Non-recommended imaging is commonly indicated in surveillance of early breast cancer survivors, despite guidelines recommending against. Five theoretic imaging surveillance models were used to estimate imaging radiation-induced malignancy risks. Our models suggest that non-recommended imaging may increase imaging radiation-induced malignancy risks and should be avoided during early breast cancer surveillance. Background: Current clinical guidelines recommend mammography as the only imaging method for surveillance in asymptomatic survivors of early breast cancer (EBC). However, non-recommended tests are commonly used. We estimated the imaging radiation-induced malignancies (IRIM) risks in survivors of EBC undergoing different imaging surveillance models. Materials and Methods: We built 5 theoretical models of imaging surveillance, from annual mammography only (model 1) to increasingly imaging-intensive approaches, including computed tomography (CT) scan, positron emission tomography-CT, bone scan, and multigated acquisition scan (models 2 through 5). Using the National Cancer Institute's Radiation Risk Assessment Tool, we compared the excess lifetime attributable cancer risk (LAR) for hypothetical survivors of EBC starting surveillance at the ages of 30, 60, or 75 years and ending at 81 years. Results: For all age groups analyzed, there is a statistically significant increase in LAR when comparing model 1 with more intensive models. As an example, in a patient beginning surveillance at the age of 60 years, there is a 28.5-fold increase in the IRIM risk when comparing mammography only versus a schedule with mammography plus CT scan of chest-abdomen and bone scan. We found no differences when comparing models 2 through 5. LAR is higher when surveillance starts at a younger age, although the age effect was only statistically significant in model 1. Conclusion: Non-recommended imaging during EBC surveillance can be associated with a significant increase in LAR. In addition to the lack of survival benefit, additional tests may have significant IRIM risks and should be avoided. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Abstract Introduction: Adverse event (AE) reporting in clinical trials (CT) informs the safety of investigational products. Once approved, safety information in the monograph and prescribing information mainly derive from CT data. Some studies have shown geographic variations in the AE reporting patterns in multinational CT; none of them assessed this variation in cancer CT. We conducted a study to analyze the geographic AE reporting patterns in two breast cancer (BC) CT conducted by Translational Research in Oncology (TRIO). Objective: To perform a quantitative and qualitative comparison of non-serious AE (NSAE) and serious AE (SAE) reporting patterns between several geographic regions, in breast cancer CT conducted by TRIO. Methodology: We retrospectively analyzed aggregated NSAE/SAE data (as reported by investigators) from all patients randomized in two completed phase 3, multinational CT of anticancer therapies in advanced BC. Participating countries were grouped in 7 regions according to their geographic location (East Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Caribbean, Middle East and Africa, Non-Eastern Europe, North America, Oceania). Regions were kept masked and numbered from 1 thru 7. AE data were extracted from the clinical data bases. For each region we calculated the mean number of NSAE and SAE per patient (pt), the mean number of NSAE and SAE per cycle/per pt, and the percentage (%) of pt experiencing selected AE (fatigue, febrile neutropenia and emesis). Comparisons between regions were done using unequal variance t-test and Fisher´s exact test. Results: 1,863 patients from 35 countries and 310 sites were included. Mean number of pt per region was 331. We found significant variation in the number of NSAE/SAE reported across several regions. Two regions (1 and 6) reported the highest mean number of AE while region 4 the lowest rates. The mean number of NSAE reported in region 4 is approximately 3-fold lower than regions 1 and 6 (mean NSAE 22.8 [region 1] vs. 7.9 [region 4]; p NSAE and SAE reporting in selected regions (regions 1 and 4) Region 1 (mean)Region 4 (mean)p-valueNSAE per pt22.87.9 % of pt experiencing selected AE in selected regions (regions 1 and 4) Region 1Region 4p-valueFatigue84.1 %8.5 % Conclusion: NSAE and SAE reporting patterns vary markedly by geographic region and one region appears to systematically under report both NSAE and SAE. These data warrant confirmation, and if confirmed, may provide an important caveat on the interpretation of reported study safety data. Citation Format: González V, Machado A, Fung H, Spera G, Meyer C, Millán P, Mackey JR, Fresco R. Geographic variation in adverse event reporting patterns in breast cancer clinical trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-17-01.

