Rapid progression of prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation.

Men with BRCA2 mutations have been found to be at increased risk of developing prostate cancer. There is a recent report that BRCA2 carriers with prostate cancer have poorer survival than noncarrier prostate cancer patients. In this study, we compared survival of men with a BRCA2 mutation and prostate cancer with that of men with a BRCA1 mutation and prostate cancer. We obtained the age at diagnosis, age at death or current age from 182 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA2 mutation and from 119 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA1 mutation. The median survival from diagnosis was 4.0 years for men with a BRCA2 mutation vs 8.0 years for men with a BRCA1 mutation, and the difference was highly significant (P<0.01). It may be important to develop targeted chemotherapies to treat prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation

Homologous recombination deficiency and host anti-tumor immunity in triple-negative breast cancer

Purpose: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with worse outcomes relative to other breast cancer subtypes. Chemotherapy remains the standard-of-care systemic therapy for patients with localized or metastatic disease, with few biomarkers to guide benefit. Methods: We will discuss recent advances in our understanding of two key biological processes in TNBC, homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair deficiency and host anti-tumor immunity, and their intersection. Results: Recent advances in our understanding of homologous recombination (HR) deficiency, including FDA approval of PARP inhibitor olaparib for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, and host anti-tumor immunity in TNBC offer potential for new and biomarker-driven approaches to treat TNBC. Assays interrogating HR DNA repair capacity may guide treatment with agents inducing or targeting DNA damage repair. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are associated with improved prognosis in TNBC and recent efforts to characterize infiltrating immune cell subsets and activate host anti-tumor immunity offer promise, yet challenges remain particularly in tumors lacking pre-existing immune infiltrates. Advances in these fields provide potential biomarkers to stratify patients with TNBC and guide therapy: induction of DNA damage in HR-deficient tumors and activation of existing or recruitment of host anti-tumor immune cells. Importantly, these advances provide an opportunity to guide use of existing therapies and development of novel therapies for TNBC. Efforts to combine therapies that exploit HR deficiency to enhance the activity of immune-directed therapies offer promise. Conclusions: HR deficiency remains an important biomarker target and potentially effective adjunct to enhance immunogenicity of ‘immune cold’ TNBCs

Incorporating medical interventions into carrier probability estimation for genetic counseling

BACKGROUND: Mendelian models for predicting who may carry an inherited deleterious mutation of known disease genes based on family history are used in a variety of clinical and research activities. People presenting for genetic counseling are increasingly reporting risk-reducing medical interventions in their family histories because, recently, a slew of prophylactic interventions have become available for certain diseases. For example, oophorectomy reduces risk of breast and ovarian cancers, and is now increasingly being offered to women with family histories of breast and ovarian cancer. Mendelian models should account for medical interventions because interventions modify mutation penetrances and thus affect the carrier probability estimate. METHODS: We extend Mendelian models to account for medical interventions by accounting for post-intervention disease history through an extra factor that can be estimated from published studies of the effects of interventions. We apply our methods to incorporate oophorectomy into the BRCAPRO model, which predicts a woman's risk of carrying mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 based on her family history of breast and ovarian cancer. This new BRCAPRO is available for clinical use. RESULTS: We show that accounting for interventions undergone by family members can seriously affect the mutation carrier probability estimate, especially if the family member has lived many years post-intervention. We show that interventions have more impact on the carrier probability as the benefits of intervention differ more between carriers and non-carriers. CONCLUSION: These findings imply that carrier probability estimates that do not account for medical interventions may be seriously misleading and could affect a clinician's recommendation about offering genetic testing. The BayesMendel software, which allows one to implement any Mendelian carrier probability model, has been extended to allow medical interventions, so future Mendelian models can easily account for interventions

Evaluation of a candidate breast cancer associated SNP in ERCC4 as a risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA)

Background: In this study we aimed to evaluate the role of a SNP in intron 1 of the ERCC4 gene (rs744154), previously reported to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in the general population, as a breast cancer risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods: We have genotyped rs744154 in 9408 BRCA1 and 5632 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and assessed its association with breast cancer risk using a retrospective weighted cohort approach. Results: We found no evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (per-allele HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93–1.04, P=0.5) or BRCA2 (per-allele HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89–1.06, P=0.5) mutation carriers. Conclusion: This SNP is not a significant modifier of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, though weak associations cannot be ruled out. A Osorio1, R L Milne2, G Pita3, P Peterlongo4,5, T Heikkinen6, J Simard7, G Chenevix-Trench8, A B Spurdle8, J Beesley8, X Chen8, S Healey8, KConFab9, S L Neuhausen10, Y C Ding10, F J Couch11,12, X Wang11, N Lindor13, S Manoukian4, M Barile14, A Viel15, L Tizzoni5,16, C I Szabo17, L Foretova18, M Zikan19, K Claes20, M H Greene21, P Mai21, G Rennert22, F Lejbkowicz22, O Barnett-Griness22, I L Andrulis23,24, H Ozcelik24, N Weerasooriya23, OCGN23, A-M Gerdes25, M Thomassen25, D G Cruger26, M A Caligo27, E Friedman28,29, B Kaufman28,29, Y Laitman28, S Cohen28, T Kontorovich28, R Gershoni-Baruch30, E Dagan31,32, H Jernström33, M S Askmalm34, B Arver35, B Malmer36, SWE-BRCA37, S M Domchek38, K L Nathanson38, J Brunet39, T Ramón y Cajal40, D Yannoukakos41, U Hamann42, HEBON37, F B L Hogervorst43, S Verhoef43, EB Gómez García44,45, J T Wijnen46,47, A van den Ouweland48, EMBRACE37, D F Easton49, S Peock49, M Cook49, C T Oliver49, D Frost49, C Luccarini50, D G Evans51, F Lalloo51, R Eeles52, G Pichert53, J Cook54, S Hodgson55, P J Morrison56, F Douglas57, A K Godwin58, GEMO59,60,61, O M Sinilnikova59,60, L Barjhoux59,60, D Stoppa-Lyonnet61, V Moncoutier61, S Giraud59, C Cassini62,63, L Olivier-Faivre62,63, F Révillion64, J-P Peyrat64, D Muller65, J-P Fricker65, H T Lynch66, E M John67, S Buys68, M Daly69, J L Hopper70, M B Terry71, A Miron72, Y Yassin72, D Goldgar73, Breast Cancer Family Registry37, C F Singer74, D Gschwantler-Kaulich74, G Pfeiler74, A-C Spiess74, Thomas v O Hansen75, O T Johannsson76, T Kirchhoff77, K Offit77, K Kosarin77, M Piedmonte78, G C Rodriguez79, K Wakeley80, J F Boggess81, J Basil82, P E Schwartz83, S V Blank84, A E Toland85, M Montagna86, C Casella87, E N Imyanitov88, A Allavena89, R K Schmutzler90, B Versmold90, C Engel91, A Meindl92, N Ditsch93, N Arnold94, D Niederacher95, H Deißler96, B Fiebig97, R Varon-Mateeva98, D Schaefer99, U G Froster100, T Caldes101, M de la Hoya101, L McGuffog49, A C Antoniou49, H Nevanlinna6, P Radice4,5 and J Benítez1,3 on behalf of CIMB

