Breast Cancer

Key clinical point: Diet may influence breast cancer outcomes.

Major finding: Women who adhered to the healthiest diet had a 31% lower risk for all-cause mortality versus women in the lowest tier for dietary health.

Study details: A retrospective study of 8,320 women with breast cancer in the first and second Nurses’ Health Studies.

Disclosures: This research was supported, in part, by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Research Foundations, and Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundations. Dr. Wang reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang T et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS2-09.

Key clinical point: Diet may influence breast cancer outcomes.

Major finding: Women who adhered to the healthiest diet had a 31% lower risk for all-cause mortality versus women in the lowest tier for dietary health.

Study details: A retrospective study of 8,320 women with breast cancer in the first and second Nurses’ Health Studies.

Disclosures: This research was supported, in part, by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Research Foundations, and Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundations. Dr. Wang reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang T et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS2-09.

Key clinical point: Diet may influence breast cancer outcomes.

Major finding: Women who adhered to the healthiest diet had a 31% lower risk for all-cause mortality versus women in the lowest tier for dietary health.

Study details: A retrospective study of 8,320 women with breast cancer in the first and second Nurses’ Health Studies.

Disclosures: This research was supported, in part, by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Research Foundations, and Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundations. Dr. Wang reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang T et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS2-09.

Key clinical point: Breast cancer survivors are less likely to conceive and have more complications when they do, but pregnancy does not increase the risk of cancer recurrence, a review suggests.

Major finding: Relative to the general population, breast cancer survivors were 60% less likely to become pregnant, and they had higher odds of complications such as preterm birth (45% higher) and low birth weight (50% higher), but their risk of cancer recurrence was not increased.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis using data from 39 studies that included a total of 114,573 breast cancer patients and 8,093,401 women from the general population.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the Italian Association for Cancer Research. Dr. Blondeaux disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Source: Blondeaux et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-09.

Key clinical point: Breast cancer survivors are less likely to conceive and have more complications when they do, but pregnancy does not increase the risk of cancer recurrence, a review suggests.

Major finding: Relative to the general population, breast cancer survivors were 60% less likely to become pregnant, and they had higher odds of complications such as preterm birth (45% higher) and low birth weight (50% higher), but their risk of cancer recurrence was not increased.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis using data from 39 studies that included a total of 114,573 breast cancer patients and 8,093,401 women from the general population.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the Italian Association for Cancer Research. Dr. Blondeaux disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Source: Blondeaux et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-09.

Key clinical point: Breast cancer survivors are less likely to conceive and have more complications when they do, but pregnancy does not increase the risk of cancer recurrence, a review suggests.

Major finding: Relative to the general population, breast cancer survivors were 60% less likely to become pregnant, and they had higher odds of complications such as preterm birth (45% higher) and low birth weight (50% higher), but their risk of cancer recurrence was not increased.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis using data from 39 studies that included a total of 114,573 breast cancer patients and 8,093,401 women from the general population.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the Italian Association for Cancer Research. Dr. Blondeaux disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Source: Blondeaux et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-09.

Key clinical point: Adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy for early triple-negative breast cancer did not increase symptom burden.

Major finding: Health-related quality-of-life measures were similar whether patients received chemotherapy with atezolizumab or with placebo. For example, mean physical function scores were about 90% in both treatment arms at baseline, dropped to about 65% in each arm by cycle 5, and rebounded to about 80% by cycle 7.

Study details: Exploratory patient-reported outcomes from 328 patients in the phase 3 IMpassion031 trial.

Disclosures: IMpassion031 is sponsored by F. Hoffman-LaRoche. Dr. Mittendorf disclosed relationships with Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Physicians’ Education Resource, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Merck, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, SELLAS Life Sciences, TapImmune, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Lilly.

Source: Mittendorf E at al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-02.

Key clinical point: Adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy for early triple-negative breast cancer did not increase symptom burden.

Major finding: Health-related quality-of-life measures were similar whether patients received chemotherapy with atezolizumab or with placebo. For example, mean physical function scores were about 90% in both treatment arms at baseline, dropped to about 65% in each arm by cycle 5, and rebounded to about 80% by cycle 7.

Study details: Exploratory patient-reported outcomes from 328 patients in the phase 3 IMpassion031 trial.

Disclosures: IMpassion031 is sponsored by F. Hoffman-LaRoche. Dr. Mittendorf disclosed relationships with Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Physicians’ Education Resource, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Merck, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, SELLAS Life Sciences, TapImmune, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Lilly.

Source: Mittendorf E at al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-02.

Key clinical point: Adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy for early triple-negative breast cancer did not increase symptom burden.

Major finding: Health-related quality-of-life measures were similar whether patients received chemotherapy with atezolizumab or with placebo. For example, mean physical function scores were about 90% in both treatment arms at baseline, dropped to about 65% in each arm by cycle 5, and rebounded to about 80% by cycle 7.

Study details: Exploratory patient-reported outcomes from 328 patients in the phase 3 IMpassion031 trial.