BACKGROUNDMedical imaging is commonly required in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials to assess the efficacy and/or safety of study interventions. Despite the lack of definitive epidemiological data linking imaging radiation with cancer development in adults, concerns exist about the risks of imaging radiation-induced malignancies (IRIMs) in subjects exposed to repetitive imaging. We estimated the imaging radiation dose and IRIM risk in subjects participating in BC trials.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe imaging protocol requirements in 10 phase III trials in the adjuvant and advanced settings were assessed to estimate the effective radiation dose received by a typical and fully compliant subject in each trial. For each study, the excess lifetime attributable cancer risk (LAR) was calculated using the National Cancer Institute's Radiation Risk Assessment Tool, version 3.7.1. Dose and risk calculations were performed for both imaging intensive and nonintensive approaches to reflect the variability in imaging performed within the studies.RESULTSThe total effective imaging radiation dose was 0.4-262.2 mSv in adjuvant trials and 26-241.3 mSv in metastatic studies. The dose variability resulted from differing protocol requirements and imaging intensity approaches, with computed tomography, multigated acquisition scans, and bone scans as the major contributors. The mean LAR was 1.87-2,410/100,000 in adjuvant trials (IRIM: 0.0002%-2.41% of randomized subjects) and 6.9-67.3/100,000 in metastatic studies (IRIM: 0.007%-0.067% of subjects).CONCLUSIONIRIMs are infrequent events. In adjuvant trials, aligning the protocol requirements with the clinical guidelines' surveillance recommendations and substituting radiating procedures with equivalent nonradiating ones would reduce IRIM risk. No significant risk has been observed in metastatic trials, and potential concerns on IRIMs are not justified.IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEMedical imaging is key in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials. Most of these procedures expose patients to ionizing radiation, and the risk of second cancer development after imaging has prompted recent concerns and controversy. Using accepted calculation models, the number of malignancies were estimated that were potentially attributable to the imaging procedures performed during a patient's participation in BC clinical trials. The results show that for patients participating in metastatic trials, the risk of imaging radiation-induced malignancies is negligible. In adjuvant trials, some second cancers due to imaging could be expected, and measures can be taken to reduce their risk.

Introduction: breast cancer constitutes an heterogeneous disease. Two sub-types have been distinguished through the study of the tumor expression level of hormone receptors tumors, and level of HER2 expression, among other techniques. We previously reported the relation between these sub-types and the clinical and pathological characteristics of Uruguayan women.Objective: to analyse the disease-free survival (DFS) of Uruguayan patients with breast cancer, according to their biological sub-type, defined based on the tumor expression of hormone receptors and HER2 expression which were assessed by immune-histological chemistry staining.Method: all clinical records of patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery (StagesI-III) during a two year period were reviewed. The disease-free survival rate was calculated for all patients and according to their biological profile.Results: forty months follow up revealed disease-free survival upon two years of 92.3% for all patients; 94% for hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative patients, 91% for triple negative patients, and 71.4% for hormone receptor positive patients.Comparing the DFS curves, for the different sub-types, evidenced a lower DFS for HER2+patients (p = 0.03), and similar DFS for hormone receptor positive/ HER2 negative and triple negative ( p=0.86).Conclusions: uruguayan patients with breast cancer show a two-year-DFS that matches international reports. HER2+ patients evidence a higher relapse rate, also consistent with international reports. Similar DFS upon two years, between hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative patients and triple negative patients cannot be due to differences in the clinical-pathological characteristics, thus a hypothesis is considered: there is a larger proportion of patients of the luminalB breast cancer sub-type among hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative patients.

