs 35.5%), and triple negative (22.8% vs 13.5%). Conversely, in LABC, treatment of the primary index cancer more frequently included chemotherapy (CAM=71.9%, LABC=92.3%), mastectomy (CAM=54.4%, LABC 74.2%), and adjuvant radiation (CAM=73.7%, LABC=90.3%). On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and hormone receptor status, both CAM and M1 had inferior survival to LABC (Table 1), but with a 2.4-fold difference for CAM (95% CI 1.42-4.07, p=0.001) versus a 6.3-fold difference for M1 (95% CI 4.29-9.23, p=< 0.001). Discussion In this contemporary, multi-institution study, we demonstrated that CAM patients selected for presumed curative intent treatment experienced improved OS when compared to stage IV (M1) patients. Our data adds additional support for re-evaluating the current stage IV designation, in favor of N3, and consideration of curative intent treatment in this disease. Table. Adjusted* Overall Survival Comparing Patients with Breast Cancer Contralateral Axillary Metastasis (CAM) to those with Locally Advanced Breast Cancer (LABC) and Metastatic Disease (M1) *Adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, hormone receptors. Citation Format: Meghan R. Flanagan, Stephanie Downs-Canner, Samantha Thomas, Astrid Botty van de bruele, Margaret Lillie, Kristalyn Gallagher, Tammeza Gibson, James Jakub, Alexandra Verosky, Sarah Tevis, Malia Brennan, Francys Verdial, Jennifer Q. Zhang, Leisha Elmore, Jennifer Plichta, Laura Rosenberger. A Multi-Institutional Review of Contralateral Axillary Metastases: Time for Reclassification as Local-Regional Event? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-05-13.

PURPOSE To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer. METHODS An ASCO–Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process. RESULTS Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS BRCA1/ 2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/ 2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/ 2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/ 2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis provide health care providers with a practical, consistent framework for screening and evaluating a spectrum of clinical presentations and breast lesions. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including representation from medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, internal medicine, family practice, preventive medicine, pathology, diagnostic and interventional radiology, as well as patient advocacy. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel meets at least annually to review emerging data and comments from reviewers within their institutions to guide updates to existing recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s decision-making and discussion surrounding the most recent updates to the guideline’s screening recommendations.

PURPOSE: Contemporary breast cancer surgery often requires hospital stays of 1 day or less, presenting challenges to delivery of high-quality care. Without sufficient time for proper education and guidance, patients may delay seeking care, experience anxiety, or seek unnecessary care, leading to poorer outcomes and increased costs. To address this, we evaluated the feasibility of a planning-, outcomes-, and analytics-based mobile health application called Manage My Surgery (MMS) for patients undergoing elective breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing breast cancer surgery at an academic health center were invited to use MMS. Those who used the application received pre- and postoperative surveys, which recorded and reported patient satisfaction and outcomes related to the application. RESULTS: Thirty-three female patients undergoing elective breast cancer surgery used MMS. The median age was 58 years. Nineteen patients underwent lumpectomy, and 14 underwent mastectomy. Users logged on to the application an average of 3.5 times. The median number of questions viewed was 12 (range 2-35). Of 17 patients who completed the feedback survey, 100% said that MMS was helpful during preparation for surgery, 82.3% said that MMS was helpful postoperatively, and 94.1% would recommend MMS to others. Preliminary data on patient-reported outcomes collected by MMS suggest improvements in anxiety and depression over time. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a digital care navigation tool in breast cancer surgery patients is feasible. Patients found the tool helpful in both the pre- and postoperative period. Additional ongoing work will focus on patients' self-management skills, long-term outcomes, and health system costs.

PURPOSE To develop recommendations concerning the management of male breast cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and a formal consensus process. RESULTS Twenty-six descriptive reports or observational studies met eligibility criteria and formed the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS Many of the management approaches used for men with breast cancer are like those used for women. Men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who are candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy should be offered tamoxifen for an initial duration of five years; those with a contraindication to tamoxifen may be offered a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist plus aromatase inhibitor. Men who have completed five years of tamoxifen, have tolerated therapy, and still have a high risk of recurrence may be offered an additional five years of therapy. Men with early-stage disease should not be treated with bone-modifying agents to prevent recurrence, but could still receive these agents to prevent or treat osteoporosis. Men with advanced or metastatic disease should be offered endocrine therapy as first-line therapy, except in cases of visceral crisis or rapidly progressive disease. Targeted systemic therapy may be used to treat advanced or metastatic cancer using the same indications and combinations offered to women. Ipsilateral annual mammogram should be offered to men with a history of breast cancer treated with lumpectomy regardless of genetic predisposition; contralateral annual mammogram may be offered to men with a history of breast cancer and a genetic predisposing mutation. Breast magnetic resonance imaging is not recommended routinely. Genetic counseling and germline genetic testing of cancer predisposition genes should be offered to all men with breast cancer.

Objective: To determine whether the association between overall survival (OS) and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in breast cancer patients varies with tumor subtype and anatomic extent of pathologic complete response (pCR). Background: pCR after NACT predicts improved OS in breast cancer, but it is unclear whether pCR limited to the breast or axilla is also associated with OS. Methods: Women with cT1-3/cN0-1 breast cancer diagnosed in 2010 to 2014 who underwent surgery following NACT were identified in the NCDB and divided into 4 subtypes based on reported hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate OS. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with post-NACT response, defined as upstage (yp stage>clinical stage); no change (clinical stage = yp stage); overall (breast+axilla, ypT0N0), breast-only (ypT0N1/N1mic), or node-only (ypT1-3N0) pCR. Results: Of 33,162 identified patients, 20,265 experienced overall pCR (n = 6370, 19.2%), breast-only pCR (n = 494, 1.5%), node-only pCR (n = 1133, 3.4%), no stage change (n = 9641, 29.1%), or upstage (n = 2627, 7.9%). Compared with no stage change, breast-only pCR was associated with improved OS in triple-negative disease [hazard ratio = 0.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.37–0.89], and node-only pCR was associated with improved OS in both triple-negative (hazard ratio = 0.55,95% CI = 0.39–0.76) and HR+/HER2− disease (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.33–0.89). For patients achieving overall (breast+axilla) pCR, unadjusted 5-year OS was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.93–0.95), with no difference between patients who were cN0 (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.93–0.96) or cN1 (hazard ratio = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.92–0.96) at diagnosis. Conclusions: In node-positive patients, pCR limited to either the breast or axilla predicts survival for select receptor subtypes. In patients achieving pCR in both the breast and axilla, survival is driven by response to NACT rather than presenting cN stage.