Breast Cancer

Key clinical point: In patients with high-risk operable breast cancer (BC) and without diabetes, adding metformin to standard BC treatment did not improve the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) rate, regardless of estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PgR) status.

Major finding: The incidence rates of iDFS events were similar between the metformin and placebo groups in patients with ER/PgR+ BC (2.78 vs. 2.74 per 100 patient-years; P = .93) and ER/PgR− BC (3.58 vs. 3.60 per 100 patient-years; P = .92). Grade ≥3 nonhematological adverse events were more frequent in the metformin vs. placebo group (21.5% vs. 17.5%; P = .003).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 MA.32 study including 3649 patients with high-risk operable BC and without diabetes who were randomly assigned to receive metformin or placebo after undergoing complete resection.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and other sources. The authors declared serving on advisory boards, as consultants, or were employees or received grants, nonfinancial support, or travel expenses from several sources.

Source: Goodwin PJ et al. Effect of metformin vs placebo on invasive disease–free survival in patients with breast cancer: The MA.32 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022;327(20):1963–1973 (May 24). Doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.6147

Key clinical point: In patients with high-risk operable breast cancer (BC) and without diabetes, adding metformin to standard BC treatment did not improve the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) rate, regardless of estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PgR) status.

Major finding: The incidence rates of iDFS events were similar between the metformin and placebo groups in patients with ER/PgR+ BC (2.78 vs. 2.74 per 100 patient-years; P = .93) and ER/PgR− BC (3.58 vs. 3.60 per 100 patient-years; P = .92). Grade ≥3 nonhematological adverse events were more frequent in the metformin vs. placebo group (21.5% vs. 17.5%; P = .003).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 MA.32 study including 3649 patients with high-risk operable BC and without diabetes who were randomly assigned to receive metformin or placebo after undergoing complete resection.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and other sources. The authors declared serving on advisory boards, as consultants, or were employees or received grants, nonfinancial support, or travel expenses from several sources.

Source: Goodwin PJ et al. Effect of metformin vs placebo on invasive disease–free survival in patients with breast cancer: The MA.32 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022;327(20):1963–1973 (May 24). Doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.6147

Key clinical point: In patients with high-risk operable breast cancer (BC) and without diabetes, adding metformin to standard BC treatment did not improve the invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) rate, regardless of estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PgR) status.

Major finding: The incidence rates of iDFS events were similar between the metformin and placebo groups in patients with ER/PgR+ BC (2.78 vs. 2.74 per 100 patient-years; P = .93) and ER/PgR− BC (3.58 vs. 3.60 per 100 patient-years; P = .92). Grade ≥3 nonhematological adverse events were more frequent in the metformin vs. placebo group (21.5% vs. 17.5%; P = .003).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 MA.32 study including 3649 patients with high-risk operable BC and without diabetes who were randomly assigned to receive metformin or placebo after undergoing complete resection.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and other sources. The authors declared serving on advisory boards, as consultants, or were employees or received grants, nonfinancial support, or travel expenses from several sources.

Source: Goodwin PJ et al. Effect of metformin vs placebo on invasive disease–free survival in patients with breast cancer: The MA.32 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022;327(20):1963–1973 (May 24). Doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.6147

Key clinical point: The combination of camrelizumab, apatinib, and eribulin demonstrated a favorable efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, and median progression-free survival in the overall cohort were 37.0% (95% CI 23.2%-52.5%), 87.0% (95% CI 73.7%-95.1%), and 8.1 months (95% CI 4.6-10.3 months), respectively, whereas the ORR in patients who progressed on previous treatment with checkpoint inhibitor + chemotherapy was 25.0% (95% CI 3.2%-65.1%). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 41.3% of patients.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter, phase 2 study including 46 patients with pretreated advanced TNBC who received camrelizumab on day 1, apatinib daily, and eribulin on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle.

Disclosures: This work was supported by grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Science and Technology Department, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liu J et al. Multicenter phase II trial of camrelizumab combined with apatinib and eribulin in heavily pretreated patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2022;13:3011 (May 31). Doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30569-0

Key clinical point: The combination of camrelizumab, apatinib, and eribulin demonstrated a favorable efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, and median progression-free survival in the overall cohort were 37.0% (95% CI 23.2%-52.5%), 87.0% (95% CI 73.7%-95.1%), and 8.1 months (95% CI 4.6-10.3 months), respectively, whereas the ORR in patients who progressed on previous treatment with checkpoint inhibitor + chemotherapy was 25.0% (95% CI 3.2%-65.1%). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 41.3% of patients.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter, phase 2 study including 46 patients with pretreated advanced TNBC who received camrelizumab on day 1, apatinib daily, and eribulin on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle.