Introduction: breast cancer, the main cause of death of Uruguayan women, is an heterogeneous disease. Study of the tumoral expression of the Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor-2 (HER2), the estrogen receptor and the progesterone receptor enables the recognition of subtypes with different clinical, and pathological characteristics and evolution.Objectives: to learn about the HER2, estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor tumoral expression profile and their relationship with clinical-pathological characteristics in Uruguayan patients with breast cancer.Method: we reviewed the medical record of patients who underwent surgery for invasive breast cancer within a two year period, and we selected those who had determination of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER2 through immune-histochemestry. We compared the expression profile of these markers with the age at the time of diagnosis, the histological type and degree and the pathological status.Results: we selected 197 patients with the following characteristics: average age: 55 years old, ductal carcinoma: 85%, histological degree 1-2: 59%; stage I-II: 75%, axillary metastasis: 51%, progesterone receptor/estrogen receptors+(RE/RP+): 78%, HER2+: 10%. Three subtypes were defined: HER2-RE/RP+(73%),HER2+(10%) and triple negative (TN) (17%). Subtypes TN and HER2+ were associated with a greater histological degree (GH) (p<0,05) and the TN with lower age at the time of diagnosis than the HER2-, RE/RP+ subtype.Conclusions: the percentage of patients with HER2+ subtype invasive breast cancer (10%) is lower than the one reported in others studies. In accordance with previous studies, TN and HER2+ subtypes correlated with less differentiated tumors and TN subtype occurred in younger patients

Introducción: el cáncer de mama (CM), principal causa de muerte por cáncer en la mujer uruguaya, constituye una enfermedad heterogénea. El estudio de la expresión tumoral del receptor del factor de crecimiento epidérmico-2 (HER2), el receptor de estrógenos (RE) y el receptor de progesterona (RP) permite reconocer subtipos con diferentes características clínico-patológicas y evolutivas. Objetivos: conocer el perfil de expresión tumoral de HER2, RE y RP y su relación con características clínico-patológicas en pacientes uruguayas con CM. Material y método: se revisaron las historias clínicas de pacientes intervenidas quirúrgicamente por CM invasivo en un período de dos años, seleccionándose las que contaban con la determinación de RE, RP y HER2 mediante inmunohistoquímica. Se comparó el perfil de expresión de estos marcadores con la edad al diagnóstico, tipo y grado histológico (GH) y estadio patológico (TNM). Resultados: se seleccionaron 197 pacientes cuyas características fueron edad media: 55 años, carcinoma ductal: 85%, GH 1-2: 59%, estadio: I-II: 75%, metástasis axilares: 51%, RE/RP+: 78%, HER2+: 10%. Se definieron tres subtipos: HER2- RE/RP+ (73%), HER2+ (10%) y triple negativo (TN) (17%). Los subtipos TN y HER2+ se asociaron con mayor grado histológico (p<0,05) y el TN con menor edad al diagnóstico (p<0,05) que el subtipo HER2-, RE/RP+. Conclusiones: el porcentaje de pacientes con CM invasivo subtipo HER2+ (10%) es menor que el reportado por otros estudios (17%-28%). En concordancia con estudios previos, los subtipos TN y HER2+ se correlacionaron con tumores más indiferenciados y el TN se presentó en pacientes más jóvenes.

e11622 Background: Hereditary BC can have a distinct phenotype and behavior in comparison to sporadic BC. The aim of the present study was to investigate if there is any difference in the age at diagnosis, disease extension and biological profile in BC patients (pts) with or without a significant family history of BC. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed clinical charts of BC pts, stage 0- III who had surgery between March 2006 and March 2008. We included pts with known estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2 status. The family history was obtained from the clinical charts and confirmed by a telephone interview with a standardized questionnaire. A significant family history of BC was defined by the presence of one of the following criteria: (1) 3 or more BC cases among close relatives, at least one diagnosed before 50 years (2) 2 BC cases among close relatives, at least one diagnosed before 50 years and one of the following: bilateral BC, ovarian cancer diagnosed in the family, male BC, father´s inheritance, Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry Results: 435 pts were identified, with available data on ER/PR and HER2 status in 197 pts. Family history was evaluated in 136 pts (69%) and was classified as significant in 18 (13.2%). Between pts with and without a significant family history of BC cancer there were no difference in the proportion of pts < 50 years old at diagnosis (0.36 vs. 0.39), T3/T4 tumours (0.08 vs. 0.11), axillary node positivity (0.55 vs 0.66), ER/PR+ (0.77 vs. 0.72), HER2 + (0.11 vs. 0.11) and triple negative tumors (0.19 vs 0.17). CONCLUSIONS our data does not show any difference in the main prognostic and predictive factors between operable BC pts with and without a significant family history of BC. These findings are concordant with previous published data about a greater prevalence of BRCA2 mutations in Uruguayan families. No significant financial relationships to disclose.