Disclosures: IMpassion031 is sponsored by F. Hoffman-LaRoche. Dr. Mittendorf disclosed relationships with Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Physicians’ Education Resource, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Merck, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, SELLAS Life Sciences, TapImmune, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Lilly.

Source: Mittendorf E at al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-02.

Key clinical point: Comorbid depression, sleep disorders, or their combination is associated with early mortality in women with breast cancer.

Major finding: Depression (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.78) and sleep disorders (aHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.02-1.84) were significantly associated with an increase in 5-year mortality. For the combination of depression and sleep disorders, aHR was 1.75 (95% CI: 1.17-2.60).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study of women diagnosed with breast cancer (2008-2012) in 1 of 200 general practices in the UK (n = 6,656; age, 18-80 years).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bach L et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.11.036.

Key clinical point: Comorbid depression, sleep disorders, or their combination is associated with early mortality in women with breast cancer.

Major finding: Depression (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.78) and sleep disorders (aHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.02-1.84) were significantly associated with an increase in 5-year mortality. For the combination of depression and sleep disorders, aHR was 1.75 (95% CI: 1.17-2.60).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study of women diagnosed with breast cancer (2008-2012) in 1 of 200 general practices in the UK (n = 6,656; age, 18-80 years).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bach L et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.11.036.

Key clinical point: Comorbid depression, sleep disorders, or their combination is associated with early mortality in women with breast cancer.

Major finding: Depression (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.78) and sleep disorders (aHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.02-1.84) were significantly associated with an increase in 5-year mortality. For the combination of depression and sleep disorders, aHR was 1.75 (95% CI: 1.17-2.60).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study of women diagnosed with breast cancer (2008-2012) in 1 of 200 general practices in the UK (n = 6,656; age, 18-80 years).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bach L et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.11.036.

Key clinical point: Underweight appears as an independent negative prognostic factor for both overall survival (OS) and first-line progression-free survival (PFS) in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In contrast, overweight and obesity are not associated with poorer outcomes.

Major finding: The median OS was 47.4 months (median follow-up, 48.6 months). Underweight (body mass index [BMI], less than 18.5 kg/m²) showed an independent association with worse OS (median OS, 33 months; hazard ratio [HR ], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.28) and first-line PFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22). Overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.9 kg/m²) or obesity (BMI, 30.0 kg/m² or higher) had no impact on OS.

Study details: This study evaluated the impact of BMI on survival outcomes among patients with metastatic breast cancer (n = 12,999) in the ESME-MBC cohort (median BMI, 24.9 kg/m²; 20% of women were obese and 5% underweight).

Disclosures: The ESME MBC database receives financial support from an industrial consortium (Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, and Daiichi Sankyo). Dr. K Saleh had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties with pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Saleh K et al. Breast. 2020 Dec 1. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.11.014.

Key clinical point: Underweight appears as an independent negative prognostic factor for both overall survival (OS) and first-line progression-free survival (PFS) in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In contrast, overweight and obesity are not associated with poorer outcomes.

Major finding: The median OS was 47.4 months (median follow-up, 48.6 months). Underweight (body mass index [BMI], less than 18.5 kg/m²) showed an independent association with worse OS (median OS, 33 months; hazard ratio [HR ], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.28) and first-line PFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22). Overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.9 kg/m²) or obesity (BMI, 30.0 kg/m² or higher) had no impact on OS.

Study details: This study evaluated the impact of BMI on survival outcomes among patients with metastatic breast cancer (n = 12,999) in the ESME-MBC cohort (median BMI, 24.9 kg/m²; 20% of women were obese and 5% underweight).

Disclosures: The ESME MBC database receives financial support from an industrial consortium (Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, and Daiichi Sankyo). Dr. K Saleh had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties with pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Saleh K et al. Breast. 2020 Dec 1. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.11.014.

Key clinical point: Underweight appears as an independent negative prognostic factor for both overall survival (OS) and first-line progression-free survival (PFS) in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In contrast, overweight and obesity are not associated with poorer outcomes.

Major finding: The median OS was 47.4 months (median follow-up, 48.6 months). Underweight (body mass index [BMI], less than 18.5 kg/m²) showed an independent association with worse OS (median OS, 33 months; hazard ratio [HR ], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.28) and first-line PFS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22). Overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.9 kg/m²) or obesity (BMI, 30.0 kg/m² or higher) had no impact on OS.

Study details: This study evaluated the impact of BMI on survival outcomes among patients with metastatic breast cancer (n = 12,999) in the ESME-MBC cohort (median BMI, 24.9 kg/m²; 20% of women were obese and 5% underweight).

Disclosures: The ESME MBC database receives financial support from an industrial consortium (Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, and Daiichi Sankyo). Dr. K Saleh had no disclosures. Some of his coinvestigators reported ties with pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Saleh K et al. Breast. 2020 Dec 1. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.11.014.