Disclosures: This work was supported by grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Science and Technology Department, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liu J et al. Multicenter phase II trial of camrelizumab combined with apatinib and eribulin in heavily pretreated patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2022;13:3011 (May 31). Doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30569-0

Key clinical point: The combination of camrelizumab, apatinib, and eribulin demonstrated a favorable efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, and median progression-free survival in the overall cohort were 37.0% (95% CI 23.2%-52.5%), 87.0% (95% CI 73.7%-95.1%), and 8.1 months (95% CI 4.6-10.3 months), respectively, whereas the ORR in patients who progressed on previous treatment with checkpoint inhibitor + chemotherapy was 25.0% (95% CI 3.2%-65.1%). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 41.3% of patients.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter, phase 2 study including 46 patients with pretreated advanced TNBC who received camrelizumab on day 1, apatinib daily, and eribulin on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle.

Disclosures: This work was supported by grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Science and Technology Department, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liu J et al. Multicenter phase II trial of camrelizumab combined with apatinib and eribulin in heavily pretreated patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2022;13:3011 (May 31). Doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30569-0

Key clinical point: Adding denosumab to anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) did not improve pathological complete response (pCR) rates, but a weekly vs. every-3-week nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel regimen improved pCR rates in patients with early breast cancer (BC), although the toxicity was higher.

Major finding: The addition of denosumab did not improve pCR rates (P = .61). However, a weekly vs. every-3-week nab-paclitaxel regimen resulted in a higher pCR rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.27; 90% CI 1.00-1.62) in the overall population and in patients with triple-negative BC (OR 1.52; 90% CI 1.05-2.21), but the grade 3-4 nonhematologic adverse event frequency was higher (P = .004).

Study details: Findings are from the 2 × 2 phase 2b, GeparX trial including 780 patients with primary BC who were randomly assigned to receive NACT with or without denosumab and a weekly or every-3-week nab-paclitaxel regimen.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the German Breast Group. The authors declared holding patents or receiving personal fees, honoraria, grants, trial funding, nonfinancial support, or travel support from several sources.

Source: Blohmer JU et al. Effect of denosumab added to 2 different nab-paclitaxel regimens as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with primary breast cancer: The GeparX 2 × 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (May 19). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.1059

Key clinical point: Adding denosumab to anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) did not improve pathological complete response (pCR) rates, but a weekly vs. every-3-week nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel regimen improved pCR rates in patients with early breast cancer (BC), although the toxicity was higher.

Major finding: The addition of denosumab did not improve pCR rates (P = .61). However, a weekly vs. every-3-week nab-paclitaxel regimen resulted in a higher pCR rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.27; 90% CI 1.00-1.62) in the overall population and in patients with triple-negative BC (OR 1.52; 90% CI 1.05-2.21), but the grade 3-4 nonhematologic adverse event frequency was higher (P = .004).

Study details: Findings are from the 2 × 2 phase 2b, GeparX trial including 780 patients with primary BC who were randomly assigned to receive NACT with or without denosumab and a weekly or every-3-week nab-paclitaxel regimen.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the German Breast Group. The authors declared holding patents or receiving personal fees, honoraria, grants, trial funding, nonfinancial support, or travel support from several sources.

Source: Blohmer JU et al. Effect of denosumab added to 2 different nab-paclitaxel regimens as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with primary breast cancer: The GeparX 2 × 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (May 19). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.1059

Key clinical point: Adding denosumab to anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) did not improve pathological complete response (pCR) rates, but a weekly vs. every-3-week nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel regimen improved pCR rates in patients with early breast cancer (BC), although the toxicity was higher.

Major finding: The addition of denosumab did not improve pCR rates (P = .61). However, a weekly vs. every-3-week nab-paclitaxel regimen resulted in a higher pCR rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.27; 90% CI 1.00-1.62) in the overall population and in patients with triple-negative BC (OR 1.52; 90% CI 1.05-2.21), but the grade 3-4 nonhematologic adverse event frequency was higher (P = .004).

Study details: Findings are from the 2 × 2 phase 2b, GeparX trial including 780 patients with primary BC who were randomly assigned to receive NACT with or without denosumab and a weekly or every-3-week nab-paclitaxel regimen.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the German Breast Group. The authors declared holding patents or receiving personal fees, honoraria, grants, trial funding, nonfinancial support, or travel support from several sources.

