A phase II prospective open-label escalating dose trial of recombinant interleukin-11 in mild von Willebrand disease

von Willebrand factor (VWF) is a multimeric glycoprotein that mediates platelet adhesion and is decreased in von Willebrand disease (VWD). 1-8 deamino-d-arginine vasopressin (DDAVP), the most common treatment for VWD, is limited by tachyphylaxis and inconvenience, and in 20% of the patients, unresponsiveness. Recombinant human interleukin-11 (rhIL-11), a gp-130 signalling cytokine with haematopoietic and anti-inflammatory activity, increases VWF antigen and its activity in heterozygous VWF+/− mice and dogs. To determine the biological efficacy and safety of rhIL-11 in non-bleeding human subjects with mild VWD, we conducted a phase II prospective open-label trial of rhIL-11 at 10, 25 and 50 μg kg−1 subcutaneously (s.c.), given daily for 7 days in nine subjects with mild VWD. VWF and factor VIII (FVIII) levels increased gradually and progressively after s.c. rhIL-11, which was sustained through 7 days of dosing to 1.5- to 3-fold over baseline. Following intravenous DDAVP, 0.3 μg kg−1, on day 7 there was a further boost in VWF and FVIII levels, suggesting that the mechanism of rhIL-11 differs from that of DDAVP. Platelet VWF mRNA expression measured by quantitative PCR increased from two- to eightfold over baseline, suggesting that the mechanism of rhIL-11 effect may be upregulation of VWF mRNA. VWF and FVIII levels returned to baseline by day 14. rhIL-11 was well tolerated with less than grade-1 hypertension, hypokalaemia and fluid retention. Recombinant IL-11 increases VWF levels in humans with mild VWD, justifying future clinical trials to determine its potential in preventing or reducing bleeding in this patient population

International survey on invasive lobular breast cancer identifies priority research questions

There is growing awareness of the unique etiology, biology, and clinical presentation of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), but additional research is needed to ensure translation of findings into management and treatment guidelines. We conducted a survey with input from breast cancer physicians, laboratory-based researchers, and patients to analyze the current understanding of ILC, and identify consensus research questions. 1774 participants from 66 countries respondents self-identified as clinicians (N = 413), researchers (N = 376), and breast cancer patients and advocates (N = 1120), with some belonging to more than one category. The majority of physicians reported being very/extremely (41%) to moderately (42%) confident in describing the differences between ILC and invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST). Knowledge of histology was seen as important (73%) and as affecting treatment decisions (51%), and most agreed that refining treatment guidelines would be valuable (76%). 85% of clinicians have never powered a clinical trial to allow subset analysis for histological subtypes, but the majority would consider it, and would participate in an ILC clinical trials consortium. The majority of laboratory researchers, reported being and very/extremely (48%) to moderately (29%) confident in describing differences between ILC and NST. They reported that ILCs are inadequately presented in large genomic data sets, and that ILC models are insufficient. The majority have adequate access to tissue or blood from patients with ILC. The majority of patients and advocates (52%) thought that their health care providers did not sufficiently explain the unique features of ILC. They identified improvement of ILC screening/early detection, and identification of better imaging tools as top research priorities. In contrast, both researchers and clinicians identified understanding of endocrine resistance and identifying novel drugs that can be tested in clinical trials as top research priority. In summary, we have gathered information from an international community of physicians, researchers, and patients/advocates that we expect will lay the foundation for a community-informed collaborative research agenda, with the goal of improving management and personalizing treatment for patients with ILC

Multigene prognostic tests in breast cancer: past, present, future

There is growing consensus that multigene prognostic tests provide useful complementary information to tumor size and grade in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers. The tests primarily rely on quantification of ER and proliferation-related genes and combine these into multivariate prediction models. Since ER-negative cancers tend to have higher proliferation rates, the prognostic value of current multigene tests in these cancers is limited. First-generation prognostic signatures (Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Genomic Grade Index) are substantially more accurate to predict recurrence within the first 5 years than in later years. This has become a limitation with the availability of effective extended adjuvant endocrine therapies. Newer tests (Prosigna, EndoPredict, Breast Cancer Index) appear to possess better prognostic value for late recurrences while also remaining predictive of early relapse. Some clinical prediction problems are more difficult to solve than others: there are no clinically useful prognostic signatures for ER-negative cancers, and drug-specific treatment response predictors also remain elusive. Emerging areas of research involve the development of immune gene signatures that carry modest but significant prognostic value independent of proliferation and ER status and represent candidate predictive markers for immune-targeted therapies. Overall metrics of tumor heterogeneity and genome integrity (for example, homologue recombination deficiency score) are emerging as potential new predictive markers for platinum agents. The recent expansion of high-throughput technology platforms including low-cost sequencing of circulating and tumor-derived DNA and RNA and rapid reliable quantification of microRNA offers new opportunities to build extended prediction models across multiplatform data

