Tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte scores effectively stratify outcomes over and above p16 post chemo-radiotherapy in anal cancer

Background: The majority (90%) of anal cancers are human papillomavirus (HPV)-driven, identified using immunochemistry for p16. Compared with HPV? patients, those with HPV+ disease generally show improved survival, although relapse rates around 25% indicate a need for further stratification of this group.Methods: Using two cohorts of anal cancer, previously characterised for p16, we assessed the prognostic value of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).Results: Tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte scores were used to stratify p16+ cases, where tumours with absent/low levels of TIL had a relapse-free rate of 63%, as opposed to 92% with high levels of TIL (log rank P=0.006).Conclusions: Assessment of TIL adds to p16 status in the prognosis of anal cancer following chemo-radiotherapy and provides evidence of the clinical importance of the immune response

Circulating Antinuclear Antibodies in Patients with Pelvic Masses Are Associated with Malignancy and Decreased Survival

BACKGROUND: Circulating autoantibodies occur more frequently in cancer patients than in patients without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined sera from patients referred for pelvic mass symptoms to a tertiary university clinic. A total of 127 were diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer while 386 had a benign condition. A screen for IgG anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) by indirect immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells confirmed a highly significant overrepresentation of ANA in the cancer group where 40% had detectable (i.e., a titer ≥160) ANA compared with less than 12% in the benign group. The overrepresentation of ANA in the cancer group persisted (p<0.0001) after matching the age-profile of the benign group with the ovarian cancer group. Only 19 out of 127 patients in the age-matched benign subgroup were positive for ANA corresponding to an 85% specificity at 40% sensitivity of ANA as the only marker for malignancy. No correlation of ANA positivity in either group with specific bands in immunoblots could be demonstrated even though immunoblot positivity was clearly increased in the malignant group (41% vs. 3%). The presence, strength, and type of ANA did not correlate with serum CA-125 values or with staging, and ANA outcome did not contribute with independent diagnostic information. However, survival was significantly shorter in ANA-positive compared with ANA-negative cancer patients and patients with CA-125 below the median CA-125 value in the cancer group had a significantly decreased survival when positive for ANA. ANA status made no difference in the group with CA-125 values above the median. Also, there was a significant correlation between speckled ANA-strength and histological tumor grade. CONCLUSIONS: Circulating antibodies are a promising source for new biomarkers in cancer. Characterization of epitope specificities and measurements of consecutive samples will be important for further elucidating the role of ANA in evaluating ovarian cancer patients

An overview of Clinical Quality Registries (CQRs) on gynecological oncology worldwide

Introduction: Clinical Quality Registries (CQRs) were initiated in order to compare clinical outcomes between hospitals or regions within a country. To get an overview of these CQRs worldwide the aim of this study was to identify these CQRs for gynecological oncology and to summarize their characteristics, processes and QI's and to establish whether it is feasible to make an international comparison in the future. Methods: To identify CQRs in gynecological oncology a literature search in Pubmed was performed. All papers describing the use of a CQR were included. Administrative, epidemiological and cancer registries were excluded as these registries do not primarily serve to measure quality of care through QI's. The taskforce or contact person of the included CQR were asked to participate and share information on registered items, processes and indicators. Results: Five nations agreed to collaborate: Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden established a nationwide registry, collecting data on multiple tumor types, and various QI's. Australia and Italy included patients with ovarian cancer only. All nations had a different process to report feedback results to participating hospitals. Conclusion: CQRs serve the same purpose to improve quality of care but vary on different aspects. Although similarities are observed in the topics measured by the QI's, an international comparison was not feasible as numerators or denominators differ between registries. In order to compare on an international level it would be useful to harmonize these registries and to set an international standard to measure the quality of care with similar indicators

Association between Common Germline Genetic Variation in 84 Candidate Genes/Regions and Risks of Ovarian Cancer.