Source: Blohmer JU et al. Effect of denosumab added to 2 different nab-paclitaxel regimens as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with primary breast cancer: The GeparX 2 × 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (May 19). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.1059

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hormone receptor positive (HR+) basal tumors are biologically analogous to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), independent of race. That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.

Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.

TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.

Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).

Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).

The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.

“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.

There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.

A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.

Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”

Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Hormone receptor positive (HR+) basal tumors are biologically analogous to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), independent of race. That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.

Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.

TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.

Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).

Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).

The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.

“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.

There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.

A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.

Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”

Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

Hormone receptor positive (HR+) basal tumors are biologically analogous to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), independent of race. That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.

Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.

TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.

Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).

Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).

The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.

“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.

There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.

A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.

Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”

Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – Metastatic invasive lobular breast cancers (ILC) that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative have therapeutic outcomes similar to those of invasive ductal cancer (IDC) following treatment with endocrine therapy combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor, according to a new retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The two conditions have historically been lumped together when studying treatment outcomes, but more recent research has shown key differences between the two subtypes, according to Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“All the studies that were done were driven by ductal patients, so you can never take conclusions for the lobular patients. We have a big database at MD Anderson, so we can really study a large number of patients and get some signals whether or not patients would benefit from that therapy or not,” said Dr. Mouabbi, a lobular breast cancer specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The results of the study are important since patients often come to physicians with sophisticated understanding of their disease, he said. Patients with lobular cancer naturally wonder if a therapeutic regimen tested primarily in IDC will benefit them. “For the longest time, we said, ‘we have no data,’ ” said Dr. Mouabbi.

The new study should offer patients and physicians some reassurance. “We found that all of them benefit from it and most importantly, they all benefit from it (with) the same magnitude,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The researchers analyzed data from 2,971 patients (82% IDC, 14% ILC, 4% mixed) treated between 2010 and 2021. The median age was 50 in all groups. Eighty percent were White, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. Ninety-nine percent had estrogen receptor (ER) + tumors, and 88% had progesterone positive (PR) + tumors.

A total of 1,895 patients received CDK4/6 inhibitors, 1,027 received everolimus, and 49 received alpelisib. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between the two cancer types in any of the treatment groups.

Despite the similar outcomes, the two conditions remain unique. IDC is a disease of cells from the ducts that deliver milk, while ILC arises in cells that produce milk. Nearly 95% of ILC cases are hormone-positive, compared to 50%-55% of IDC.

So, while existing treatments seem to benefit both groups, there are nonetheless plans to develop therapeutic strategies tailored to lobular cancer.

Dr. Mouabbi’s group has compared molecular profiles of ILC and IDC tumors to better understand how to target them individually. Almost all ILC cancers have a mutation in a gene called CDH1, which leads to loss of an anchoring protein. They believe this causes a unique growth pattern of thin tendrils, rather than the onion-like growths of IDC. A therapy targeting this mutation could provide a specific benefit for lobular breast cancer.

There are other differences: PI3 kinases are mutated in about 60% of ILC tumors, versus about 30% of IDC tumors, and other genes mutated at lower frequencies are also different between the two subtypes. “So there are a lot of (approaches) we are trying to initiate in lobular cancer because we have awareness now that they are different,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The study received no external funding.

CHICAGO – Metastatic invasive lobular breast cancers (ILC) that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative have therapeutic outcomes similar to those of invasive ductal cancer (IDC) following treatment with endocrine therapy combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor, according to a new retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The two conditions have historically been lumped together when studying treatment outcomes, but more recent research has shown key differences between the two subtypes, according to Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“All the studies that were done were driven by ductal patients, so you can never take conclusions for the lobular patients. We have a big database at MD Anderson, so we can really study a large number of patients and get some signals whether or not patients would benefit from that therapy or not,” said Dr. Mouabbi, a lobular breast cancer specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The results of the study are important since patients often come to physicians with sophisticated understanding of their disease, he said. Patients with lobular cancer naturally wonder if a therapeutic regimen tested primarily in IDC will benefit them. “For the longest time, we said, ‘we have no data,’ ” said Dr. Mouabbi.

The new study should offer patients and physicians some reassurance. “We found that all of them benefit from it and most importantly, they all benefit from it (with) the same magnitude,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The researchers analyzed data from 2,971 patients (82% IDC, 14% ILC, 4% mixed) treated between 2010 and 2021. The median age was 50 in all groups. Eighty percent were White, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. Ninety-nine percent had estrogen receptor (ER) + tumors, and 88% had progesterone positive (PR) + tumors.

A total of 1,895 patients received CDK4/6 inhibitors, 1,027 received everolimus, and 49 received alpelisib. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between the two cancer types in any of the treatment groups.