Prognostic utility of the breast cancer index and comparison to Adjuvant! Online in a clinical case series of early breast cancer

Introduction\ud Breast Cancer Index (BCI) combines two independent biomarkers, HOXB13:IL17BR (H:I) and the 5-gene molecular grade index (MGI), that assess estrogen-mediated signalling and tumor grade, respectively. BCI stratifies early-stage estrogen-receptor positive (ER+), lymph-node negative (LN-) breast cancer patients into three risk groups and provides a continuous assessment of individual risk of distant recurrence. Objectives of the current study were to validate BCI in a clinical case series and to compare the prognostic utility of BCI and Adjuvant!Online (AO).\ud \ud Methods\ud Tumor samples from 265 ER+LN- tamoxifen-treated patients were identified from a single academic institution's cancer research registry. The BCI assay was performed and scores were assigned based on a pre-determined risk model. Risk was assessed by BCI and AO and correlated to clinical outcomes in the patient cohort.\ud \ud Results\ud BCI was a significant predictor of outcome in a cohort of 265 ER+LN- patients (median age: 56-y; median follow-up: 10.3-y), treated with adjuvant tamoxifen alone or tamoxifen with chemotherapy (32%). BCI categorized 55%, 21%, and 24% of patients as low, intermediate and high-risk, respectively. The 10-year rates of distant recurrence were 6.6%, 12.1% and 31.9% and of breast cancer-specific mortality were 3.8%, 3.6% and 22.1% in low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively. In a multivariate analysis including clinicopathological factors, BCI was a significant predictor of distant recurrence (HR for 5-unit increase = 5.32 [CI 2.18-13.01; P = 0.0002]) and breast cancer-specific mortality (HR for a 5-unit increase = 9.60 [CI 3.20-28.80; P < 0.0001]). AO was significantly associated with risk of recurrence. In a separate multivariate analysis, both BCI and AO were significantly predictive of outcome. In a time-dependent (10-y) ROC curve accuracy analysis of recurrence risk, the addition of BCI+AO increased predictive accuracy in all patients from 66% (AO only) to 76% (AO+BCI) and in tamoxifen-only treated patients from 65% to 81%.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud This study validates the prognostic performance of BCI in ER+LN- patients. In this characteristically low-risk cohort, BCI classified high versus low-risk groups with ~5-fold difference in 10-year risk of distant recurrence and breast cancer-specific death. BCI and AO are independent predictors with BCI having additive utility beyond standard of care parameters that are encompassed in AO

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic sequence variants in women of African origin or ancestry.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) pathogenic sequence variants (PSVs) confer elevated risks of multiple cancers. However, most BRCA1/2 PSVs reports focus on European ancestry individuals. Knowledge of the PSV distribution in African descent individuals is poorly understood. We undertook a systematic review of the published literature and publicly available databases reporting BRCA1/2 PSVs also accessed the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) database to identify African or African descent individuals. Using these data, we inferred which of the BRCA PSVs were likely to be of African continental origin. Of the 43,817 BRCA1/2 PSV carriers in the CIMBA database, 469 (1%) were of African descent. Additional African descent individuals were identified in public databases (n = 291) and the literature (n = 601). We identified 164 unique BRCA1 and 173 unique BRCA2 PSVs in individuals of African ancestry. Of these, 83 BRCA1 and 91 BRCA2 PSVs are of likely or possible African origin. We observed numerous differences in the distribution of PSV type and function in African origin versus non-African origin PSVs. Research in populations of African ancestry with BRCA1/2 PSVs is needed to provide the information needed for clinical management and decision-making in African descent individuals worldwide

TBCRC 030: a phase II study of preoperative cisplatin versus paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer: evaluating the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) biomarker

Background: Cisplatin and paclitaxel are active in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Despite different mechanisms of action, effective predictive biomarkers to preferentially inform drug selection have not been identified. The homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) assay (Myriad Genetics, Inc.) detects impaired double-strand DNA break repair and may identify patients with BRCA1/2-proficient tumors that are sensitive to DNA-targeting therapy. The primary objective of TBCRC 030 was to detect an association of HRD with pathologic response [residual cancer burden (RCB)-0/1] to single-agent cisplatin or paclitaxel. Patients and methods: This prospective phase II study enrolled patients with germline BRCA1/2 wild-type/unknown stage I–III TNBC in a 12-week randomized study of preoperative cisplatin or paclitaxel. The HRD assay was carried out on baseline tissue; positive HRD was defined as a score ≥33. Crossover to an alternative chemotherapy was offered if there was inadequate response. Results: One hundred and thirty-nine patients were evaluable for response, including 88 (63.3%) who had surgery at 12 weeks and 51 (36.7%) who crossed over to an alternative provider-selected preoperative chemotherapy regimen due to inadequate clinical response. HRD results were available for 104 tumors (74.8%) and 74 (71.1%) were HRD positive. The RCB-0/1 rate was 26.4% with cisplatin and 22.3% with paclitaxel. No significant association was observed between HRD score and RCB response to either cisplatin [odds ratio (OR) for RCB-0/1 if HRD positive 2.22 (95% CI: 0.39–23.68)] or paclitaxel [OR for RCB-0/1 if HRD positive 0.90 (95% CI: 0.19–4.95)]. There was no evidence of an interaction between HRD and pathologic response to chemotherapy. Conclusions: In this prospective preoperative trial in TNBC, HRD was not predictive of pathologic response. Tumors were similarly responsive to preoperative paclitaxel or cisplatin chemotherapy