Key clinical point: Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count-driven first-line therapy (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) is noninferior to clinician choice-driven first-line therapy for progression-free survival (PFS) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Major finding: The median PFS was 15.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7-17.3) months in the CTC-guided group and 13.9 (95% CI, 12.2-16.3) months in the clinician-driven choice group. The primary end point (PFS in the per-protocol population with a noninferiority margin of 1.25 for the 90% CI of the hazard ratio [HR]) was met with an HR of 0.94 (90% CI, 0.81-1.09). Overall survival was also noninferior with CTC guidance (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16).

Study details: In this phase 3 STIC CTC trial, 755 women with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a CTC-driven first-line therapy (chemotherapy if 5 CTCs or more/7.5 mL; endocrine therapy if less than 5 CTCs/7.5 mL) or clinician choice-driven first-line therapy (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) at 17 French centers.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Institut Curie, the French National Cancer Institute as part of the Programme de Soutien aux Techniques Innovantes Coûteuses 2011, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. The lead author reported receiving grants and nonfinancial support from Menarini Silicon Biosystems during the conduct of the study.

Source: Bidard FC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660.

Key clinical point: Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count-driven first-line therapy (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) is noninferior to clinician choice-driven first-line therapy for progression-free survival (PFS) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Major finding: The median PFS was 15.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7-17.3) months in the CTC-guided group and 13.9 (95% CI, 12.2-16.3) months in the clinician-driven choice group. The primary end point (PFS in the per-protocol population with a noninferiority margin of 1.25 for the 90% CI of the hazard ratio [HR]) was met with an HR of 0.94 (90% CI, 0.81-1.09). Overall survival was also noninferior with CTC guidance (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16).

Study details: In this phase 3 STIC CTC trial, 755 women with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a CTC-driven first-line therapy (chemotherapy if 5 CTCs or more/7.5 mL; endocrine therapy if less than 5 CTCs/7.5 mL) or clinician choice-driven first-line therapy (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) at 17 French centers.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Institut Curie, the French National Cancer Institute as part of the Programme de Soutien aux Techniques Innovantes Coûteuses 2011, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. The lead author reported receiving grants and nonfinancial support from Menarini Silicon Biosystems during the conduct of the study.

Source: Bidard FC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660.

Key clinical point: Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count-driven first-line therapy (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) is noninferior to clinician choice-driven first-line therapy for progression-free survival (PFS) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Major finding: The median PFS was 15.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7-17.3) months in the CTC-guided group and 13.9 (95% CI, 12.2-16.3) months in the clinician-driven choice group. The primary end point (PFS in the per-protocol population with a noninferiority margin of 1.25 for the 90% CI of the hazard ratio [HR]) was met with an HR of 0.94 (90% CI, 0.81-1.09). Overall survival was also noninferior with CTC guidance (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16).

Study details: In this phase 3 STIC CTC trial, 755 women with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a CTC-driven first-line therapy (chemotherapy if 5 CTCs or more/7.5 mL; endocrine therapy if less than 5 CTCs/7.5 mL) or clinician choice-driven first-line therapy (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) at 17 French centers.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Institut Curie, the French National Cancer Institute as part of the Programme de Soutien aux Techniques Innovantes Coûteuses 2011, and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. The lead author reported receiving grants and nonfinancial support from Menarini Silicon Biosystems during the conduct of the study.

Source: Bidard FC et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5660.

Key clinical point: Addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel does not improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered locally advanced unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: The median PFS was 7.4 months with ipatasertib + paclitaxel vs 6.1 months with placebo + paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 1.02; P = .9237).

Study details: The data come from the Cohort A of phase 3 trial IPATunity130. 255 patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered TNBC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive paclitaxel with either ipatasertib or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Hoffmann-La Roche. The presenting author Rebecca Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.

Source: Dent R et al. Abstract 4. SABCS 2020. 2020 Dec 10.

Key clinical point: Addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel does not improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered locally advanced unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: The median PFS was 7.4 months with ipatasertib + paclitaxel vs 6.1 months with placebo + paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 1.02; P = .9237).

Study details: The data come from the Cohort A of phase 3 trial IPATunity130. 255 patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered TNBC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive paclitaxel with either ipatasertib or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Hoffmann-La Roche. The presenting author Rebecca Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.

Source: Dent R et al. Abstract 4. SABCS 2020. 2020 Dec 10.

Key clinical point: Addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel does not improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered locally advanced unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: The median PFS was 7.4 months with ipatasertib + paclitaxel vs 6.1 months with placebo + paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 1.02; P = .9237).

Study details: The data come from the Cohort A of phase 3 trial IPATunity130. 255 patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered TNBC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive paclitaxel with either ipatasertib or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Hoffmann-La Roche. The presenting author Rebecca Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.

Source: Dent R et al. Abstract 4. SABCS 2020. 2020 Dec 10.

