1 / 22

Disclosures

Tissue confirmation of disease recurrence in breast cancer patients: pooled analysis of two large prospective studies. E. Amir , M. Clemons, O.C. Freedman, N. Miller, R.E. Coleman, C. Purdie, L. Jordan, P. Quinlan, A.M. Thompson. Disclosures.

yonah
Download Presentation

Disclosures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Tissue confirmation of disease recurrence in breast cancer patients: pooled analysis of two large prospective studies E. Amir, M. Clemons, O.C. Freedman, N. Miller, R.E. Coleman, C. Purdie, L. Jordan, P. Quinlan, A.M. Thompson

  2. Disclosures • Eitan Amir and Orit Freedman declare they have received honoraria from AstraZeneca. • Mark Clemons declares honoraria, research funding and advisory board involvement with AstraZeneca, Roche and Novartis pharmaceuticals. • Alastair Thompson, Colin Purdie, Phil Quinlan and Lee Jordan declare they have received research funding from AstraZeneca.

  3. Recurrentbreast cancer Progression Months/years Months/years Tumor Characteristics and treatmentoptions assumed to be the same Treatment of Recurrent Breast Cancer Primarybreast cancer ER PgR HER2

  4. Current knowledge • Receptor discordance between primary and recurrence: • Mostly retrospective. • Utilized pathology reports – did not re-analyze samples. • Rates of discordance for receptor determination: • Hormone receptors 15 - 40% • HER2 7 - 26% • Relative uniformity of hormone receptor expression between different metastatic sites. Wu et al. Clin Cancer Res 2008 14; 1938-46.

  5. Discordance may be associated with poorer survival. Suggested reasons include: Inappropriate use of targeted therapies Selection of tumors with higher propensity for resistance to systemic therapy Concordant receptors Discordant receptors Is discordance important? Liedke et al. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1953–1958.

  6. Limitations of Retrospective Studies Inconsistent techniques Inter-laboratory variability Inter-observer variability Variability in patient/sample collection No assessment of impact on clinical management Feasibility & patient acceptability not assessed

  7. Important questions • Is discordance “real”? • A change in biology or manifestation of measurement “error”? Barry et al. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2198-2206. Weigelt et al. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 339-349 • Is the source of discordance important? • Clinicians use receptor status to plan therapy. • Discordance important irrespective of its underlying etiology?

  8. DESTINY Study: Single center study, Toronto Canada ER/PgR by IHC using ASCO guidelines HER2 FISH Re-analysis of primary BRITS Study Multi-center study, UK ER/PgR by IHC using quantitative and Allred methods HER2 FISH Re-analysis of primary Suspected recurrence or progression Written informed consent Oncologist: pre-biopsy questionnaire BIOPSY OF RECURRENCE Central pathology review Evaluation of ER/PgR/HER2 Oncologist: post-biopsy questionnaire Study Designs

  9. Endpoints • Primary Endpoint: • The proportion of patients in whom the results of the recurrence biopsy led to a change in management. • Secondary Endpoint: • Discordance rates in ER, PgR and HER2 between primary and recurrence. • Exploratory Analysis: • Evaluate the effect of baseline tumor characteristics and time on both receptor status and change of management.

  10. Patient Demographics n=271

  11. Location of biopsies

  12. P Value 17.0% Loco-regional recurrence <0.0001 13.8% Distant recurrence <0.0001 Whole study population 0 10% 20% 30% Change in therapy • Among 271 patients: • 41 (15.1%) had a change in therapy • 1 change in systemic therapy for every 6.6 biopsies • 95% CI = 11.1 – 20.0% • P <0.0001

  13. Change in therapy • Common reasons for change in management: • Changes in HER2. • Gain of hormone receptor. • Identification of benign disease or second malignancy.

  14. Receptor Concordance • There are 2 different criteria for defining positivity among ER and PgR: • ASCO suggest any staining in >1% of cancer cells is positive. • St. Gallen (Europe) suggest staining in >10% of cancer cell is positive. • Discordance was defined as: • A change from positive to negative (or vice versa). • NOT a quantitative change in receptor expression.

  15. Receptor Concordance 4 cases

  16. Absolute change in receptor expression Increase in receptor expression from primary to recurrence Decrease in receptor expression from primary to recurrence Receptors concordant Receptors discordant

  17. Re-analysis of primary • Receptor discordance in: • ER - 5.8%, • PgR - 11.5%, • HER2 - 3.8%

  18. Exploratory Analyses • Rate of receptor discordance in triple negative tumors is very low (6.8% v 44.9%). • Duration between primary and recurrence biopsies does not appear to influence receptor discordance. • t-test 0.917, p=0.360

  19. Potential Harms • Experience from a single institution (n=121): • Median delay to treatment was 15 days (range 2-56). • One procedure-related serious adverse event: • Uncontrollable bleeding from a skin punch biopsy site. • Patient reported outcomes: • Anxiety - 34.4% • Pain - 58.9% • 87.8% stated they would recommend a biopsy of their recurrence to other patients.

  20. Conclusions • Variability in receptor staining is well recognized. • Largest prospective analysis of receptor status in matched primary and recurrent breast cancer. • Substantial discordance in receptors: • Most common in hormone receptors; • Less common in HER2; • Least common in triple negative. Taucher et al. Endocr Relat Cancer 2003 10; 91-98. Weigelt et al. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 339-349.

  21. Conclusions • The number needed to biopsy to alter immediate patient management was 6.6. • Biopsy should be considered to confirm disease recurrence in breast cancer.

  22. DESTINY Study Christine Simmons Htway Maung Aurora De Borja Farrah Kassam Julie Napolskikh Bill Geddie George Dranitsaris CBCF-Ontario BRITS Study Colin Purdie Lee Jordan Phil Quinlan Tayside Tissue Bank Breast Cancer Research (Scotland) AstraZeneca (UK) Acknowledgements

More Related