Despite the similar outcomes, the two conditions remain unique. IDC is a disease of cells from the ducts that deliver milk, while ILC arises in cells that produce milk. Nearly 95% of ILC cases are hormone-positive, compared to 50%-55% of IDC.

So, while existing treatments seem to benefit both groups, there are nonetheless plans to develop therapeutic strategies tailored to lobular cancer.

Dr. Mouabbi’s group has compared molecular profiles of ILC and IDC tumors to better understand how to target them individually. Almost all ILC cancers have a mutation in a gene called CDH1, which leads to loss of an anchoring protein. They believe this causes a unique growth pattern of thin tendrils, rather than the onion-like growths of IDC. A therapy targeting this mutation could provide a specific benefit for lobular breast cancer.

There are other differences: PI3 kinases are mutated in about 60% of ILC tumors, versus about 30% of IDC tumors, and other genes mutated at lower frequencies are also different between the two subtypes. “So there are a lot of (approaches) we are trying to initiate in lobular cancer because we have awareness now that they are different,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The study received no external funding.

CHICAGO – Metastatic invasive lobular breast cancers (ILC) that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative have therapeutic outcomes similar to those of invasive ductal cancer (IDC) following treatment with endocrine therapy combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor, according to a new retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The two conditions have historically been lumped together when studying treatment outcomes, but more recent research has shown key differences between the two subtypes, according to Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“All the studies that were done were driven by ductal patients, so you can never take conclusions for the lobular patients. We have a big database at MD Anderson, so we can really study a large number of patients and get some signals whether or not patients would benefit from that therapy or not,” said Dr. Mouabbi, a lobular breast cancer specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The results of the study are important since patients often come to physicians with sophisticated understanding of their disease, he said. Patients with lobular cancer naturally wonder if a therapeutic regimen tested primarily in IDC will benefit them. “For the longest time, we said, ‘we have no data,’ ” said Dr. Mouabbi.

The new study should offer patients and physicians some reassurance. “We found that all of them benefit from it and most importantly, they all benefit from it (with) the same magnitude,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The researchers analyzed data from 2,971 patients (82% IDC, 14% ILC, 4% mixed) treated between 2010 and 2021. The median age was 50 in all groups. Eighty percent were White, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. Ninety-nine percent had estrogen receptor (ER) + tumors, and 88% had progesterone positive (PR) + tumors.

A total of 1,895 patients received CDK4/6 inhibitors, 1,027 received everolimus, and 49 received alpelisib. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between the two cancer types in any of the treatment groups.

Despite the similar outcomes, the two conditions remain unique. IDC is a disease of cells from the ducts that deliver milk, while ILC arises in cells that produce milk. Nearly 95% of ILC cases are hormone-positive, compared to 50%-55% of IDC.

So, while existing treatments seem to benefit both groups, there are nonetheless plans to develop therapeutic strategies tailored to lobular cancer.

Dr. Mouabbi’s group has compared molecular profiles of ILC and IDC tumors to better understand how to target them individually. Almost all ILC cancers have a mutation in a gene called CDH1, which leads to loss of an anchoring protein. They believe this causes a unique growth pattern of thin tendrils, rather than the onion-like growths of IDC. A therapy targeting this mutation could provide a specific benefit for lobular breast cancer.

There are other differences: PI3 kinases are mutated in about 60% of ILC tumors, versus about 30% of IDC tumors, and other genes mutated at lower frequencies are also different between the two subtypes. “So there are a lot of (approaches) we are trying to initiate in lobular cancer because we have awareness now that they are different,” Dr. Mouabbi said.

The study received no external funding.

A study of elderly patients with HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer finds a significantly shorter median overall survival in actual clinical practice than younger counterparts.

After 46 months of treatment, the survival rate was only 25%, according to a study presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The finding suggests that older age is an important prognostic factor for breast cancer survival, said study author Zhonghui Jenny Ou, a doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Boston.

For comparison, Ms. Ou cited the CLEOPATRA trial which showed a median overall survival of 57.1 months for patients who were treated with pertuzumab, docetaxel and trastuzumab versus 40.8 months for placebo with docetaxel plus trastuzumab.

The Ou study is based on an analysis of data between 2012 and 2016 from the SEER-Medicare database. The final analysis included 73 women (average age 75 years at diagnosis) with early-stage HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer. Fifty-six women were treated with trastuzumab with pertuzumab and chemotherapy as first-line treatment, and 17 were treated with chemotherapy only. The longest length of treatment with trastuzumab was over 44 months. And, the median follow-up for overall survival was 13 months (95% confidence interval, 12.7-18.7).

