These findings suggest that systemic miRNAs have potential use as novel breast cancer biomarkers and may prove useful in clinical management during the perioperative period.

Molecular subtyping confirms that breast cancer comprises at least four genetically distinct entities based on the expression of specific genes including estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2/neu receptor. The quantitative influence of subtype on ipsilateral locoregional recurrence (LRR) is unknown. The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the influence of breast cancer subtype on LRR following breast conserving therapy (BCT) and mastectomy. A comprehensive search for studies examining outcomes after BCT and/or mastectomy according to breast cancer subtype was performed using Medline and cross-referencing available data. Reviews of each study were conducted and data extracted to perform meta-analysis. Primary outcome was LRR related to breast cancer subtype. A total of 12,592 breast cancer patients who underwent either BCT (n = 7,174) or mastectomy (n = 5,418) were identified from 15 studies. Patients with luminal subtype tumors (ER/PR +ve) had a lower risk of LRR than both triple-negative (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.23-0.61); and HER2/neu-overexpressing (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.26-0.45) tumors following BCT. Luminal tumors were also less likely to develop LRR than HER2/neu-overexpressing (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.54-0.89) or triple-negative tumors (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.79) after mastectomy. HER2/neu-overexpressing tumors have increased risk of LRR compared to triple-negative tumors (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.95) following BCT but there was no difference in LRR between HER2/neu-overexpressing and triple-negative tumors following mastectomy (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.68-1.22). Luminal tumors exhibit the lowest rates of LRR. Patients with triple-negative and HER2/neu-overexpressing breast tumors are at increased risk of developing LRR following BCT or mastectomy. Breast cancer subtype should be taken into account when considering local control and identifies those at increased risk of LRR, who may benefit from more aggressive local treatment.

Abstract:Background: There has been conflicting evidence on the impact of bilateral breast

Breast cancer is a complex phenotypically diverse genetic disease, involving a variety of changes in gene expression and structure. Recent advances in molecular profiling technology have made great progress in unravelling the molecular taxonomy of breast cancer, which has shed new light on the aetiology of the disease and also heralded great potential for the development of novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets. Mi(cro)RNAs are a contemporary class of small noncoding endogenous RNA molecules, generating great excitement in the clinical and scientific communities. The recent discovery that miRNA expression is frequently dysregulated in cancer has uncovered an entirely new repertoire of molecular factors upstream of gene expression, which warrants extensive investigation to further elucidate their precise role in malignancy. We present a comprehensive and timely review of the role of miRNAs in cancer: addressing miRNA function, their putative role as oncogenes or tumor suppressors, with a particular emphasis on breast cancer throughout. We discuss the recent discovery of quantifiable circulating cancer-associated miRNAs, which heralds immense potential for their use as novel minimally invasive biomarkers for breast and other cancers. Finally, we comment on the potential role of miRNAs in breast cancer management, particularly in improving current prognostic tools and achieving the goal of individualized cancer treatment.

BackgroundWe aimed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients and non-cancer volunteers, and to assess the knowledge of and attitudes toward CAM use in oncology among health care professionals.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional questionnaire survey conducted in a single institution in Ireland. Survey was performed in outpatient and inpatient settings involving cancer patients and non-cancer volunteers. Clinicians and allied health care professionals were asked to complete a different questionnaire.ResultsIn 676 participants including 219 cancer patients; 301 non-cancer volunteers and 156 health care professionals, the overall prevalence of CAM use was 32.5% (29.1%, 30.9% and 39.7% respectively in the three study cohorts). Female gender (p < 0.001), younger age (p = 0.004), higher educational background (p < 0.001), higher annual household income (p = 0.001), private health insurance (p = 0.001) and non-Christian (p < 0.001) were factors associated with more likely CAM use. Multivariate analysis identified female gender (p < 0.001), non-Christian (p = 0.001) and private health insurance (p = 0.015) as independent predictors of CAM use. Most health care professionals thought they did not have adequate knowledge (58.8%) nor were up to date with the best evidence (79.2%) on CAM use in oncology. Health care professionals who used CAM were more likely to recommend it to patients (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates a similarly high prevalence of CAM use among oncology health care professionals, cancer and non cancer patients. Patients are more likely to disclose CAM usage if they are specifically asked. Health care professionals are interested to learn more about various CAM therapies and have poor evidence-based knowledge on specific oncology treatments. There is a need for further training to meet to the escalation of CAM use among patients and to raise awareness of potential benefits and risks associated with these therapies.