Abstract PO-129: Influence of triple-negative versus Luminal A breast cancer subtype on choice of autologous versus implant based delayed-immediate breast reconstruction

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Amaya ◽  
Ryan M. Dickey ◽  
Kaitlin Jones ◽  
Sumeet S. Teotia ◽  
Nicholas T. Haddock
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtype ◽  
Immediate Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Luminal A ◽  
Cancer Subtype

Influence of Triple-Negative versus Luminal A Breast Cancer Subtype on Choice of Autologous versus Implant-Based Delayed-Immediate Breast Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Dickey ◽  
Joshua Amaya ◽  
Sumeet S. Teotia ◽  
Nicholas T. Haddock
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtype ◽  
Immediate Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Luminal A ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cancer Subtype

Abstract Background Triple-negative (TN) and luminal A breast cancer molecular subtypes have divergent clinical and prognostic characteristics for breast cancer patients. Our study aims to compare the reconstructive choice of these two groups from the time they receive a tissue expander (TE) to the time they complete autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods A total of 255 patients who underwent delayed-immediate breast reconstruction with TE placement from 2013 to 2017 diagnosed with either TN (n = 73) or luminal A (n = 182) invasive breast cancer subtype seen by two surgeons at a single institution were identified. Preference of autologous and implant-based reconstruction was analyzed, along with TE complications, race, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, adjuvant therapy, and comorbidities. Results There was a significant difference in the choice of implant- or autologous-based reconstruction among these two groups (p < 0.05). A greater proportion of luminal A patients underwent implant-based reconstruction (63.47%) and a greater proportion of TN patients underwent autologous-based reconstruction (53.13%). With regard to TE outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to duration of TE placement by reconstructive type or TE surgical complications. Significantly, more TN patients underwent radiation therapy (p < 0.01) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.0001) than luminal A patients. BMI, comorbidities, radiation therapy, and overall TE complications were identified as predictive factors of patients electing for autologous reconstruction over implants. Conclusion TN breast cancer patients mostly chose autologous-based reconstruction, while luminal A patients chose implant-based reconstruction. Both patient groups carried their TEs for similar duration with similar complication profile. Radiation therapy is likely a major factor in the decision for the type of delayed-immediate reconstruction among this population.

Breast cancer subtype approximations and loco-regional recurrence after immediate breast reconstruction

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.C. Kneubil ◽  
J. Brollo ◽  
E. Botteri ◽  
G. Curigliano ◽  
N. Rotmensz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtype ◽  
Immediate Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Regional Recurrence ◽  
Cancer Subtype

Adjuvant Chemotherapy: Which Patient? What Regimen?

2013 ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Turner ◽  
Laura Biganzoli ◽  
Luca Malorni ◽  
Ilenia Migliaccio ◽  
Erica Moretti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtype ◽  
Tumor Biology ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Tumor Stage ◽  
Luminal A ◽  
Genomic Analyses ◽  
Cancer Subtype ◽  
Clinicopathologic Factors

In the past, treatment decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer (EBC) were made solely based on clinicopathologic factors. However, with increased awareness of the importance of underlying tumor biology, we are now able to use genomic analyses to determine molecular breast cancer subtype and thus identify patients with tumors that are chemotherapy resistant and unlikely to benefit from the addition of chemotherapy. Although genomics has allowed some patients to avoid chemotherapy—specifically those with luminal A–like breast cancer—these assays do not indicate which regimen is most appropriate. For this, consideration must be given to the combination of underlying tumor biology, tumor stage, and patient characteristics, such as age and tolerability of side effects.

Molecular and Epigenetic Biomarkers in Luminal Androgen Receptor: A Triple Negative Breast Cancer Subtype

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 610-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaëlle Judes ◽  
Aslihan Dagdemir ◽  
Seher Karsli-Ceppioglu ◽  
André Lebert ◽  
Marie-Mélanie Dauplat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Androgen Receptor ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtype ◽  
Epigenetic Biomarkers ◽  
Cancer Subtype

Epigenetic aspects of triple-negative in patients with breast cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1041-1041
Author(s):  
Joaquina Martínez-Galan ◽  
Sandra Rios ◽  
Juan Ramon Delgado ◽  
Blanca Torres-Torres ◽  
Jesus Lopez-Peñalver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Gene Expression ◽  
Dna Methylation ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtype ◽  
Regulation Of Gene Expression ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtypes ◽  
Luminal A ◽  
Cancer Subtypes ◽  
Luminal B