Between 2012 and 2016, five patients died from other causes, including lung cancer, cerebrovascular diseases, aortic aneurysm and dissection, pneumonia and influenza, and heart disease.

“While there are many clinical trials about HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, these trials were all performed in younger and relatively healthier patients. Few studies included elderly patients 65 years or older,” Ms. Ou said.

According to the American Cancer Society, 31% of all newly diagnosed breast cancer cases are in women who are 70 years old or older, yet 47% of all breast cancer deaths each year are in women in this age group.

Undertreatment and lower treatment intensity have been cited by other studies as possible contributing factors to lower overall survival rates, but breast cancer in elderly women is a complex and understudied subject. Why the mortality rates for elderly women are disproportionately higher than those of younger women is attributable to a number of reasons, write the authors of one of the most recent studies on the subject.

“It is well established that receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, trastuzumab, and hormonal therapy reduces risk of recurrence and death across all age groups, yet multiple studies document suboptimal systemic treatment and adherence for older patients, including omission of efficacious treatments, receipt of lower intensity and/or nonguideline treatment, or poor adherence to hormonal therapy,” Freedman et al. wrote in the May 15, 2018, issue of the journal Cancer.

While the Ou study sample size was small, the study’s real-world analysis is telling, Ms. Ou said.

“The major limitation of this study is that it has – after applying all the eligibility criteria to the 170,516 breast cancer patients from the SEER-Medicare database between 2012 and 2016 – a study population of just 73 patients. The number is sufficient to do survival analysis,” she said.

A study of elderly patients with HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer finds a significantly shorter median overall survival in actual clinical practice than younger counterparts.

After 46 months of treatment, the survival rate was only 25%, according to a study presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The finding suggests that older age is an important prognostic factor for breast cancer survival, said study author Zhonghui Jenny Ou, a doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Boston.

For comparison, Ms. Ou cited the CLEOPATRA trial which showed a median overall survival of 57.1 months for patients who were treated with pertuzumab, docetaxel and trastuzumab versus 40.8 months for placebo with docetaxel plus trastuzumab.

The Ou study is based on an analysis of data between 2012 and 2016 from the SEER-Medicare database. The final analysis included 73 women (average age 75 years at diagnosis) with early-stage HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer. Fifty-six women were treated with trastuzumab with pertuzumab and chemotherapy as first-line treatment, and 17 were treated with chemotherapy only. The longest length of treatment with trastuzumab was over 44 months. And, the median follow-up for overall survival was 13 months (95% confidence interval, 12.7-18.7).

Between 2012 and 2016, five patients died from other causes, including lung cancer, cerebrovascular diseases, aortic aneurysm and dissection, pneumonia and influenza, and heart disease.

“While there are many clinical trials about HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, these trials were all performed in younger and relatively healthier patients. Few studies included elderly patients 65 years or older,” Ms. Ou said.

According to the American Cancer Society, 31% of all newly diagnosed breast cancer cases are in women who are 70 years old or older, yet 47% of all breast cancer deaths each year are in women in this age group.

Undertreatment and lower treatment intensity have been cited by other studies as possible contributing factors to lower overall survival rates, but breast cancer in elderly women is a complex and understudied subject. Why the mortality rates for elderly women are disproportionately higher than those of younger women is attributable to a number of reasons, write the authors of one of the most recent studies on the subject.

“It is well established that receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, trastuzumab, and hormonal therapy reduces risk of recurrence and death across all age groups, yet multiple studies document suboptimal systemic treatment and adherence for older patients, including omission of efficacious treatments, receipt of lower intensity and/or nonguideline treatment, or poor adherence to hormonal therapy,” Freedman et al. wrote in the May 15, 2018, issue of the journal Cancer.

While the Ou study sample size was small, the study’s real-world analysis is telling, Ms. Ou said.

“The major limitation of this study is that it has – after applying all the eligibility criteria to the 170,516 breast cancer patients from the SEER-Medicare database between 2012 and 2016 – a study population of just 73 patients. The number is sufficient to do survival analysis,” she said.

A study of elderly patients with HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer finds a significantly shorter median overall survival in actual clinical practice than younger counterparts.

After 46 months of treatment, the survival rate was only 25%, according to a study presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The finding suggests that older age is an important prognostic factor for breast cancer survival, said study author Zhonghui Jenny Ou, a doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Boston.

For comparison, Ms. Ou cited the CLEOPATRA trial which showed a median overall survival of 57.1 months for patients who were treated with pertuzumab, docetaxel and trastuzumab versus 40.8 months for placebo with docetaxel plus trastuzumab.