The majority of women in the United States remain unaware of the benefits breastfeeding offers in reducing the risk of breast cancer, reported Adrienne Hoyt-Austin, DO, and colleagues at University of California, Davis.

oksun70/ThinkStock

Using nationally representative data collected from the 2015-2017 National Survey of Family Growth, Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues analyzed responses to the question: “Do you think that breastfeeding decreases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer a lot, a little, or not at all, no opinion, or don’t know?” A total of 5,554 female respondents aged 15-49 years participated. The response rate was 66.7%.
 

Multiparous status and education play a role in decreased awareness

Those who had given birth more than once, who had no more than a high school education, or who were U.S.-born Hispanic had the lowest level of awareness, believing that breastfeeding offers only “a little” protection. Of those who were aware of the link, 44% reported that breastfeeding provides “a lot” of protection, and foreign-born participants as well as those who breastfed for more than a year were more likely to conclude that breastfeeding offers “a lot” of protection. The researchers found that neither mammogram or personal family history of breast cancer had any bearing on awareness.

Although multiple studies have found breastfeeding to confer a lower rate of cancer risk, morbidity and mortality, with a 26% lower lifetime risk for those mothers who breastfeed for 12 months or longer, only 36% of women in the United States actually breastfeed.
 

Limited data indicate whether respondents were breastfed themselves

“Public health initiatives must consider the complex roots of disparities in breastfeeding,” noted Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues. They acknowledged the subjectivity of perceptions of “a lot” versus “a little” and noted that the study was limited by a lack of data on whether participants were breastfed themselves.

Clinicians have an opportunity to play a key role in better educating families concerning the benefits of breastfeeding, both for mother and child, they advised. According to one recent study, just 5 minutes of counseling on the benefits of breastfeeding “significantly strengthened women’s intentions to breastfeed.

In a separate interview, Amy E. Cyr, MD, FACS, section of surgical oncology at Washington University, St. Louis, noted that “many breast cancer risk factors – age, sex, family history, and age of menopause – are nonmodifiable.” And while other risk factors, including alcohol use, diet, and exercise are controllable, “pregnancies and breastfeeding don’t always go as planned,” Dr. Cyr added.

“Although Dr. Hoyt-Austin et al. observed that many women aren’t aware that breastfeeding decreases breast cancer risk – or to what extent (they cite a 26% cancer risk reduction after 12 or more months of breastfeeding) – most studies haven’t shown that large a drop in breast cancer risk,“ she pointed out, adding that “I think it’s an overstatement to suggest that breastfeeding reduces cancer risk by ‘a lot,’ as one of the survey choices offered in the study suggests.”

Whether or not a woman breastfeeds depends not only on desire but on social and economic support and biology; for some, breastfeeding simply isn’t an option. “I agree that we should educate women about the benefits of breastfeeding so they can make an informed decision for themselves and their infants, but we also need to acknowledge the complexity of this issue,” she cautioned.

One coauthor reported a travel stipend by the Human Milk Banking Association of North America; Dr. Hoyt-Austin and the other authors had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Cyr had no conflicts of interest to report.

SOURCE: Hoyt-Austin A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004162.

The majority of women in the United States remain unaware of the benefits breastfeeding offers in reducing the risk of breast cancer, reported Adrienne Hoyt-Austin, DO, and colleagues at University of California, Davis.

oksun70/ThinkStock

Using nationally representative data collected from the 2015-2017 National Survey of Family Growth, Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues analyzed responses to the question: “Do you think that breastfeeding decreases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer a lot, a little, or not at all, no opinion, or don’t know?” A total of 5,554 female respondents aged 15-49 years participated. The response rate was 66.7%.
 

Multiparous status and education play a role in decreased awareness

Those who had given birth more than once, who had no more than a high school education, or who were U.S.-born Hispanic had the lowest level of awareness, believing that breastfeeding offers only “a little” protection. Of those who were aware of the link, 44% reported that breastfeeding provides “a lot” of protection, and foreign-born participants as well as those who breastfed for more than a year were more likely to conclude that breastfeeding offers “a lot” of protection. The researchers found that neither mammogram or personal family history of breast cancer had any bearing on awareness.

Although multiple studies have found breastfeeding to confer a lower rate of cancer risk, morbidity and mortality, with a 26% lower lifetime risk for those mothers who breastfeed for 12 months or longer, only 36% of women in the United States actually breastfeed.
 

Limited data indicate whether respondents were breastfed themselves

“Public health initiatives must consider the complex roots of disparities in breastfeeding,” noted Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues. They acknowledged the subjectivity of perceptions of “a lot” versus “a little” and noted that the study was limited by a lack of data on whether participants were breastfed themselves.

Clinicians have an opportunity to play a key role in better educating families concerning the benefits of breastfeeding, both for mother and child, they advised. According to one recent study, just 5 minutes of counseling on the benefits of breastfeeding “significantly strengthened women’s intentions to breastfeed.