1041 Background: Identification of gene expression-based breast cancer subtypes is considered a critical means of prognostication. Genetic mutations along with epigenetic alterations contribute to gene-expression changes occurring in breast cancer. However, the reproducibility of differential DNA methylation discoveries for cancer and the relationship between DNA methylation and aberrant gene expression have not been systematically analysed. The present study was undertaken to dissect the breast cancer methylome and to deliver specific epigenotypes associated with particular breast cancer subtypes. Methods: By using Real Time QMSPCR SYBR green we analyzed DNA methylation in regulatory regions of 107 pts with breast cancer and analyzed association with prognostics factor in triple negative breast cancer and methylation promoter ESR1, APC, E-Cadherin, Rar B and 14-3-3 sigma. Results: We identified novel subtype-specific epigenotypes that clearly demonstrate the differences in the methylation profiles of basal-like and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-overexpressing tumors. Of the cases, 37pts (40%) were Luminal A (LA), 32pts (33%) Luminal B (LB), 14pts (15%) Triple-negative (TN), and 9pts (10%) HER2+. DNA hypermethylation was highly inversely correlated with the down-regulation of gene expression. Methylation of this panel of promoter was found more frequently in triple negative and HER2 phenotype. ESR1 was preferably associated with TN(80%) and HER2+(60%) subtype. With a median follow up of 6 years, we found worse overall survival (OS) with more frequent ESR1 methylation gene(p>0.05), Luminal A;ESR1 Methylation OS at 5 years 81% vs 93% when was ESR1 Unmethylation. Luminal B;ESR1 Methylation 86% SG at 5 years vs 92% in Unmethylation ESR1. Triple negative;ESR1 Methylation SG at 5 years 75% vs 80% in unmethylation ESR1. HER2;ESR1 Methylation SG at 5 years was 66.7% vs 75% in unmethylation ESR1. Conclusions: Our results provide evidence that well-defined DNA methylation profiles enable breast cancer subtype prediction and support the utilization of this biomarker for prognostication and therapeutic stratification of patients with breast cancer.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Response Monitoring of Breast Cancer During Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Relevance of Breast Cancer Subtype

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 660-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudette E. Loo ◽  
Marieke E. Straver ◽  
Sjoerd Rodenhuis ◽  
Sara H. Muller ◽  
Jelle Wesseling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Breast Cancer Subtype ◽  
Residual Tumor ◽  
Late Enhancement ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Her2 Positive ◽  
Cancer Subtype ◽  
Er Positive

Purpose To evaluate the relevance of breast cancer subtypes for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers for monitoring of therapy response during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Patients and Methods MRI examinations were performed in 188 women before and during NAC. MRI interpretation included lesion morphology at baseline, changes in morphology, size, and contrast uptake kinetics (initial and late enhancement). By using immunohistochemistry, tumors were divided into three subtypes: triple negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive, and estrogen receptor (ER) positive/HER2 negative. Tumor response was assessed dichotomously (ie, presence or absence of residual tumor in the surgical specimen). Complementary, a continuous scale assessment was used (the breast response index [BRI], representing the relative change in tumor stage). Multivariate regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic analysis were employed to establish significant associations. Results Residual tumor at pathology was present in 31 (66%) of 47 triple-negative tumors, 23 (61%) of 38 HER2-positive tumors, and 96 (93%) of 103 ER-positive/HER2-negative tumors. Multivariate analysis of residual disease showed significant associations between breast cancer subtype and MRI (area under the curve [AUC], 0.84; P < .001). BRI also showed significant correlation among breast cancer subtype, MRI, and age (Pearson's r = 0.465; P < .001). In subset analysis, this was only significant for triple-negative tumors (P < .001) and HER2-positive tumors (P < .05). Residual tumor after NAC in the triple-negative and HER2-positive group is significantly associated with the change in largest diameter of late enhancement during NAC (AUC, 0.76; P < .001). No associations were found for ER-positive/HER2-negative tumors. Conclusion MRI during NAC to monitor response is effective in triple-negative or HER2-positive disease but is inaccurate in ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document