Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective trial assesses CAB for recurrence risk in multifocal breast cancer, indicating a refined treatment approach.
Context.—: Unlike unifocal early breast cancer, there is a lack of guidelines on prognostic testing in multifocal/multicentric breast cancer (MF/MC BC), which is pivotal in current clinical practice for adjuvant treatment planning. CanAssist Breast (CAB) is a proteomic, artificial intelligence-based prognostic test for evaluating the risk of distant recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer. Objective.—: To study CAB-based recurrence risk stratification of multiple tumor foci in MF/MC BC and evaluate its usefulness in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations. Design.—: Retrospective data from 6126 patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer who underwent CAB testing between January 2022 and May 2025 were reviewed. Of these, 107 patients with MF/MC BC, on whom the CAB test was performed on more than 1 tumor focus, were further studied, and concordance/discordance in CAB risk categories among multiple foci was evaluated. Results.—: In the MF/MC BC, CAB risk assessment of multiple foci revealed discordance in 18 of 107 patients (17%), demonstrating notable intertumoral heterogeneity. Analysis of a stepwise protocol shows that, among 75 patients, 8 (11%) had a clinically high-risk tumor with CAB-low risk, while the clinically low-risk tumor resulted in CAB-high risk, underscoring the complexity of prognostication in MF/MC BC. Conclusions.—: We recommend a tiered approach of CAB testing in patients with MF/MC BC, whereby, if the first tumor shows CAB-low risk, testing of additional tumor foci is recommended. This approach improves risk stratification and enables tailored adjuvant treatment planning, while minimizing the risk of undertreatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Savitha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: