1
|
Curtaz CJ, Kiesel L, Meybohm P, Wöckel A, Burek M. Anti-Hormonal Therapy in Breast Cancer and Its Effect on the Blood-Brain Barrier. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14205132. [PMID: 36291916 PMCID: PMC9599962 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14205132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Revised: 10/17/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
The molecular receptor status of breast cancer has implications for prognosis and long-term metastasis. Although metastatic luminal B-like, hormone-receptor-positive, HER2−negative, breast cancer causes brain metastases less frequently than other subtypes, though tumor metastases in the brain are increasingly being detected of this patient group. Despite the many years of tried and tested use of a wide variety of anti-hormonal therapeutic agents, there is insufficient data on their intracerebral effectiveness and their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. In this review, we therefore summarize the current state of knowledge on anti-hormonal therapy and its intracerebral impact and effects on the blood-brain barrier in breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carolin J. Curtaz
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany
- Correspondence:
| | - Ludwig Kiesel
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital of Münster, 48143 Münster, Germany
| | - Patrick Meybohm
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany
| | - Achim Wöckel
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany
| | - Malgorzata Burek
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Michel A, Darkwah Oppong M, Rauschenbach L, Dinger TF, Barthel L, Pierscianek D, Wrede KH, Hense J, Pöttgen C, Junker A, Schmidt T, Iannaccone A, Kimmig R, Sure U, Jabbarli R. Prediction of Short and Long Survival after Surgery for Breast Cancer Brain Metastases. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14061437. [PMID: 35326590 PMCID: PMC8946189 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14061437] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 03/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Brain metastases requiring surgical treatment determine the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. We aimed to develop the scores for the prediction of short (<6 months) and long (≥3 years) survival after BCBM surgery. Methods: Female patients with BCBM surgery between 2008 and 2019 were included. The new scores were constructed upon independent predictors for short and long postoperative survival. Results: In the final cohort (n = 95), 18 (18.9%) and 22 (23.2%) patients experienced short and long postoperative survival, respectively. Breast-preserving surgery, presence of multiple brain metastases and age ≥ 65 years at breast cancer diagnosis were identified as independent predictors of short postoperative survival. In turn, positive HER2 receptor status in brain metastases, time interval ≥ 3 years between breast cancer and brain metastases diagnosis and KPS ≥ 90% independently predicted long survival. The appropriate short and long survival scores showed higher diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of short (AUC = 0.773) and long (AUC = 0.775) survival than the breast Graded Prognostic Assessment score (AUC = 0.498/0.615). A cumulative survival score (total score) showed significant association with overall survival (p = 0.001). Conclusion: We identified predictors independently impacting the prognosis after BCBM surgery. After external validation, the presented scores might become useful tools for the selection of proper candidates for BCBM surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Michel
- Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (M.D.O.); (L.R.); (T.F.D.); (L.B.); (D.P.); (K.H.W.); (U.S.); (R.J.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +49-201-723-1230; Fax: +49-201-723-1220
| | - Marvin Darkwah Oppong
- Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (M.D.O.); (L.R.); (T.F.D.); (L.B.); (D.P.); (K.H.W.); (U.S.); (R.J.)
| | - Laurèl Rauschenbach
- Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (M.D.O.); (L.R.); (T.F.D.); (L.B.); (D.P.); (K.H.W.); (U.S.); (R.J.)
| | - Thiemo Florin Dinger
- Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (M.D.O.); (L.R.); (T.F.D.); (L.B.); (D.P.); (K.H.W.); (U.S.); (R.J.)
| | - Lennart Barthel
- Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (M.D.O.); (L.R.); (T.F.D.); (L.B.); (D.P.); (K.H.W.); (U.S.); (R.J.)
| | - Daniela Pierscianek
- Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (M.D.O.); (L.R.); (T.F.D.); (L.B.); (D.P.); (K.H.W.); (U.S.); (R.J.)
| | - Karsten H. Wrede
- Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (M.D.O.); (L.R.); (T.F.D.); (L.B.); (D.P.); (K.H.W.); (U.S.); (R.J.)