In a separate interview, Amy E. Cyr, MD, FACS, section of surgical oncology at Washington University, St. Louis, noted that “many breast cancer risk factors – age, sex, family history, and age of menopause – are nonmodifiable.” And while other risk factors, including alcohol use, diet, and exercise are controllable, “pregnancies and breastfeeding don’t always go as planned,” Dr. Cyr added.

“Although Dr. Hoyt-Austin et al. observed that many women aren’t aware that breastfeeding decreases breast cancer risk – or to what extent (they cite a 26% cancer risk reduction after 12 or more months of breastfeeding) – most studies haven’t shown that large a drop in breast cancer risk,“ she pointed out, adding that “I think it’s an overstatement to suggest that breastfeeding reduces cancer risk by ‘a lot,’ as one of the survey choices offered in the study suggests.”

Whether or not a woman breastfeeds depends not only on desire but on social and economic support and biology; for some, breastfeeding simply isn’t an option. “I agree that we should educate women about the benefits of breastfeeding so they can make an informed decision for themselves and their infants, but we also need to acknowledge the complexity of this issue,” she cautioned.

One coauthor reported a travel stipend by the Human Milk Banking Association of North America; Dr. Hoyt-Austin and the other authors had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Cyr had no conflicts of interest to report.

SOURCE: Hoyt-Austin A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004162.

The majority of women in the United States remain unaware of the benefits breastfeeding offers in reducing the risk of breast cancer, reported Adrienne Hoyt-Austin, DO, and colleagues at University of California, Davis.

oksun70/ThinkStock

Using nationally representative data collected from the 2015-2017 National Survey of Family Growth, Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues analyzed responses to the question: “Do you think that breastfeeding decreases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer a lot, a little, or not at all, no opinion, or don’t know?” A total of 5,554 female respondents aged 15-49 years participated. The response rate was 66.7%.
 

Multiparous status and education play a role in decreased awareness

Those who had given birth more than once, who had no more than a high school education, or who were U.S.-born Hispanic had the lowest level of awareness, believing that breastfeeding offers only “a little” protection. Of those who were aware of the link, 44% reported that breastfeeding provides “a lot” of protection, and foreign-born participants as well as those who breastfed for more than a year were more likely to conclude that breastfeeding offers “a lot” of protection. The researchers found that neither mammogram or personal family history of breast cancer had any bearing on awareness.

Although multiple studies have found breastfeeding to confer a lower rate of cancer risk, morbidity and mortality, with a 26% lower lifetime risk for those mothers who breastfeed for 12 months or longer, only 36% of women in the United States actually breastfeed.
 

Limited data indicate whether respondents were breastfed themselves

“Public health initiatives must consider the complex roots of disparities in breastfeeding,” noted Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues. They acknowledged the subjectivity of perceptions of “a lot” versus “a little” and noted that the study was limited by a lack of data on whether participants were breastfed themselves.

Clinicians have an opportunity to play a key role in better educating families concerning the benefits of breastfeeding, both for mother and child, they advised. According to one recent study, just 5 minutes of counseling on the benefits of breastfeeding “significantly strengthened women’s intentions to breastfeed.

In a separate interview, Amy E. Cyr, MD, FACS, section of surgical oncology at Washington University, St. Louis, noted that “many breast cancer risk factors – age, sex, family history, and age of menopause – are nonmodifiable.” And while other risk factors, including alcohol use, diet, and exercise are controllable, “pregnancies and breastfeeding don’t always go as planned,” Dr. Cyr added.

“Although Dr. Hoyt-Austin et al. observed that many women aren’t aware that breastfeeding decreases breast cancer risk – or to what extent (they cite a 26% cancer risk reduction after 12 or more months of breastfeeding) – most studies haven’t shown that large a drop in breast cancer risk,“ she pointed out, adding that “I think it’s an overstatement to suggest that breastfeeding reduces cancer risk by ‘a lot,’ as one of the survey choices offered in the study suggests.”

Whether or not a woman breastfeeds depends not only on desire but on social and economic support and biology; for some, breastfeeding simply isn’t an option. “I agree that we should educate women about the benefits of breastfeeding so they can make an informed decision for themselves and their infants, but we also need to acknowledge the complexity of this issue,” she cautioned.

One coauthor reported a travel stipend by the Human Milk Banking Association of North America; Dr. Hoyt-Austin and the other authors had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Cyr had no conflicts of interest to report.

SOURCE: Hoyt-Austin A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004162.

Dr. Sara Hurvitz, Director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program at UCLA, reviews key updates in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer studies presented during the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), which was held virtually in December.

A sub-analysis of patients who had central nervous system disease at baseline demonstrated improved outcomes with neratinib plus capecitabine compared with those receiving lapatinib plus capecitabine in the NALA trial.

Updated results from the DESTINY-breast01 study of trastuzumab deruxtecan show encouraging results in progression-free survival and early overall survival and high rates of durable responses in a heavily pretreated group of patients with metastatic breast cancer, consistent with early results.

In the HER2CLIMB study, patients treated with tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine had clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate independent of HR status compared with placebo, and patients with HR+ and HR- breast cancer with brain metastases experienced similar benefits.