The Ou study is based on an analysis of data between 2012 and 2016 from the SEER-Medicare database. The final analysis included 73 women (average age 75 years at diagnosis) with early-stage HER2-positive/HR-negative metastatic breast cancer. Fifty-six women were treated with trastuzumab with pertuzumab and chemotherapy as first-line treatment, and 17 were treated with chemotherapy only. The longest length of treatment with trastuzumab was over 44 months. And, the median follow-up for overall survival was 13 months (95% confidence interval, 12.7-18.7).

Between 2012 and 2016, five patients died from other causes, including lung cancer, cerebrovascular diseases, aortic aneurysm and dissection, pneumonia and influenza, and heart disease.

“While there are many clinical trials about HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, these trials were all performed in younger and relatively healthier patients. Few studies included elderly patients 65 years or older,” Ms. Ou said.

According to the American Cancer Society, 31% of all newly diagnosed breast cancer cases are in women who are 70 years old or older, yet 47% of all breast cancer deaths each year are in women in this age group.

Undertreatment and lower treatment intensity have been cited by other studies as possible contributing factors to lower overall survival rates, but breast cancer in elderly women is a complex and understudied subject. Why the mortality rates for elderly women are disproportionately higher than those of younger women is attributable to a number of reasons, write the authors of one of the most recent studies on the subject.

“It is well established that receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, trastuzumab, and hormonal therapy reduces risk of recurrence and death across all age groups, yet multiple studies document suboptimal systemic treatment and adherence for older patients, including omission of efficacious treatments, receipt of lower intensity and/or nonguideline treatment, or poor adherence to hormonal therapy,” Freedman et al. wrote in the May 15, 2018, issue of the journal Cancer.

While the Ou study sample size was small, the study’s real-world analysis is telling, Ms. Ou said.

“The major limitation of this study is that it has – after applying all the eligibility criteria to the 170,516 breast cancer patients from the SEER-Medicare database between 2012 and 2016 – a study population of just 73 patients. The number is sufficient to do survival analysis,” she said.

Eight-year follow-up of the ASTRRA trial confirmed and extended support for adding 2 years of ovarian function suppression with goserelin to tamoxifen, compared with tamoxifen alone.

“Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen should be considered for this population of women,” said senior author Hee Jeong Kim, MD, a breast cancer surgeon with the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Kim presented the data earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The median disease-free survival rate of 85.4% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 80.2% for tamoxifen alone (HR, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.514-0.869; P = .0027) was consistent with recent findings from SOFT (Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial), which also showed a clear survival benefit in breast cancer events with the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for women who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy. SOFT trial analyses of disease-free survival at 5 and 8 years demonstrated hazard ratios of 0.82 and 0.76 respectively.

Dr. Kim’s study is a post-trial follow-up of the ASTRRA trial, or the Addition of Ovarian Suppression to Tamoxifen in Young Women With Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer Who Remain Premenopausal or Regain Vaginal Bleeding After Chemotherapy, which randomly assigned 1,298 patients with breast cancer in a one-to-one ratio to receive tamoxifen only (n = 647) or tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (n = 635). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the secondary endpoint was overall survival.

Earlier ASTRRA analysis at 5-year follow-up had shown disease-free survival rates of 89.9% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 87.2% for tamoxifen alone in women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who remained premenopausal or had premenopausal status restored after chemotherapy. Overall survival, a secondary endpoint, also favored adding ovarian function suppression (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; P = .029). The absolute difference for disease-free survival adding ovarian function suppression at the later median follow-up of 106.4 months was 5.2%. The difference at 5 years had been 2.7%, Dr. Kim pointed out. Also, these findings were calculated from time of enrollment. When calculated from time of randomization, the disease-free survival rates were 84.1% and 78.1%, respectively, for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression and tamoxifen alone, with a 6.0% absolute difference (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.516-0.872); P = .0025).

The benefit of adding ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for the secondary endpoint of overall survival at 8 years (96.5% versus 95.3%) did not achieve statistical significance (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.486-1.253); P = .3). “Although it’s not statistically significant, there are absolute differences between the two groups favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. She pointed out also that for distant metastasis-free survival the hazard ratio was 0.71, significantly favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. “More than 95% were still surviving at 8 years with tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. So, we need more events to fully evaluate the overall survival benefit.”

A study limitation, Dr. Kim acknowledged in the interview, is that safety and adverse event data were not collected. “As ovarian function suppression has been widely used in clinical practice for decades, and the side effects of its relatively short-term use were considered to be well-understood in previous studies, we focused on the oncologic efficacy of ovarian function suppression in this study,” she said.