| | - Jörg Hense
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany;
| | - Christoph Pöttgen
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany;
| | - Andreas Junker
- Department of Neuropathology, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany;
| | - Teresa Schmidt
- Department of Neurooncology, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany;
| | - Antonella Iannaccone
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.I.); (R.K.)
| | - Rainer Kimmig
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.I.); (R.K.)
| | - Ulrich Sure
- Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (M.D.O.); (L.R.); (T.F.D.); (L.B.); (D.P.); (K.H.W.); (U.S.); (R.J.)
| | - Ramazan Jabbarli
- Department of Neurosurgery and Spine Surgery, University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (M.D.O.); (L.R.); (T.F.D.); (L.B.); (D.P.); (K.H.W.); (U.S.); (R.J.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
The Usefulness of Prognostic Tools in Breast Cancer Patients with Brain Metastases. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14051099. [PMID: 35267407 PMCID: PMC8909185 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14051099] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2022] [Revised: 02/15/2022] [Accepted: 02/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Due to the variability of an individual’s prognosis and the variety of treatment options available to breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BM), establishing the proper therapy is challenging. Since 1997, several prognostic tools for BC patients with BM have been proposed with variable precision in determining the overall survival. The majority of prognostic tools include the performance status, the age at BM diagnosis, the number of BM, the primary tumor phenotype/genotype and the extracranial metastases status as an outcome of systemic therapy efficacy. It is necessary to update the prognostic indices used by physicians as advances in local and systemic treatments develop and change the parameters of survival. Free access to prognostic tools online may increase their routine adoption in clinical practice. Clinical trials on BC patients with BM remains a broad field for the application of prognostic tools. Abstract Background: Determining the proper therapy is challenging in breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BM) due to the variability of an individual’s prognosis and the variety of treatment options available. Several prognostic tools for BC patients with BM have been proposed. Our review summarizes the current knowledge on this topic. Methods: We searched PubMed for prognostic tools concerning BC patients with BM, published from January 1997 (since the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group developed) to December 2021. Our criteria were limited to adults with newly diagnosed BM regardless of the presence or absence of any leptomeningeal metastases. Results: 31 prognostic tools were selected: 13 analyzed mixed cohorts with some BC cases and 18 exclusively analyzed BC prognostic tools. The majority of prognostic tools in BC patients with BM included: the performance status, the age at BM diagnosis, the number of BM (rarely the volume), the primary tumor phenotype/genotype and the extracranial metastasis status as a result of systemic therapy. The prognostic tools differed in their specific cut-off values. Conclusion: Prognostic tools have variable precision in determining the survival of BC patients with BM. Advances in local and systemic treatment significantly affect survival, therefore, it is necessary to update the survival indices used depending on the type and period of treatment.
Collapse
|
5
|
Predicting Prognosis of Breast Cancer Patients with Brain Metastases in the BMBC Registry-Comparison of Three Different GPA Prognostic Scores. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13040844. [PMID: 33671376 PMCID: PMC7922206 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13040844] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2021] [Revised: 02/08/2021] [Accepted: 02/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary The incidence of brain metastases from breast cancer is increasing and the treatment is still a major challenge. Several scores have been developed in order to estimate the prognosis of patients with brain metastases by objective criteria. Here, we validated all three published graded-prognostic-assessment (GPA)-scores in a subcohort of 882 breast cancer patients with brain metastases in the Brain Metastases in the German Breast Cancer (BMBC) registry. Although all three available GPA-scores were associated with OS, they all show limitations mainly in predicting short-term (below 3 months) survival but also in long-term (above 12 months) survival. We discuss the test performances of all scores in our work and provide evidence how physicians should use them as a tool to select patients for different treatment options. Abstract Several scores have been developed in order to estimate the prognosis of patients with brain metastases (BM) by objective criteria. The aim of this analysis was to validate all three published graded-prognostic-assessment (GPA)-scores in a subcohort of 882 breast cancer (BC) patients with BM in the Brain Metastases in the German Breast Cancer (BMBC) registry. The median age at diagnosis of BM was 57 years. All in all, 22.3% of patients (n = 197) had triple-negative, 33.4% (n = 295) luminal A like, 25.1% (n = 221) luminal B/HER2-enriched like and 19.2% (n = 169) HER2 positive like BC. Age ≥60 years, evidence of extracranial metastases (ECM), higher number of BM, triple-negative subtype and low Karnofsky-Performance-Status (KPS) were all associated with worse overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis (p < 0.001 each). All three GPA-scores were associated with OS. The breast-GPA showed the highest probability of classifying patients with survival above 12 months in the best prognostic group (specificity 68.7% compared with 48.1% for the updated breast-GPA and 21.8% for the original GPA). Sensitivities for predicting 3 months survival were very low for all scores. In this analysis, all GPA-scores showed only moderate diagnostic accuracy in predicting the OS of BC patients with BM.