--

Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, FACP, Professor of Medicine. Director, Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program, Division of Hematology-Oncology David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
Medical Director, Clinical Research Unit, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Dr. Hurvitz has received research grants from: Ambrx; Amgen Inc.; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Dignitana AB; Eli Lilly and Company; Genentech, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Immunomedics; MacroGenics, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma, Inc.; Pfizer Inc; Pieris Pharmaceuticals Inc; Puma Biotechnology; Radius Health; Roche Pharma; sanofi-aventis; Seattle Genetics, Inc.

Dr. Sara Hurvitz, Director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program at UCLA, reviews key updates in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer studies presented during the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), which was held virtually in December.

A sub-analysis of patients who had central nervous system disease at baseline demonstrated improved outcomes with neratinib plus capecitabine compared with those receiving lapatinib plus capecitabine in the NALA trial.

Updated results from the DESTINY-breast01 study of trastuzumab deruxtecan show encouraging results in progression-free survival and early overall survival and high rates of durable responses in a heavily pretreated group of patients with metastatic breast cancer, consistent with early results.

In the HER2CLIMB study, patients treated with tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine had clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate independent of HR status compared with placebo, and patients with HR+ and HR- breast cancer with brain metastases experienced similar benefits.

--

Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, FACP, Professor of Medicine. Director, Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program, Division of Hematology-Oncology David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
Medical Director, Clinical Research Unit, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Dr. Hurvitz has received research grants from: Ambrx; Amgen Inc.; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Dignitana AB; Eli Lilly and Company; Genentech, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Immunomedics; MacroGenics, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma, Inc.; Pfizer Inc; Pieris Pharmaceuticals Inc; Puma Biotechnology; Radius Health; Roche Pharma; sanofi-aventis; Seattle Genetics, Inc.

Dr. Sara Hurvitz, Director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program at UCLA, reviews key updates in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer studies presented during the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), which was held virtually in December.

A sub-analysis of patients who had central nervous system disease at baseline demonstrated improved outcomes with neratinib plus capecitabine compared with those receiving lapatinib plus capecitabine in the NALA trial.

Updated results from the DESTINY-breast01 study of trastuzumab deruxtecan show encouraging results in progression-free survival and early overall survival and high rates of durable responses in a heavily pretreated group of patients with metastatic breast cancer, consistent with early results.

In the HER2CLIMB study, patients treated with tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine had clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate independent of HR status compared with placebo, and patients with HR+ and HR- breast cancer with brain metastases experienced similar benefits.

--

Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, FACP, Professor of Medicine. Director, Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program, Division of Hematology-Oncology David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
Medical Director, Clinical Research Unit, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Dr. Hurvitz has received research grants from: Ambrx; Amgen Inc.; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Dignitana AB; Eli Lilly and Company; Genentech, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Immunomedics; MacroGenics, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma, Inc.; Pfizer Inc; Pieris Pharmaceuticals Inc; Puma Biotechnology; Radius Health; Roche Pharma; sanofi-aventis; Seattle Genetics, Inc.

There is a substantial mismatch between patient and physician reports of toxicity during radiotherapy for breast cancer, according to an analysis of nearly 10,000 U.S. patients.

Researchers assessed physician underrecognition of four key symptoms – pain, pruritus, edema, and fatigue – during radiotherapy. Physicians underrecognized one of these four symptoms at least once in 53.2% of patients who reported having at least one substantial symptom.

“Understanding whether physicians detect when their patients are experiencing substantial toxicity is important, not only because recognition of symptoms is necessary for appropriate supportive care, but also because it influences what techniques and treatments we adopt,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Jagsi presented the study results at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The underrecognition of symptoms during radiotherapy may reflect differences in physician or patient behaviors, according to Dr. Jagsi. “It’s absolutely something we need to understand better.”

Ian E. Krop, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, moderated the session where this research was presented and called the work “striking,” noting that it “clearly identifies an important area that needs improvement.”

“We need to do a better job. We as physicians need to listen more to our patients,” said Virginia Kaklamani, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and codirector of the SABCS 2020 meeting.
 

Comparing patient and physician reports

Dr. Jagsi and colleagues analyzed data on patients who had received radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer and had completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) as part of the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). The MROQC registry collects data on patients receiving radiation for breast, lung, and prostate cancers, as well as for bone metastases.

Results of the PROs were compared with physician reports of toxicity as assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) system.

The researchers evaluated underrecognition of toxicity in 9,868 patients by comparing 37,593 independent paired observations from patients and their doctors. Patient and physician reports were made on the same day (n = 35,797) or within 3 days of each other (n = 1,796).

The comparison showed underrecognition of all four symptoms assessed – pain, pruritus, edema, and fatigue.