Background: Recent studies have identified several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the population that are associated with variations in the risks of many different diseases including cancers such as breast, prostate and colorectal. For ovarian cancer, the known highly penetrant susceptibility genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) are probably responsible for only 40% of the excess familial ovarian cancer risks, suggesting that other susceptibility genes of lower penetrance exist. Methods: We have taken a candidate approach to identifying moderate risk susceptibility alleles for ovarian cancer. To date, we have genotyped 340 SNPs from 94 candidate genes or regions, in up to 1,491 invasive epithelial ovarian cancer cases and 3,145 unaffected controls from three different population based studies from the UK, Denmark and USA. Results: After adjusting for population stratification by genomic control, 18 SNPs (5.3%) were significant at the 5% level, and 5 SNPs (1.5%) were significant at the 1% level. The most significant association was for the SNP rs2107425, located on chromosome 11p15.5, which has previously been identified as a susceptibility allele for breast cancer from a genome wide association study (P-trend = 0.0012). When SNPs/genes were stratified into 7 different pathways or groups of validation SNPs, the breast cancer associated SNPs were the only group of SNPs that were significantly associated with ovarian cancer risk (P-heterogeneity = 0.0003; P-trend = 0.0028; adjusted (for population stratification) P-trend = 0.006). We did not find statistically significant associations when the combined data for all SNPs were analysed using an admixture maximum likelihood (AML) experiment-wise test for association (P-heterogeneity = 0.051; P-trend = 0.068). Conclusion: These data suggest that a proportion of the SNPs we evaluated were associated with ovarian cancer risk, but that the effect sizes were too small to detect associations with individual SNPs

Contribution of Germline Mutations in the RAD51B, RAD51C, and RAD51D Genes to Ovarian Cancer in the Population

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate the contribution of deleterious mutations in the RAD51B, RAD51C, and RAD51D genes to invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in the population and in a screening trial of individuals at high risk of ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The coding sequence and splice site boundaries of the three RAD51 genes were sequenced and analyzed in germline DNA from a case-control study of 3,429 patients with invasive EOC and 2,772 controls as well as in 2,000 unaffected women who were BRCA1/BRCA2 negative from the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study (UK_FOCSS) after quality-control analysis. RESULTS: In the case-control study, we identified predicted deleterious mutations in 28 EOC cases (0.82%) compared with three controls (0.11%; P < .001). Mutations in EOC cases were more frequent in RAD51C (14 occurrences, 0.41%) and RAD51D (12 occurrences, 0.35%) than in RAD51B (two occurrences, 0.06%). RAD51C mutations were associated with an odds ratio of 5.2 (95% CI, 1.1 to 24; P = .035), and RAD51D mutations conferred an odds ratio of 12 (95% CI, 1.5 to 90; P = .019). We identified 13 RAD51 mutations (0.65%) in unaffected UK_FOCSS participants (RAD51C, n = 7; RAD51D, n = 5; and RAD51B, n = 1), which was a significantly greater rate than in controls (P < .001); furthermore, RAD51 mutation carriers were more likely than noncarriers to have a family history of ovarian cancer (P < .001). CONCLUSION: These results confirm that RAD51C and RAD51D are moderate ovarian cancer susceptibility genes and suggest that they confer levels of risk of EOC that may warrant their use alongside BRCA1 and BRCA2 in routine clinical genetic testing

Tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms in candidate oncogenes and susceptibility to ovarian cancer

Low–moderate risk alleles that are relatively common in the population may explain a significant proportion of the excess familial risk of ovarian cancer (OC) not attributed to highly penetrant genes. In this study, we evaluated the risks of OC associated with common germline variants in five oncogenes (BRAF, ERBB2, KRAS, NMI and PIK3CA) known to be involved in OC development. Thirty-four tagging SNPs in these genes were genotyped in ∼1800 invasive OC cases and 3000 controls from population-based studies in Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States. We found no evidence of disease association for SNPs in BRAF, KRAS, ERBB2 and PIK3CA when OC was considered as a single disease phenotype; but after stratification by histological subtype, we found borderline evidence of association for SNPs in KRAS and BRAF with mucinous OC and in ERBB2 and PIK3CA with endometrioid OC. For NMI, we identified a SNP (rs11683487) that was associated with a decreased risk of OC (unadjusted Pdominant=0.004). We then genotyped rs11683487 in another 1097 cases and 1792 controls from an additional three case–control studies from the United States. The combined odds ratio was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80–0.99) and remained statistically significant (Pdominant=0.032). We also identified two haplotypes in ERBB2 associated with an increased OC risk (Pglobal=0.034) and a haplotype in BRAF that had a protective effect (Pglobal=0.005). In conclusion, these data provide borderline evidence of association for common allelic variation in the NMI with risk of epithelial OC