Collapse
|
6
|
Sperduto PW, Mesko S, Li J, Cagney D, Aizer A, Lin NU, Nesbit E, Kruser TJ, Chan J, Braunstein S, Lee J, Kirkpatrick JP, Breen W, Brown PD, Shi D, Shih HA, Soliman H, Sahgal A, Shanley R, Sperduto W, Lou E, Everett A, Boggs DH, Masucci L, Roberge D, Remick J, Plichta K, Buatti JM, Jain S, Gaspar LE, Wu CC, Wang TJC, Bryant J, Chuong M, Yu J, Chiang V, Nakano T, Aoyama H, Mehta MP. Beyond an Updated Graded Prognostic Assessment (Breast GPA): A Prognostic Index and Trends in Treatment and Survival in Breast Cancer Brain Metastases From 1985 to Today. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:334-343. [PMID: 32084525 PMCID: PMC7276246 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 98] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2019] [Revised: 01/28/2020] [Accepted: 01/31/2020] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Brain metastases are a common sequelae of breast cancer. Survival varies widely based on diagnosis-specific prognostic factors (PF). We previously published a prognostic index (Graded Prognostic Assessment [GPA]) for patients with breast cancer with brain metastases (BCBM), based on cohort A (1985-2007, n = 642), then updated it, reporting the effect of tumor subtype in cohort B (1993-2010, n = 400). The purpose of this study is to update the Breast GPA with a larger contemporary cohort (C) and compare treatment and survival across the 3 cohorts. METHODS AND MATERIALS A multi-institutional (19), multinational (3), retrospective database of 2473 patients with breast cancer with newly diagnosed brain metastases (BCBM) diagnosed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, was created and compared with prior cohorts. Associations of PF and treatment with survival were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared with log-rank tests. PF were weighted and the Breast GPA was updated such that a GPA of 0 and 4.0 correlate with the worst and best prognoses, respectively. RESULTS Median survival (MS) for cohorts A, B, and C improved over time (from 11, to 14 to 16 months, respectively; P < .01), despite the subtype distribution becoming less favorable. PF significant for survival were tumor subtype, Karnofsky Performance Status, age, number of BCBMs, and extracranial metastases (all P < .01). MS for GPA 0 to 1.0, 1.5-2.0, 2.5-3.0, and 3.5-4.0 was 6, 13, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Between cohorts B and C, the proportion of human epidermal receptor 2 + subtype decreased from 31% to 18% (P < .01) and MS in this subtype increased from 18 to 25 months (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS MS has improved modestly but varies widely by diagnosis-specific PF. New PF are identified and incorporated into an updated Breast GPA (free online calculator available at brainmetgpa.com). The Breast GPA facilitates clinical decision-making and will be useful for stratification of future clinical trials. Furthermore, these data suggest human epidermal receptor 2-targeted therapies improve clinical outcomes in some patients with BCBM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul W Sperduto
- Minneapolis Radiation Oncology & University of Minnesota Gamma Knife Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
| | | | - Jing Li
- MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Ayal Aizer
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Nancy U Lin
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | | | - Jason Chan
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Steve Braunstein
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | | | | | | | | | - Diana Shi
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Helen A Shih
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Hany Soliman
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | | | | | - Emil Lou
- University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | | | - Laura Masucci
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - David Roberge
- Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - James Yu
- Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|