Underrecognition of pain was defined as patients reporting moderate pain while physicians graded pain as absent or as patients reporting severe pain while physicians rated pain as grade 1 or lower. Underrecognition of fatigue, bother from pruritus, or bother from edema were defined as physicians grading these symptoms as absent when patients reported fatigue or bother from pruritus/edema often or all of the time.

The percentage of observations with underrecognized symptoms was 30.9% for moderate to severe pain, 36.7% for frequent bother from pruritus, 51.4% for frequent bother from edema, and 18.8% for severe fatigue.

Factors independently associated with symptom underrecognition were younger age (odds ratio, 1.4 for <50 years and 1.2 for 50-59 years), Black or other non-White race (OR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively), conventional fractionation (OR, 1.2), not having a supraclavicular field (OR, 1.3), and being treated at an academic center (OR, 1.1).
 

Underreporting worse in the time of COVID?

Data collection for this study ended before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but Dr. Jagsi expressed concern that the pandemic could lead to underrecognition of toxicity as well.

“We are doing more virtual visits, and I think the relationships between physicians and patients are a bit more strained,” Dr. Jagsi said. While virtual visits mean that patients can be seen safely, they are “not the same as being in the same room as one another.”

On the other hand, in-person visits during the pandemic may pose challenges as well. The need to wear masks during in-person consultations could lead to a lot of nonverbal communication being missed.

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if underrecognition were worse in this context,” Dr. Jagsi said.
 

Encourage patients to speak up, use PROs

“I think we need to encourage patients that when we’ve told them that certain side effects are expected, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t tell us if they’re bothered by those side effects,” Dr. Jagsi said. “They’re not bothering us. They’re not troubling us to bring those symptoms to our attention, because there actually are things that we can do to help support them through the experience.”

Dr. Jagsi also said PROs should be included in clinical trials. Trials tend to rely on physician assessment of possible toxicity using the CTCAE system, but this can miss important symptoms that patients experience during radiotherapy.

The current study and MROQC were sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and the Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnership program. Dr. Jagsi disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Equity Quotient, Genentech, Vizient, law firms, various foundations, the National Institutes of Health, and BCBSM for the MROQC. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Krop disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Jagsi R J et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-07.

There is a substantial mismatch between patient and physician reports of toxicity during radiotherapy for breast cancer, according to an analysis of nearly 10,000 U.S. patients.

Researchers assessed physician underrecognition of four key symptoms – pain, pruritus, edema, and fatigue – during radiotherapy. Physicians underrecognized one of these four symptoms at least once in 53.2% of patients who reported having at least one substantial symptom.

“Understanding whether physicians detect when their patients are experiencing substantial toxicity is important, not only because recognition of symptoms is necessary for appropriate supportive care, but also because it influences what techniques and treatments we adopt,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Jagsi presented the study results at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The underrecognition of symptoms during radiotherapy may reflect differences in physician or patient behaviors, according to Dr. Jagsi. “It’s absolutely something we need to understand better.”

Ian E. Krop, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, moderated the session where this research was presented and called the work “striking,” noting that it “clearly identifies an important area that needs improvement.”

“We need to do a better job. We as physicians need to listen more to our patients,” said Virginia Kaklamani, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and codirector of the SABCS 2020 meeting.
 

Comparing patient and physician reports

Dr. Jagsi and colleagues analyzed data on patients who had received radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer and had completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) as part of the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). The MROQC registry collects data on patients receiving radiation for breast, lung, and prostate cancers, as well as for bone metastases.

Results of the PROs were compared with physician reports of toxicity as assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) system.

The researchers evaluated underrecognition of toxicity in 9,868 patients by comparing 37,593 independent paired observations from patients and their doctors. Patient and physician reports were made on the same day (n = 35,797) or within 3 days of each other (n = 1,796).

The comparison showed underrecognition of all four symptoms assessed – pain, pruritus, edema, and fatigue.

Underrecognition of pain was defined as patients reporting moderate pain while physicians graded pain as absent or as patients reporting severe pain while physicians rated pain as grade 1 or lower. Underrecognition of fatigue, bother from pruritus, or bother from edema were defined as physicians grading these symptoms as absent when patients reported fatigue or bother from pruritus/edema often or all of the time.

The percentage of observations with underrecognized symptoms was 30.9% for moderate to severe pain, 36.7% for frequent bother from pruritus, 51.4% for frequent bother from edema, and 18.8% for severe fatigue.

Factors independently associated with symptom underrecognition were younger age (odds ratio, 1.4 for <50 years and 1.2 for 50-59 years), Black or other non-White race (OR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively), conventional fractionation (OR, 1.2), not having a supraclavicular field (OR, 1.3), and being treated at an academic center (OR, 1.1).
 

Underreporting worse in the time of COVID?

Data collection for this study ended before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but Dr. Jagsi expressed concern that the pandemic could lead to underrecognition of toxicity as well.

“We are doing more virtual visits, and I think the relationships between physicians and patients are a bit more strained,” Dr. Jagsi said. While virtual visits mean that patients can be seen safely, they are “not the same as being in the same room as one another.”