Eight-year follow-up of the ASTRRA trial confirmed and extended support for adding 2 years of ovarian function suppression with goserelin to tamoxifen, compared with tamoxifen alone.

“Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen should be considered for this population of women,” said senior author Hee Jeong Kim, MD, a breast cancer surgeon with the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Kim presented the data earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The median disease-free survival rate of 85.4% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 80.2% for tamoxifen alone (HR, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.514-0.869; P = .0027) was consistent with recent findings from SOFT (Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial), which also showed a clear survival benefit in breast cancer events with the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for women who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy. SOFT trial analyses of disease-free survival at 5 and 8 years demonstrated hazard ratios of 0.82 and 0.76 respectively.

Dr. Kim’s study is a post-trial follow-up of the ASTRRA trial, or the Addition of Ovarian Suppression to Tamoxifen in Young Women With Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer Who Remain Premenopausal or Regain Vaginal Bleeding After Chemotherapy, which randomly assigned 1,298 patients with breast cancer in a one-to-one ratio to receive tamoxifen only (n = 647) or tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (n = 635). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the secondary endpoint was overall survival.

Earlier ASTRRA analysis at 5-year follow-up had shown disease-free survival rates of 89.9% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 87.2% for tamoxifen alone in women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who remained premenopausal or had premenopausal status restored after chemotherapy. Overall survival, a secondary endpoint, also favored adding ovarian function suppression (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; P = .029). The absolute difference for disease-free survival adding ovarian function suppression at the later median follow-up of 106.4 months was 5.2%. The difference at 5 years had been 2.7%, Dr. Kim pointed out. Also, these findings were calculated from time of enrollment. When calculated from time of randomization, the disease-free survival rates were 84.1% and 78.1%, respectively, for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression and tamoxifen alone, with a 6.0% absolute difference (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.516-0.872); P = .0025).

The benefit of adding ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for the secondary endpoint of overall survival at 8 years (96.5% versus 95.3%) did not achieve statistical significance (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.486-1.253); P = .3). “Although it’s not statistically significant, there are absolute differences between the two groups favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. She pointed out also that for distant metastasis-free survival the hazard ratio was 0.71, significantly favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. “More than 95% were still surviving at 8 years with tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. So, we need more events to fully evaluate the overall survival benefit.”

A study limitation, Dr. Kim acknowledged in the interview, is that safety and adverse event data were not collected. “As ovarian function suppression has been widely used in clinical practice for decades, and the side effects of its relatively short-term use were considered to be well-understood in previous studies, we focused on the oncologic efficacy of ovarian function suppression in this study,” she said.

Eight-year follow-up of the ASTRRA trial confirmed and extended support for adding 2 years of ovarian function suppression with goserelin to tamoxifen, compared with tamoxifen alone.

“Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen should be considered for this population of women,” said senior author Hee Jeong Kim, MD, a breast cancer surgeon with the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Kim presented the data earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The median disease-free survival rate of 85.4% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 80.2% for tamoxifen alone (HR, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.514-0.869; P = .0027) was consistent with recent findings from SOFT (Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial), which also showed a clear survival benefit in breast cancer events with the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for women who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy. SOFT trial analyses of disease-free survival at 5 and 8 years demonstrated hazard ratios of 0.82 and 0.76 respectively.

Dr. Kim’s study is a post-trial follow-up of the ASTRRA trial, or the Addition of Ovarian Suppression to Tamoxifen in Young Women With Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer Who Remain Premenopausal or Regain Vaginal Bleeding After Chemotherapy, which randomly assigned 1,298 patients with breast cancer in a one-to-one ratio to receive tamoxifen only (n = 647) or tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (n = 635). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the secondary endpoint was overall survival.

Earlier ASTRRA analysis at 5-year follow-up had shown disease-free survival rates of 89.9% for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus 87.2% for tamoxifen alone in women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who remained premenopausal or had premenopausal status restored after chemotherapy. Overall survival, a secondary endpoint, also favored adding ovarian function suppression (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; P = .029). The absolute difference for disease-free survival adding ovarian function suppression at the later median follow-up of 106.4 months was 5.2%. The difference at 5 years had been 2.7%, Dr. Kim pointed out. Also, these findings were calculated from time of enrollment. When calculated from time of randomization, the disease-free survival rates were 84.1% and 78.1%, respectively, for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression and tamoxifen alone, with a 6.0% absolute difference (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.516-0.872); P = .0025).