A Highly Sensitive Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assay for Determination of Mutant JAK2 Exon 12 Allele Burden

Mutations in the Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) gene have become an important identifier for the Philadelphia-chromosome negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms. In contrast to the JAK2V617F mutation, the large number of JAK2 exon 12 mutations has challenged the development of quantitative assays. We present a highly sensitive real-time quantitative PCR assay for determination of the mutant allele burden of JAK2 exon 12 mutations. In combination with high resolution melting analysis and sequencing the assay identified six patients carrying previously described JAK2 exon 12 mutations and one novel mutation. Two patients were homozygous with a high mutant allele burden, whereas one of the heterozygous patients had a very low mutant allele burden. The allele burden in the peripheral blood resembled that of the bone marrow, except for the patient with low allele burden. Myeloid and lymphoid cell populations were isolated by cell sorting and quantitative PCR revealed similar mutant allele burdens in CD16+ granulocytes and peripheral blood. The mutations were also detected in B-lymphocytes in half of the patients at a low allele burden. In conclusion, our highly sensitive assay provides an important tool for quantitative monitoring of the mutant allele burden and accordingly also for determining the impact of treatment with interferon-α-2, shown to induce molecular remission in JAK2V617F-positive patients, which may be a future treatment option for JAK2 exon 12-positive patients as well

Population-based targeted sequencing of 54 candidate genes identifies PALB2 as a susceptibility gene for high-grade serous ovarian cancer

PURPOSE: The known epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) susceptibility genes account for less than 50% of the heritable risk of ovarian cancer suggesting that other susceptibility genes exist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contribution to ovarian cancer susceptibility of rare deleterious germline variants in a set of candidate genes. METHODS: We sequenced the coding region of 54 candidate genes in 6385 invasive EOC cases and 6115 controls of broad European ancestry. Genes with an increased frequency of putative deleterious variants in cases versus controls were further examined in an independent set of 14 135 EOC cases and 28 655 controls from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank. For each gene, we estimated the EOC risks and evaluated associations between germline variant status and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The ORs associated for high-grade serous ovarian cancer were 3.01 for PALB2 (95% CI 1.59 to 5.68; p=0.00068), 1.99 for POLK (95% CI 1.15 to 3.43; p=0.014) and 4.07 for SLX4 (95% CI 1.34 to 12.4; p=0.013). Deleterious mutations in FBXO10 were associated with a reduced risk of disease (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.00, p=0.049). However, based on the Bayes false discovery probability, only the association for PALB2 in high-grade serous ovarian cancer is likely to represent a true positive. CONCLUSIONS: We have found strong evidence that carriers of PALB2 deleterious mutations are at increased risk of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Whether the magnitude of risk is sufficiently high to warrant the inclusion of PALB2 in cancer gene panels for ovarian cancer risk testing is unclear; much larger sample sizes will be needed to provide sufficiently precise estimates for clinical counselling

Assessing the genetic architecture of epithelial ovarian cancer histological subtypes.