On the other hand, in-person visits during the pandemic may pose challenges as well. The need to wear masks during in-person consultations could lead to a lot of nonverbal communication being missed.

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if underrecognition were worse in this context,” Dr. Jagsi said.
 

Encourage patients to speak up, use PROs

“I think we need to encourage patients that when we’ve told them that certain side effects are expected, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t tell us if they’re bothered by those side effects,” Dr. Jagsi said. “They’re not bothering us. They’re not troubling us to bring those symptoms to our attention, because there actually are things that we can do to help support them through the experience.”

Dr. Jagsi also said PROs should be included in clinical trials. Trials tend to rely on physician assessment of possible toxicity using the CTCAE system, but this can miss important symptoms that patients experience during radiotherapy.

The current study and MROQC were sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and the Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnership program. Dr. Jagsi disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Equity Quotient, Genentech, Vizient, law firms, various foundations, the National Institutes of Health, and BCBSM for the MROQC. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Krop disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Jagsi R J et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-07.

There is a substantial mismatch between patient and physician reports of toxicity during radiotherapy for breast cancer, according to an analysis of nearly 10,000 U.S. patients.

Researchers assessed physician underrecognition of four key symptoms – pain, pruritus, edema, and fatigue – during radiotherapy. Physicians underrecognized one of these four symptoms at least once in 53.2% of patients who reported having at least one substantial symptom.

“Understanding whether physicians detect when their patients are experiencing substantial toxicity is important, not only because recognition of symptoms is necessary for appropriate supportive care, but also because it influences what techniques and treatments we adopt,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Jagsi presented the study results at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The underrecognition of symptoms during radiotherapy may reflect differences in physician or patient behaviors, according to Dr. Jagsi. “It’s absolutely something we need to understand better.”

Ian E. Krop, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, moderated the session where this research was presented and called the work “striking,” noting that it “clearly identifies an important area that needs improvement.”

“We need to do a better job. We as physicians need to listen more to our patients,” said Virginia Kaklamani, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and codirector of the SABCS 2020 meeting.
 

Comparing patient and physician reports

Dr. Jagsi and colleagues analyzed data on patients who had received radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer and had completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) as part of the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). The MROQC registry collects data on patients receiving radiation for breast, lung, and prostate cancers, as well as for bone metastases.

Results of the PROs were compared with physician reports of toxicity as assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) system.

The researchers evaluated underrecognition of toxicity in 9,868 patients by comparing 37,593 independent paired observations from patients and their doctors. Patient and physician reports were made on the same day (n = 35,797) or within 3 days of each other (n = 1,796).

The comparison showed underrecognition of all four symptoms assessed – pain, pruritus, edema, and fatigue.

Underrecognition of pain was defined as patients reporting moderate pain while physicians graded pain as absent or as patients reporting severe pain while physicians rated pain as grade 1 or lower. Underrecognition of fatigue, bother from pruritus, or bother from edema were defined as physicians grading these symptoms as absent when patients reported fatigue or bother from pruritus/edema often or all of the time.

The percentage of observations with underrecognized symptoms was 30.9% for moderate to severe pain, 36.7% for frequent bother from pruritus, 51.4% for frequent bother from edema, and 18.8% for severe fatigue.

Factors independently associated with symptom underrecognition were younger age (odds ratio, 1.4 for <50 years and 1.2 for 50-59 years), Black or other non-White race (OR, 1.9 and 1.8, respectively), conventional fractionation (OR, 1.2), not having a supraclavicular field (OR, 1.3), and being treated at an academic center (OR, 1.1).
 

Underreporting worse in the time of COVID?

Data collection for this study ended before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but Dr. Jagsi expressed concern that the pandemic could lead to underrecognition of toxicity as well.

“We are doing more virtual visits, and I think the relationships between physicians and patients are a bit more strained,” Dr. Jagsi said. While virtual visits mean that patients can be seen safely, they are “not the same as being in the same room as one another.”

On the other hand, in-person visits during the pandemic may pose challenges as well. The need to wear masks during in-person consultations could lead to a lot of nonverbal communication being missed.

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if underrecognition were worse in this context,” Dr. Jagsi said.
 

Encourage patients to speak up, use PROs

“I think we need to encourage patients that when we’ve told them that certain side effects are expected, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t tell us if they’re bothered by those side effects,” Dr. Jagsi said. “They’re not bothering us. They’re not troubling us to bring those symptoms to our attention, because there actually are things that we can do to help support them through the experience.”

Dr. Jagsi also said PROs should be included in clinical trials. Trials tend to rely on physician assessment of possible toxicity using the CTCAE system, but this can miss important symptoms that patients experience during radiotherapy.

The current study and MROQC were sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and the Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnership program. Dr. Jagsi disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Equity Quotient, Genentech, Vizient, law firms, various foundations, the National Institutes of Health, and BCBSM for the MROQC. Dr. Kaklamani and Dr. Krop disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Jagsi R J et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-07.