Prior bevacizumab and efficacy of later anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a large international registry

The sequencing of biologic agents used in metastatic colorectal cancer can affect the outcomes. We analyzed a multicenter registry to address a question that could not be answered using current clinical trial data. We found that whether or not patients had received previous bevacizumab, the effect of epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies in later lines of therapy was maintained. Background: The FIRE-3 [5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in first line treatment colorectal cancer (CRC)] study reported that first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab resulted in similar progression-free survival (PFS) but improved overall survival (OS). A potential explanation is that the initial biologic agent administered in metastatic CRC (mCRC) affects later line efficacy of the other treatments. We sought to test this hypothesis. Materials and Methods: We interrogated our mCRC registry (Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer) regarding treatment and outcome data for RAS wild-type patients receiving epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs) in second and subsequent lines. Survival outcomes from the beginning of EGFRI use were determined as a function of previous bevacizumab use and the interval between ceasing bevacizumab and beginning EGFRI use. Results: Of 2061 patients, 222 eligible patients were identified, of whom 170 (77%) had received previous bevacizumab and 52 (23%) had not. PFS and OS from the start of EGFRIs did not differ by previous bevacizumab use (3.8 vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; P =.81; 9.0 vs. 9.2 months; HR, 1.19; P =.48, respectively) for the whole cohort or when analyzed by the primary tumor side (HR for left side, 1.07; P =.57; HR for right side, 1.2; P =.52). PFS was significantly shorter with right-sided primary tumors when the interval between bevacizumab and EGFRI use was 6 months (median, 2.2 vs. 6 months; HR, 2.23; P =.01) but not with left-sided tumors (median, 4.2 vs. 5.5 months; HR, 1.12; P =.26). Conclusion: Previous bevacizumab use had no effect on the activity of subsequent EGFRIs. The apparent effect of time between biologic agents in right-sided tumors might reflect patient selection

Homologous recombination DNA repair defects in PALB2- associated breast cancers

Abstract: Mono-allelic germline pathogenic variants in the Partner And Localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) gene predispose to a high-risk of breast cancer development, consistent with the role of PALB2 in homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair. Here, we sought to define the repertoire of somatic genetic alterations in PALB2-associated breast cancers (BCs), and whether PALB2-associated BCs display bi-allelic inactivation of PALB2 and/or genomic features of HR-deficiency (HRD). Twenty-four breast cancer patients with pathogenic PALB2 germline mutations were analyzed by whole-exome sequencing (WES, n = 16) or targeted capture massively parallel sequencing (410 cancer genes, n = 8). Somatic genetic alterations, loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the PALB2 wild-type allele, large-scale state transitions (LSTs) and mutational signatures were defined. PALB2-associated BCs were found to be heterogeneous at the genetic level, with PIK3CA (29%), PALB2 (21%), TP53 (21%), and NOTCH3 (17%) being the genes most frequently affected by somatic mutations. Bi-allelic PALB2 inactivation was found in 16 of the 24 cases (67%), either through LOH (n = 11) or second somatic mutations (n = 5) of the wild-type allele. High LST scores were found in all 12 PALB2-associated BCs with bi-allelic PALB2 inactivation sequenced by WES, of which eight displayed the HRD-related mutational signature 3. In addition, bi-allelic inactivation of PALB2 was significantly associated with high LST scores. Our findings suggest that the identification of bi-allelic PALB2 inactivation in PALB2-associated BCs is required for the personalization of HR-directed therapies, such as platinum salts and/or PARP inhibitors, as the vast majority of PALB2-associated BCs without PALB2 bi-allelic inactivation lack genomic features of HRD

A real-world registry to evaluate HER2-directed therapy in Australian patients with metastatic breast cancer

Abstract No.: e1251

Homologous recombination DNA repair defects in PALB2-associated breast cancers

Abstract Mono-allelic germline pathogenic variants in the Partner And Localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) gene predispose to a high-risk of breast cancer development, consistent with the role of PALB2 in homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair. Here, we sought to define the repertoire of somatic genetic alterations in PALB2-associated breast cancers (BCs), and whether PALB2-associated BCs display bi-allelic inactivation of PALB2 and/or genomic features of HR-deficiency (HRD). Twenty-four breast cancer patients with pathogenic PALB2 germline mutations were analyzed by whole-exome sequencing (WES, n = 16) or targeted capture massively parallel sequencing (410 cancer genes, n = 8). Somatic genetic alterations, loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the PALB2 wild-type allele, large-scale state transitions (LSTs) and mutational signatures were defined. PALB2-associated BCs were found to be heterogeneous at the genetic level, with PIK3CA (29%), PALB2 (21%), TP53 (21%), and NOTCH3 (17%) being the genes most frequently affected by somatic mutations. Bi-allelic PALB2 inactivation was found in 16 of the 24 cases (67%), either through LOH (n = 11) or second somatic mutations (n = 5) of the wild-type allele. High LST scores were found in all 12 PALB2-associated BCs with bi-allelic PALB2 inactivation sequenced by WES, of which eight displayed the HRD-related mutational signature 3. In addition, bi-allelic inactivation of PALB2 was significantly associated with high LST scores. Our findings suggest that the identification of bi-allelic PALB2 inactivation in PALB2-associated BCs is required for the personalization of HR-directed therapies, such as platinum salts and/or PARP inhibitors, as the vast majority of PALB2-associated BCs without PALB2 bi-allelic inactivation lack genomic features of HRD

Publisher Correction: Homologous recombination DNA repair defects in PALB2 -associated breast cancers

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper

Publisher correction: Homologous recombination DNA repair defects in PALB2-associated breast cancers

Original article published in "npj Breast Cancer, (2019), 5, 1, (23), 10.1038/s41523-019-0115-9"In the original version of this paper, the link to the data record in the Data Availability Statement was incorrectly listed as https:// doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8138912.44. The link has been corrected to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8138912. This has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of this article.</p

Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes

Abstract Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57–1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628–0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field