To prospectively assess the efficacy of bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) when compared with surveillance on breast cancer (BC) risk and mortality in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Five hundred and seventy healthy female mutation carriers (405 BRCA1, 165 BRCA2) were selected from the institutional Family Cancer Clinic database. Eventually, 156 BRCA1 and 56 BRCA2 mutation carriers underwent BRRM. The effect of BRRM versus surveillance was estimated using Cox models. During 2037 person-years of observation (PYO), 57 BC cases occurred in the surveillance group versus zero cases during 1379 PYO in the BRRM group (incidence rates, 28 and 0 per 1000 PYO, respectively). In the surveillance group, four women died of BC, while one woman in the BRRM group presented with metastatic BC 3.5 years after BRRM (no primary BC), and died afterward, yielding a HR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.02–2.61) for BC-specific mortality. In healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, BRRM when compared with surveillance reduces BC risk substantially, while longer follow-up is warranted to confirm survival benefits.

The value of KI67 in breast cancer prognostication has been questioned due to concerns on the analytical validity of visual KI67 assessment and methodological limitations of published studies. Here, we investigate the prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in a large, multicentre study, and compare this with pathologists’ visual scores available in a subset of patients. We utilised 143 tissue microarrays containing 15,313 tumour tissue cores from 8088 breast cancer patients in 10 collaborating studies. A total of 1401 deaths occurred during a median follow-up of 7.5 years. Centralised KI67 assessment was performed using an automated scoring protocol. The relationship of KI67 levels with 10-year breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) was investigated using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusted for known prognostic factors. Patients in the highest quartile of KI67 (>12 % positive KI67 cells) had a worse 10-year BCSS than patients in the lower three quartiles. This association was statistically significant for ER-positive patients (hazard ratio (HR) (95 % CI) at baseline = 1.96 (1.31–2.93); P = 0.001) but not for ER-negative patients (1.23 (0.86–1.77); P = 0.248) (P-heterogeneity = 0.064). In spite of differences in characteristics of the study populations, the estimates of HR were consistent across all studies (P-heterogeneity = 0.941 for ER-positive and P-heterogeneity = 0.866 for ER-negative). Among ER-positive cancers, KI67 was associated with worse prognosis in both node-negative (2.47 (1.16–5.27)) and node-positive (1.74 (1.05–2.86)) tumours (P-heterogeneity = 0.671). Further classification according to ER, PR and HER2 showed statistically significant associations with prognosis among hormone receptor-positive patients regardless of HER2 status (P-heterogeneity = 0.270) and among triple-negative patients (1.70 (1.02–2.84)). Model fit parameters were similar for visual and automated measures of KI67 in a subset of 2440 patients with information from both sources. Findings from this large-scale multicentre analysis with centrally generated automated KI67 scores show strong evidence in support of a prognostic value for automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer. Given the advantages of automated scoring in terms of its potential for standardisation, reproducibility and throughput, automated methods appear to be promising alternatives to visual scoring for KI67 assessment.

Annexin A1 (ANXA1) is a protein related with the carcinogenesis process and metastasis formation in many tumors. However, little is known about the prognostic value of ANXA1 in breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between ANXA1 expression, BRCA1/2 germline carriership, specific tumor subtypes and survival in breast cancer patients. Clinical-pathological information and follow-up data were collected from nine breast cancer studies from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) (n = 5,752) and from one study of familial breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 107). ANXA1 expression was scored based on the percentage of immunohistochemical staining in tumor cells. Survival analyses were performed using a multivariable Cox model. The frequency of ANXA1 positive tumors was higher in familial breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations than in BCAC patients, with 48.6 % versus 12.4 %, respectively; P <0.0001. ANXA1 was also highly expressed in BCAC tumors that were poorly differentiated, triple negative, EGFR-CK5/6 positive or had developed in patients at a young age. In the first 5 years of follow-up, patients with ANXA1 positive tumors had a worse breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) than ANXA1 negative (HRadj = 1.35; 95 % CI = 1.05–1.73), but the association weakened after 10 years (HRadj = 1.13; 95 % CI = 0.91–1.40). ANXA1 was a significant independent predictor of survival in HER2+ patients (10-years BCSS: HRadj = 1.70; 95 % CI = 1.17–2.45). ANXA1 is overexpressed in familial breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and correlated with poor prognosis features: triple negative and poorly differentiated tumors. ANXA1 might be a biomarker candidate for breast cancer survival prediction in high risk groups such as HER2+ cases.

Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) occur more frequently in younger women and do not express estrogen receptor (ER) nor progesterone receptor (PR), and are therefore often considered hormone-insensitive. Treatment of premenopausal TNBC patients almost always includes chemotherapy, which may lead to premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) and can severely impact quality of life. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is contraindicated for patients with a history of hormone-sensitive breast cancer, but the data on safety for TNBC patients is inconclusive, with a few randomized trials showing increased risk-ratios with wide confidence intervals for recurrence after HRT. Here, we review the literature on alternative pathways from the classical ER/PR. We find that for both estrogens and progestogens, potential alternatives exist for exerting their effects on TNBC, ranging from receptor conversion, to alternative receptors capable of binding estrogens, as well as paracrine pathways, such as RANK/RANKL, which can cause progestogens to indirectly stimulate growth and metastasis of TNBC. Finally, HRT may also influence other hormones, such as androgens, and their effects on TNBCs expressing androgen receptors (AR). Concluding, the assumption that TNBC is completely hormone-insensitive is incorrect. However, the direction of the effects of the alternative pathways is not always clear, and will need to be investigated further.

Introduction: Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease and may be characterized on the basis of whether estrogen receptors (ER) are expressed in the tumour cells. ER status of breast cancer is important clinically, and is used both as a prognostic indicator and treatment predictor. In this study, we focused on identifying genetic markers associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk.Methods: We conducted a genome-wide association analysis of 285,984 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) genotyped in 617 ER-negative breast cancer cases and 4,583 controls. We also conducted a genome-wide pathway analysis on the discovery dataset using permutation-based tests on pre-defined pathways. The extent of shared polygenic variation between ER-negative and ER-positive breast cancers was assessed by relating risk scores, derived using ER-positive breast cancer samples, to disease state in independent, ER-negative breast cancer cases.Results: Association with ER-negative breast cancer was not validated for any of the five most strongly associated SNPs followed up in independent studies (1,011 ER-negative breast cancer cases, 7,604 controls). However, an excess of smallP-values for SNPs with known regulatory functions in cancer-related pathways was found (globalP= 0.052). We found no evidence to suggest that ER-negative breast cancer shares a polygenic basis to disease with ER-positive breast cancer.Conclusions: ER-negative breast cancer is a distinct breast cancer subtype that merits independent analyses. Given the clinical importance of this phenotype and the likelihood that genetic effect sizes are small, greater sample sizes and further studies are required to understand the etiology of ER-negative breast cancers.