Background: Preclinical studies have demonstrated that tumour cell death can be enhanced 10- to 40-fold when radiotherapy is combined with focussed ultrasound-stimulated microbubble (FUS-MB) treatment. The acoustic exposure of microbubbles (intravascular gas microspheres) within the target volume causes bubble cavitation, which induces perturbation of tumour vasculature and activates endothelial cell apoptotic pathways responsible for the ablative effect of stereotactic body radiotherapy. Subsequent irradiation of a microbubble-sensitised tumour causes rapid increased tumour death. The study here presents the mature safety and efficacy outcomes of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided FUS-MB (MRgFUS-MB) treatment, a radioenhancement therapy for breast cancer. Methods and findings: This prospective, single-center, single-arm Phase 1 clinical trial included patients with stages I–IV breast cancer with in situ tumours for whom breast or chest wall radiotherapy was deemed adequate by a multidisciplinary team (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04431674). Patients were excluded if they had contraindications for contrast-enhanced MR or microbubble administration. Patients underwent 2 to 3 MRgFUS-MB treatments throughout radiotherapy. An MR-coupled focussed ultrasound device operating at 800 kHz and 570 kPa peak negative pressure was used to sonicate intravenously administrated microbubbles within the MR-guided target volume. The primary outcome was acute toxicity per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Secondary outcomes were tumour response at 3 months and local control (LC). A total of 21 female patients presenting with 23 primary breast tumours were enrolled and allocated to intervention between August/2020 and November/2022. Three patients subsequently withdrew consent and, therefore, 18 patients with 20 tumours were included in the safety and LC analyses. Two patients died due to progressive metastatic disease before 3 months following treatment completion and were excluded from the tumour response analysis. The prescribed radiation doses were 20 Gy/5 fractions (40%, n = 8/20), 30 to 35 Gy/5 fractions (35%, n = 7/20), 30 to 40 Gy/10 fractions (15%, n = 3/20), and 66 Gy/33 fractions (10%, n = 2/20). The median follow-up was 9 months (range, 0.3 to 29). Radiation dermatitis was the most common acute toxicity (Grade 1 in 16/20, Grade 2 in 1/20, and Grade 3 in 2/20). One patient developed grade 1 allergic reaction possibly related to microbubbles administration. At 3 months, 18 tumours were evaluated for response: 9 exhibited complete response (50%, n = 9/18), 6 partial response (33%, n = 6/18), 2 stable disease (11%, n = 2/18), and 1 progressive disease (6%, n = 1/18). Further follow-up of responses indicated that the 6-, 12-, and 24-month LC rates were 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] [84%, 100%]), 88% (95% CI [75%, 100%]), and 76% (95% CI [54%, 100%]), respectively. The study’s limitations include variable tumour sizes and dose fractionation regimens and the anticipated small sample size typical for a Phase 1 clinical trial. Conclusions: MRgFUS-MB is an innovative radioenhancement therapy associated with a safe profile, potentially promising responses, and durable LC. These results warrant validation in Phase 2 clinical trials. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04431674.