Associations of common breast cancer susceptibility alleles with risk of breast cancer subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Olaparib plus Durvalumab, with or without Bevacizumab, as Treatment in PARP Inhibitor-Na\uefve Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer: A Phase II Multi-Cohort Study

\ua92023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research. PURPOSE: Early results from the phase II MEDIOLA study (NCT02734004) in germline BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) showed promising efficacy and safety with olaparib plus durvalumab. We report efficacy and safety of olaparib plus durvalumab in an expansion cohort of women with gBRCAm PSROC (gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort) and two cohorts with non-gBRCAm PSROC, one of which also received bevacizumab (non-gBRCAm doublet and triplet cohorts). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter study, PARP inhibitor-na\uefve patients received olaparib plus durvalumab treatment until disease progression; the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort also received bevacizumab. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR; gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort), disease control rate (DCR) at 24 weeks (non-gBRCAm cohorts), and safety (all cohorts). RESULTS: The full analysis and safety analysis sets comprised 51, 32, and 31 patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively. ORR was 92.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.1-97.8] in the gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort (primary endpoint); DCR at 24 weeks was 28.1% (90% CI, 15.5-43.9) in the non-gBRCAm doublet cohort (primary endpoint) and 74.2% (90% CI, 58.2-86.5) in the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort (primary endpoint). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 47.1%, 65.6%, and 61.3% of patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively, most commonly anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus durvalumab continued to show notable clinical activity in women with gBRCAm PSROC. Olaparib plus durvalumab with bevacizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in women with non-gBRCAm PSROC. No new safety signals were identified

The FANCM:p.Arg658* truncating variant is associated with risk of triple-negative breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM, which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM:p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2. These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM -/- patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM:p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM:p.Arg658* and found that also FANCM:p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM:p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM-associated tumors

Secondary breast lymphoma diagnosed by vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Breast lymphoma, either as a manifestation of primary extranodal disease or as secondary involvement, is a rare malignancy, and its diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment have not been clearly defined. On the other hand, Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) is a minimally invasive technique with ever-growing use for the diagnosis of mammographically detected, non-palpable breast lesions.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A symptom-free, 56-year-old woman presented with a non-palpable BI-RADS 4B lesion without microcalcifications. She had a positive family history for breast cancer and a history of atypical ductal hyperplasia in the ipsilateral breast four years ago. She reported having been treated for non-Hodgkin lymphoma 12 years ago. With the suspicion of breast cancer, mammographically guided VABB with 11-gauge probe (on the stereotactic Fisher's table) was performed. VABB made the diagnosis of a non-Hodgkin, grade II, B-cell germinal-center lymphoma. VABB yielded enough tissue for immunohistochemistry/WHO classification.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This is the first case in the literature demonstrating the successful diagnosis of breast lymphoma by VABB, irrespectively of the level of clinical suspicion. It should be stressed that VABB was able to yield enough tissue for WHO classification. In general, lymphoma should never be omitted in the differential diagnosis, since no pathognomonic radiologic findings exist for its diagnosis.</p

Optimal selection for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing using a combination of ' easy to apply ' probability models

To establish an efficient, reliable and easy to apply risk assessment tool to select families with breast and/or ovarian cancer patients for BRCA mutation testing, using available probability models. In a retrospective study of 263 families with breast and/or ovarian cancer patients, the utility of the Frank (Myriad), Gilpin (family history assessment tool) and Evans (Manchester) model was analysed, to select 49 BRCA mutation-positive families. For various cutoff levels and combinations, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared. The best combinations were subsequently validated in additional sets of families. Comparable sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the Gilpin and Evans models. They appeared to be complementary to the Frank model. To obtain an optimal sensitivity, five ‘additional criteria' were introduced that are specific for the selection of small or uninformative families. The optimal selection is made by the combination ‘Frank ⩾16% or Evans2 ⩾12 or one of five additional criteria'. The efficiency of the selection of families for mutation testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 can be optimised by using a combination of available easy to apply risk assessment models