The benefit of adding ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen for the secondary endpoint of overall survival at 8 years (96.5% versus 95.3%) did not achieve statistical significance (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.486-1.253); P = .3). “Although it’s not statistically significant, there are absolute differences between the two groups favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. She pointed out also that for distant metastasis-free survival the hazard ratio was 0.71, significantly favoring tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. “More than 95% were still surviving at 8 years with tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression. So, we need more events to fully evaluate the overall survival benefit.”

A study limitation, Dr. Kim acknowledged in the interview, is that safety and adverse event data were not collected. “As ovarian function suppression has been widely used in clinical practice for decades, and the side effects of its relatively short-term use were considered to be well-understood in previous studies, we focused on the oncologic efficacy of ovarian function suppression in this study,” she said.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

A neighborhood analysis of socioeconomic status conducted in the Pittsburgh area found worse metastatic breast cancer survival outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that race is not a relevant factor in outcomes.

“This study demonstrates that metastatic breast cancer patients of low socioeconomic status have worse outcomes than those with higher socioeconomic status at our center. It also underscores the idea that race is not so much a biological construct but more a consequence of socioeconomic issues. The effect of race is likely mediated by lower socioeconomic status,” said Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, MD, who presented the results of her study earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in the management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race. One should think of socioeconomic status as a predictor of bad outcomes, almost like a comorbidity, and think of [associations between race and outcomes], as a consequence of socioeconomic inequality,” said Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan, who is an internal medicine resident at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

She and her colleagues intend to dig deeper into the relationships. “We are interested in looking at utilization of different treatment options for metastatic breast cancer between the socioeconomic status groups. In the preliminary analysis, we saw that ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with lower socioeconomic status get treated with tamoxifen more often than aromatase inhibitors and newer agents. And, we have plans to study stress signaling and inflammation as mediators of bad outcomes in the low socioeconomic status population,” Dr. Puthanmadhom Narayanan said.

In fact, that tendency for lower socioeconomic status patients to receive older treatments should be a call to action for physicians. “This study should make clinicians cognizant of the potential for biases in management of metastatic breast cancer in terms of socioeconomic status and race,” she said.

The study is based on an analysis of data from the Neighborhood Atlas in which a Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) score was calculated. An NDI score in the bottom tertile meant that patients were better off than patients with mid to high range NDI scores. In this study, socioeconomic status was described as “low deprivation” or “high depreviation.” Higher deprivation correlated with lower overall survival. And, there were more Black patients in the higher deprivation group (10.5%), compared with the low deprivation group (3.7%). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, socioeconomic status, but not race, had a significant effect on overall survival (HR for high deprivation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval; 1.04-1.37], P = 0.01).

It included 1,246 patients who were treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2017. Of 1,246 patients, 414 patients considered in the bottom tertile of NDI as having low deprivation, while 832 patients in the middle or top tertiles were classified as having high deprivation.

The two socioeconomic status groups were similar in baseline characteristics, with the exception of race: 10.5% of the high deprivation group were African American, compared with 3.7% of the low deprivation group (P =.000093).

Univariate analyses showed worse survival in both Black women and women in the lower socioeconomic status group, but a multivariate analysis found only socioeconomic status was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for lower socioeconomic status, 1.19; P = .01).

The study had several strengths, according to Rachel Freedman, MD, MPH, who served as a discussant for the abstract. “It included both de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer, unlike previous studies based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that only included de novo cases. It also employed a novel tool to define socioeconomic status in the form of the Neighborhood Atlas. The study “adds more evidence that socioeconomic status likely mediates much of what we see when it comes to racial disparities,” said Dr. Freedman, who is a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Nevertheless, more work needs to be done. Dr. Freedman pointed out that the current study did not include information on treatment.

The findings underscore the failure to date to address disparities in breast cancer treatment, an effort that is hampered by difficulty in teasing out complex factors that may impact survival. “We need to standardize the way that we collect social determinants of health and act upon findings, and we need to standardize patient navigation, and we need to commit as a community to diverse clinical trial populations,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Narayanan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Freedman is an employee and stockholder of Firefly Health.

Following a diet rich in healthy plant-based products may lower one’s risk of breast cancer, but not if that diet happens to be high in unhealthy foods, researchers have found.

The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.

“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”

Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.

Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.

Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.

Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.

Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.

“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”

Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Following a diet rich in healthy plant-based products may lower one’s risk of breast cancer, but not if that diet happens to be high in unhealthy foods, researchers have found.

The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.

“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”

Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.

Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.

Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.

Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.

Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.

“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”

Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Following a diet rich in healthy plant-based products may lower one’s risk of breast cancer, but not if that diet happens to be high in unhealthy foods, researchers have found.

The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.

“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”

Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.

Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.

Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.

Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.

Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.

“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”

Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.