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is one of the deadliest common cancers. The five most common types of disease are high-grade and low-grade serous, endometrioid, mucinous and clear cell carcinoma. Each of these subtypes present distinct molecular pathogeneses and sensitivities to treatments. Recent studies show that certain genetic variants confer susceptibility to all subtypes while other variants are subtype-specific. Here, we perform an extensive analysis of the genetic architecture of EOC subtypes. To this end, we used data of 10,014 invasive EOC patients and 21,233 controls from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium genotyped in the iCOGS array (211,155 SNPs). We estimate the array heritability (attributable to variants tagged on arrays) of each subtype and their genetic correlations. We also look for genetic overlaps with factors such as obesity, smoking behaviors, diabetes, age at menarche and height. We estimated the array heritabilities of high-grade serous disease ([Formula: see text] = 8.8 ± 1.1 %), endometrioid ([Formula: see text] = 3.2 ± 1.6 %), clear cell ([Formula: see text] = 6.7 ± 3.3 %) and all EOC ([Formula: see text] = 5.6 ± 0.6 %). Known associated loci contributed approximately 40 % of the total array heritability for each subtype. The contribution of each chromosome to the total heritability was not proportional to chromosome size. Through bivariate and cross-trait LD score regression, we found evidence of shared genetic backgrounds between the three high-grade subtypes: serous, endometrioid and undifferentiated. Finally, we found significant genetic correlations of all EOC with diabetes and obesity using a polygenic prediction approach.The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium is supported by a grant from the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund thanks to donations by the family and friends of Kathryn Sladek Smith (PPD/RPCI.07). The Nurses’ Health Studies would like to thank the participants and staff of the Nurses' Health Study and Nurses' Health Study II for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. Funding of the constituent studies was provided by the California Cancer Research Program (00-01389V-20170, N01-CN25403, 2II0200); the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-86727); Cancer Australia; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Council Queensland; Cancer Council New South Wales; Cancer Council South Australia; Cancer Council Tasmania; Cancer Foundation of Western Australia; the Cancer Institute of New Jersey; Cancer Research UK (C490/A6187, C490/A10119, C490/A10124); the Danish Cancer Society (94-222-52); the ELAN Program of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg; the Eve Appeal; the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund; Helse Vest; the Norwegian Cancer Society; the Norwegian Research Council; the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund; Nationaal Kankerplan of Belgium; the L & S Milken Foundation; the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (4 PO5C 028 14, 2 PO5A 068 27); the Roswell Park Cancer Institute Alliance Foundation; the US National Cancer Institute (K07-CA095666, K07-CA80668, K07-CA143047, K22-CA138563, N01-CN55424, N01-PC67001, N01-PC067010, N01-PC035137, P01-CA017054, P01-CA087696, P30-CA072720, P30-CA15083, P30-CA008748, P50-CA159981, P50-CA105009, P50-CA136393, R01-CA149429, R01-CA014089, R01-CA016056, R01-CA017054, R01-CA049449, R01-CA050385, R01-CA054419, R01-CA058598, R01-CA058860, R01-CA061107, R01-CA061132, R01-CA063678, R01-CA063682, R01-CA067262, R01-CA071766, R01-CA074850, R01-CA080978, R01-CA083918, R01-CA087538, R01-CA092044, R01-CA095023, R01-CA122443, R01-CA112523, R01-CA114343, R01-CA126841, R01-CA136924, R03-CA113148, R03-CA115195, U01-CA069417, U01-CA071966, UM1-CA186107, UM1-CA176726 and Intramural research funds); the NIH/National Center for Research Resources/General Clinical Research Center (MO1-RR000056); the US Army Medical Research and Material Command (DAMD17-01-1-0729, DAMD17-02-1-0666, DAMD17-02-1-0669, W81XWH-07-0449, W81XWH-10-1-02802); the US Public Health Service (PSA-042205); the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (199600 and 400281); the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany Programme of Clinical Biomedical Research (01GB 9401); the State of Baden-Wurttemberg through Medical Faculty of the University of Ulm (P.685); the German Cancer Research Center; the Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; the Mayo Foundation; the Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; the Lon V. Smith Foundation (LVS-39420); the Oak Foundation; Eve Appeal; the OHSU Foundation; the Mermaid I project; the Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge, Imperial College London, University College Hospital ‘Womens Health Theme’ and the Royal Marsden Hospital; and WorkSafeBC 14. Investigator-specific funding: G.C.P receives scholarship support from the University of Queensland and QIMR Berghofer. Y.L. was supported by the NHMRC Early Career Fellowship. G.C.T. is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council. S.M. was supported by an ARC Future Fellowship