Prediction of Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks in Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores

PurposeBRCA1/2 mutations increase the risk of breast and prostate cancer in men. Common genetic variants modify cancer risks for female carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. We investigatedfor the first time to our knowledgeassociations of common genetic variants with breast and prostate cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations and implications for cancer risk prediction.Materials and MethodsWe genotyped 1,802 male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 by using the custom Illumina OncoArray. We investigated the combined effects of established breast and prostate cancer susceptibility variants on cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations by constructing weighted polygenic risk scores (PRSs) using published effect estimates as weights.ResultsIn male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, PRS that was based on 88 female breast cancer susceptibility variants was associated with breast cancer risk (odds ratio per standard deviation of PRS, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.56; P = 8.6 x 10(-6)). Similarly, PRS that was based on 103 prostate cancer susceptibility variants was associated with prostate cancer risk (odds ratio per SD of PRS, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.81; P = 3.2 x 10(-9)). Large differences in absolute cancer risks were observed at the extremes of the PRS distribution. For example, prostate cancer risk by age 80 years at the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS varies from 7% to 26% for carriers of BRCA1 mutations and from 19% to 61% for carriers of BRCA2 mutations, respectively.ConclusionPRSs may provide informative cancer risk stratification for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations that might enable these men and their physicians to make informed decisions on the type and timing of breast and prostate cancer risk management.Peer reviewe

International survey on invasive lobular breast cancer identifies priority research questions

There is growing awareness of the unique etiology, biology, and clinical presentation of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), but additional research is needed to ensure translation of findings into management and treatment guidelines. We conducted a survey with input from breast cancer physicians, laboratory-based researchers, and patients to analyze the current understanding of ILC, and identify consensus research questions. 1774 participants from 66 countries respondents self-identified as clinicians (N = 413), researchers (N = 376), and breast cancer patients and advocates (N = 1120), with some belonging to more than one category. The majority of physicians reported being very/extremely (41%) to moderately (42%) confident in describing the differences between ILC and invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST). Knowledge of histology was seen as important (73%) and as affecting treatment decisions (51%), and most agreed that refining treatment guidelines would be valuable (76%). 85% of clinicians have never powered a clinical trial to allow subset analysis for histological subtypes, but the majority would consider it, and would participate in an ILC clinical trials consortium. The majority of laboratory researchers, reported being and very/extremely (48%) to moderately (29%) confident in describing differences between ILC and NST. They reported that ILCs are inadequately presented in large genomic data sets, and that ILC models are insufficient. The majority have adequate access to tissue or blood from patients with ILC. The majority of patients and advocates (52%) thought that their health care providers did not sufficiently explain the unique features of ILC. They identified improvement of ILC screening/early detection, and identification of better imaging tools as top research priorities. In contrast, both researchers and clinicians identified understanding of endocrine resistance and identifying novel drugs that can be tested in clinical trials as top research priority. In summary, we have gathered information from an international community of physicians, researchers, and patients/advocates that we expect will lay the foundation for a community-informed collaborative research agenda, with the goal of improving management and personalizing treatment for patients with ILC

Genome-wide association and transcriptome studies identify target genes and risk loci for breast cancer

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 170 breast cancer susceptibility loci. Here we hypothesize that some risk-associated variants might act in non-breast tissues, specifically adipose tissue and immune cells from blood and spleen. Using expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) reported in these tissues, we identify 26 previously unreported, likely target genes of overall breast cancer risk variants, and 17 for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, several with a known immune function. We determine the directional effect of gene expression on disease risk measured based on single and multiple eQTL. In addition, using a gene-based test of association that considers eQTL from multiple tissues, we identify seven (and four) regions with variants associated with overall (and ER-negative) breast cancer risk, which were not reported in previous GWAS. Further investigation of the function of the implicated genes in breast and immune cells may provide insights into the etiology of breast cancer.Peer reviewe