Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Women with breast cancer have worse health outcomes with co-occurring type 2 diabetes, possibly due to suboptimal breast cancer treatment. METHODS:We created a cohort of women ages 66 to 85 y with stage I to III breast cancer from 1993 to 2012 from an integrated health care delivery system (n=1612) and fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (n=98,915), linked to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data (total n=100,527). We evaluated associations between type 2 diabetes and other factors with undergoing guideline-concordant cancer treatment. We estimated χ tests for univariate analysis and relative risks (RRs) using multivariable log-binomial models for outcomes of (1) overall guideline-concordant treatment, (2) definitive surgical therapy (mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation), (3) chemotherapy if indicated, and (4) endocrine therapy. RESULTS:Our cohort included 60% of subjects with stage 1 tumors, one quarter below 70 years old, 23% had diabetes, 35% underwent overall guideline-concordant treatment, 24% chemotherapy, and 83% endocrine therapy. Women with diabetes were less likely to undergo overall guideline-concordant treatment (RR: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.94-0.98), and only slightly less likely to undergo guideline-concordant definitive surgical therapy (RR: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.00). No differences were found for chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. Other factors significantly associated with a lower risk of guideline-concordant care were cancer stages II to III (vs. I; RR=0.47-0.69, P<0.0001), older age (vs. 66 to 69 y; RR=0.56-0.90, P<0.0001), higher comorbidity burden, and Medicaid dual-eligibility. CONCLUSIONS:Diabetes was associated with lower adherence to overall guideline-concordant breast cancer treatment. However, higher stage, older age, higher comorbidity burden, and Medicaid insurance were more strongly associated with lower use of guideline-concordant treatment. Given the heavy burden of breast cancer and diabetes, long-term outcomes analysis should consider guideline-concordant treatment. IMPACT/CONCLUSIONS:Other factors besides diabetes are more strongly associated with guideline-concordant breast cancer treatment.

Many women diagnosed with breast cancer have chronic conditions such as diabetes that may impact other health behaviors. Our purpose was to determine if breast cancer screening and detection differs among women with and without diabetes. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a retrospective cohort of women aged 52-74 years diagnosed with incident stages I-III breast cancer enrolled in an integrated health plan between 1999 and 2014 with linkage to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry (n = 2040). Screening data were taken from electronic health records. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to estimate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for outcomes of (i) receipt of screening in the 2 years prior to diagnosis; (ii) symptom-detected breast cancer; and (iii) diagnosis of locally advanced stage III breast cancer. Compared to women without diabetes, women with diabetes were similar with respect to receipt of screening mammography (78% and 77%), symptom-detected breast cancer (46% and 49%), and stage III diagnosis (7% and 7%). In multivariable models adjusting for age and year of diagnosis, race, BMI, Charlson comorbidity score and depression diagnosis no differences were observed in the outcomes by presence of diabetes. Further investigation is warranted to determine how diabetes acts as a mediating factor in adverse breast cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Resistance to endocrine therapies in hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer is a significant challenge. Prior studies have shown that low-dose oral cyclophosphamide can transiently deplete regulatory T cells (Tregs) and improve anti-tumor immunity. We investigated the combination of exemestane with cyclophosphamide in patients with advanced HR-positive breast cancer and assessed changes in circulating immune cell subsets. METHODS: This was a single-arm phase II trial of exemestane with cyclophosphamide in patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who had progressed on prior endocrine therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01963481). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 months (RECIST 1.1). Secondary objectives included median PFS, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety. Circulating Tregs (FOXP3+Helios+) and other immune cell subsets were monitored during treatment and compared with healthy controls. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled. Treatment was well tolerated, without grade 4/5 toxicities. Objective responses were seen in 6/23 patients (26.1%; 95% CI 10.2-48.4%) and were durable (median 11.6 months). Three-month PFS rate was 50.1% (95% CI 33.0-76.0%); median PFS was 4.23 months (95% CI 2.8-11.7). No treatment-related decrease in Tregs was observed. However, elevated baseline levels of Naive Tregs [greater than 2.5 (the median of the naive Tregs)] were associated with relative risk of disease progression or death [hazard ratio 11.46 (95% CI 2.32-56.5)]. In addition, the baseline levels of Naive Tregs (adj-p = 0.04), Memory Tregs (adj-p = 0.003), CD4 + Central Memory T cells (adj-p = 0.0004), PD-1 + CD4 + Central Memory T cells (adj-p = 0.008), and PD-1 + CD4 + Effector Memory T cells (adj-p = 0.009) were significantly greater in the patients than in the healthy controls; the baseline levels of %CD4 + Naive T cells (adj-p = 0.0004) were significantly lower in patients compared with healthy controls (n = 40). CONCLUSION: Treg depletion was not observed with low-dose cyclophosphamide when assessed by the specific marker FOXP3 + Helios +; however, baseline naive Tregs were associated with 3-month PFS. Exemestane/cyclophosphamide combination had favorable safety profile with evidence of clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients.

PURPOSE: To report a case of neovascular and angle closure glaucoma secondary to breast cancer metastatic to the iris that was successfully treated with injections of intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) 1.25 mg/0.05 mL. METHODS: Case report. PATIENTS: A 47-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer presented to The New York Eye Cancer Center with left ocular pain, photosensitivity, vision loss, and multiple iris nodules. Her intraocular pressure was uncontrolled. Gonioscopy revealed neovascularization of the iris and angle; no choroidal neovascularization was noted. Ultrasound biomicroscopy demonstrated tumor invasion of iris stroma with marked anterior uveal thickening and narrowed angles. RESULTS: Three monthly injections of intravitreal bevacizumab resulted in nearly complete resolution of iris neovascularization, reduction of intraocular pressure, and control of tumor (although a small amount of residual tumor remained). CONCLUSION: Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for breast cancer metastatic to the iris with secondary neovascular glaucoma provided good local control for a limited follow-up period, because the patient died because of systemic complications of her disease.

With the completion of the Human Genome Project and the development of high throughput technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, the use of multiplex genetic testing, in which multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously to test for one or more conditions, is growing rapidly. Reflecting underlying heterogeneity where a broad range of genes confer risks for one or more cancers, the development of genetic cancer panels to assess these risks represents just one example of how multiplex testing is being applied clinically. There are a number of issues and challenges to consider when conducting genetic testing for cancer risk assessment, and these issues become exceedingly more complex when moving from the traditional single-gene approach to panel testing. Here, we address the practical considerations for clinical use of panel testing for breast, ovarian, and colon cancers, including the benefits, limitations and challenges, genetic counseling issues, and management guidelines.