Background The Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC) of Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) has recently created an evidence-based consensus guideline on the systemic treatment of early breast cancer. The evidence for this guideline was compiled using a systematic review to answer the question: “What is the optimal systemic therapy for patients with early-stage, operable breast cancer, when patient and disease factors are considered?” This question was addressed in three parts: cytotoxic chemotherapy, endocrine treatment, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) directed therapy. Methods A systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for the period January 2008 to May 2014. The SAGE Directory of Cancer Guidelines and websites of major oncology guideline organizations were also searched. The basic search terms were “breast cancer” and “systemic therapy” (chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, targeted agents, ovarian suppression), and was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Results Several hundred documents were retrieved that met the inclusion criteria; the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) meta-analyses encompassed many of the RCTs found. Several additional studies which met the inclusion criteria were included, as well as other guidelines and systematic reviews. Chemotherapy was largely reviewed as three classes of agents: anti-metabolite based regimens (e.g., CMF), anthracyclines, and taxane-based regimens. Single-agent chemotherapy in general is not recommended for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in any patient population. Anthracycline and taxane-based polychemotherapy regimens are overall considered superior to earlier generation regimens, with the most significant impact on patient survival outcomes. Various regimens with disparate anthracycline and taxane doses and schedules are options; in general, paclitaxel given every 3 weeks is inferior. Evidence does not support the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant setting; other systemic therapy agents such as metformin and vaccines remain under investigation. Adjuvant bisphosphonates for menopausal women will be discussed in later work. Conclusion The results of this systematic review represent a comprehensive compilation of high-level evidence which was the basis for the 2014 PEBC CCO guideline on systemic therapy for early breast cancer. The use of cytotoxic chemotherapy is presented here; the results addressing endocrine therapy and HER-2 targeted treatment, as well as the final clinical practice recommendations, are published separately in this issue.

Https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28002 Christopher Kolios, Lakshmanan Sannachi, Archya Dasgupta, Harini Suraweera, Daniel DiCenzo, Gregory Stanisz, Arjun Sahgal, Frances Wright, Nicole Look-Hong,...

Purpose: The neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer (NABC) is a rapidly changing area that benefits from guidelines integrating evidence with expert consensus to help direct practice. This can optimize patient outcomes by ensuring the appropriate use of evolving neoadjuvant principles. Methods: An expert panel formulated evidence-based practice recommendations spanning the entire neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment journey. These were sent for practice-based consensus across Canada using the modified Delphi methodology, through a secure online survey. Final recommendations were graded using the GRADE criteria for guidelines. The evidence was reviewed over the course of guideline development to ensure recommendations remained aligned with current relevant data. Results: Response rate to the online survey was almost 30%; representation was achieved from various medical specialties from both community and academic centres in various Canadian provinces. Two rounds of consensus were required to achieve 80% or higher consensus on 59 final statements. Five additional statements were added to reflect updated evidence but not sent for consensus. Conclusions: Key highlights of this comprehensive Canadian guideline on NABC include the use of neoadjuvant therapy for early stage triple negative and HER2 positive breast cancer, with subsequent adjuvant treatments for patients with residual disease. The use of molecular signatures, other targeted adjuvant therapies, and optimal response-based local regional management remain actively evolving areas. Many statements had evolving or limited data but still achieved high consensus, demonstrating the utility of such a guideline in helping to unify practice while further evidence evolves in this important area of breast cancer management.

Background: Evaluating histologic grade for breast cancer diagnosis is standard and associated with prognostic outcomes. Current challenges include the time required for manual microscopic evaluation and interobserver variability. This study proposes a computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) pipeline for grading tumors using artificial intelligence. Methods: There were 138 patients included in this retrospective study. Breast core biopsy slides were prepared using standard laboratory techniques, digitized, and pre-processed for analysis. Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were developed to identify the regions of interest containing malignant cells and to segment tumor nuclei. Imaging-based features associated with spatial parameters were extracted from the segmented regions of interest (ROIs). Clinical datasets and pathologic biomarkers (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor 2) were collected from all study subjects. Pathologic, clinical, and imaging-based features were input into machine learning (ML) models to classify histologic grade, and model performances were tested against ground-truth labels at the patient-level. Classification performances were evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: Multiparametric feature sets, containing both clinical and imaging-based features, demonstrated high classification performance. Using imaging-derived markers alone, the classification performance demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.745, while modeling these features with other pathologic biomarkers yielded an AUC of 0.836. Conclusion: These results demonstrate an association between tumor nuclear spatial features and tumor grade. If further validated, these systems may be implemented into pathology CADs and can assist pathologists to expeditiously grade tumors at the time of diagnosis and to help guide clinical decisions.

Factors associated with cervical cancer screening in a safety net population