O. Tredan (Lyon, France)
Centre Léon BérardAuthor Of 2 Presentations
What’s available for patients after progression on T-DM1? (ID 360)
Key considerations for patients with brain metastases (ID 361)
Presenter Of 2 Presentations
Key considerations for patients with brain metastases (ID 361)
What’s available for patients after progression on T-DM1? (ID 360)
Author Of 2 Presentations
110P - Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast: a case series of 17 patients and literature review
Abstract
Background
Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the breast is a rare and indolent tumor associated to good prognosis despites its triple-negative status. Due to its paucity, there are no therapeutic consensus or treatment guidelines.
Methods
Here, we report on 17 patients with ACC of the breast from the database of the Leon Berard cancer center in Lyon. Clinical, histological and molecular features of these carcinomas were characterized. Therapeutic management of patients has been described. Follow-up was done for all patients.
Results
Median age was 59 years [22-77] and median follow-up was 3.2 years [0.5-23.9]. Median tumor size was 16mm [8-60]. Only one patient had axillary node metastases. Only 3 tumors were ER or PR positive. All tumors were HER-2 negative. Five patients had a rearrangement of the MYB gene. All patients had initial surgery followed by radiotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to one patient, and 2 patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy. At last follow-up, none of the patients had died from complications of the disease.
Conclusions
If ACC are tumors with good prognosis, the occurrence of local relapse or metastases may happen, which requires to maintain long-term follow up. A better understanding of molecular genetic features may help the development of specific therapeutic strategies.
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
- A. Bertaut (Dijon, France)
- J. Blanc (Dijon, France)
- B. Pistilli (Villejuif, France)
- A. Dhaini Merimeche (NANCY, France)
- O. Rigal (ROUEN, France)
- C. Coutant ( Coutant ) (Dijon, France)
- M. Fournier (BORDEAUX, France)
- C. Jouannaud ( Jouannaud ) (Reims, CE, France)
- P. Soulie (ANGERS, France)
- F. Lerebours (St. Cloud, France)
- P. Cottu (Paris, CE, France)
- O. Tredan (Lyon, France)
- L. Vanlemmens (Lille, CE, France)
- C. Levy (Caen, CE, France)
- M. Mouret-Reynier (Clermont Ferrand, France)
- M. Campone (SAINT-HERBLAIN, France)
- A. Martin (Paris, France)
- A. Jacquet Jacquet (Paris, France)
- N. Briot (Dijon, France)
- I. Vaz-Luis (Villejuif, France)
151P - Impact of germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation (m) status on clinical characteristics and patterns of care among women with early breast cancer (eBC): an analysis of the observational prospective CANTO cohort
Abstract
Background
Genetic mutations on breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes such as BRCA 1 or 2, are well known risk factors for BC development. 5-10% of BC are associated with a gBRCAm, which can impact tumor characteristics and management of the associated BC. Using the French prospective ongoing CANTO cohort (NCT01993498) we conducted a retrospective analysis focusing on clinical characteristics and patterns of care of eBC by gBRCA status.
Methods
Data from 9368 women diagnosed with stage I to IIIa BC from 2012 to 2017 were analysed by BRCA status. Demographics, medical and family history, disease characteristics and BC treatment were examined overall and per subgroup populations.
Results
In this cohort, 169 (1.8%) patients (pts) had a gBRCAm (92 gBRCA1m and 77 gBRCA2m), 2226 (28%) were gBRCA wild type (wt) and 6573 (70.2%) gBRCA unknown (uk). Women with gBRCAm were younger than gBRCAwt or uk (mean age 43.7 years [95% CI: 42.0–45.4] versus (vs) 53.7 [53.2 - 54.1] vs 58.2 [57.9 - 58.5] respectively) at BC diagnosis. Tumours of pts with gBRCAm were characterized by higher proportion of triple negative (TN) subtype (44% [36.7-52.2] vs 13.3% [12.1 - 14.7] vs 7.9% [7.3 - 8.6]), higher stage II/IIIa (65.1% [57.4-72.2] vs 52.0% [50.0-53.9] vs 49.0% [47.8-50.2], higher histological grade 3 (67.9% [60.2-74.8] vs 32.9% [31.1-34.8] vs 25.5% [24.5-26.6]) when compared to gBRCAwt and uk pts. gBRCAm pts were more likely to undergo radical mastectomy (46.2% [35.0-50.4] vs 24.9% [23.3-26.6] vs 22.5% [21.5-23.6] ) with more axillary dissection (51.5% [43.7-59.2] vs 40.5% [38.4-42.2] vs 34.5% [33.4-35.7]) compared to gBRCAwt and uk pts. gBRCAm pts were also more likely to receive chemotherapy 92.9% [87.9-96.3] vs 56.4% [54.5-58.4] vs 49.4% [48.2-50.6] especially in the neo adjuvant setting (39.1% [31.6-46.8] vs 16.4% [15.0 -17.8] vs 11.5% [10.7-12.3]).
Conclusions
In our cohort, 30% of eBC pts had their gBRCAm status tested; of them 7.1% had gBRCAm 1 or 2. Consistent with prior research, women with gBRCAm had a substantial proportion of higher stage TN tumours and were treated with aggressive chemotherapy. Further studies on clinical outcomes of eBC pts with gBRCAm are warranted.
Clinical trial identification
NCT01993498.
Legal entity responsible for the study
UNICANCER.
Funding
This research was conducted with support from ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) under the Call for Cohort Project - Investment of the Future reference ANR-10-COHO-04. The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.
Disclosure
B. Pistilli: Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution): Puma Biotechnology; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Research grant/Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Myriad Genetics; Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): MSD Oncology; Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant/Funding (institution): Daiichi; Research grant/Funding (institution): Merus. C.C. Jouannaud: Honoraria (self): Daiichi; Honoraria (self): Sankyo; Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Pfizer; Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis. F. Lerebours: Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: Genomic Health; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Eli Lilly; Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Eisai; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy, Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: AstraZeneca; Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche; Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pfizer. M. Campone: Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Accord; Honoraria (self): GT1; Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Pfizer; Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Sanofi; Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Servier; Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: AbbVie; Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Novartis. I. Vaz-Luis: Honoraria (institution): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (institution): Amgen; Honoraria (institution): Pfizer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.