First report of a de novo germline mutation in the MLH1 gene

Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) is an autosomal dominant disorder associated with colorectal and endometrial cancer and a range of other tumor types. Germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, particularly MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6, underlie this disorder. The vast majority of these HNPCC-associated mutations have been proven, or assumed, given the family history of cancer, to be transmitted through several generations. To the best of our knowledge, only a single case of a de novo germline MMR gene mutation (in MSH2) has been reported till now. Here, we report a patient with a de novo mutation in MLH1. We identified a MLH1 Q701X truncating mutation in the blood lymphocytes of a male who had been diagnosed with rectal cancer at the age of 35. His family history of cancer was negative for the first- and second-degree relatives. The mutation could not be detected in the patient' parents and sibling and paternity was confirmed with a set of highly polymorphic markers. Non-penetrance and small family size is the common explanation of verified negative family histories of cancer in patients with a germline MMR gene mutation. However, in addition to some cases explained by non-paternity, de novo germline mutations should be considered as a possible explanation as well. As guidelines that stress not to restrict MMR gene mutation testing to patients with a positive family history are more widely introduced, more cases of de novo MMR gene germline mutations may be revealed

Sentinel Node Identification Rate and Nodal Involvement in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS Trial

Background The randomized EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial investigates whether breast cancer patients with a tumor-positive sentinel node biopsy (SNB) are best treated with an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or axillary radiotherapy (ART). The aim of the current substudy was to evaluate the identification rate and the nodal involvement. Methods The first 2,000 patients participating in the AMAROS trial were evaluated. Associations between the identification rate and technical, patient-, and tumor-related factors were evaluated. The outcome of the SNB procedure and potential further nodal involvement was assessed. Results In 65 patients, the sentinel node could not be identified. As a result, the sentinel node identification rate was 97% (1,888 of 1,953). Variables affecting the success rate were age, pathological tumor size, histology, year of accrual, and method of detection. The SNB results of 65% of the patients (n = 1,220) were negative and the patients underwent no further axillary treatment. The SNB results were positive in 34% of the patients (n = 647), including macrometastases (n = 409, 63%), micrometastases (n = 161, 25%), and isolated tumor cells (n = 77, 12%). Further nodal involvement in patients with macrometastases, micrometastases, and isolated tumor cells undergoing an ALND was 41, 18, and 18%, respectively. Conclusions With a 97% detection rate in this prospective international multicenter study, the SNB procedure is highly effective, especially when the combined method is used. Further nodal involvement in patients with micrometastases and isolated tumor cells in the sentinel node was similar—both were 18%

Comparison of the sentinel node procedure between patients with multifocal and unifocal breast cancer in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS Trial:Identification rate and nodal outcome

<p>Introduction: Multifocal breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of nodal involvement compared to unifocal breast cancer and the drainage pattern from multifocal localisations may be different. For this reason, the value of the sentinel node biopsy ( SNB) procedure for this indication is debated. The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the sentinel node identification rate and nodal involvement in patients with a multifocal tumour in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial.</p><p>Patients and Methods: From the first 4000 registered patients, 342 were identified with a multifocal tumour on histological examination and compared to a randomly selected control group of 684 patients with a unifocal tumour. The outcome of the SNB was assessed.</p><p>Results: The sentinel node was identified in 96% of the patients with a multifocal tumour and in 98% of those with unifocal disease. In the multifocal group, 51% had a metastasis in the sentinel node compared to 28% in the unifocal group; and further nodal involvement after a positive sentinel node was found in 40% (38/95) and 39% (39/101) respectively.</p><p>Conclusion: In this prospective international multicentre study, the 96% detection rate indicates that the SNB procedure can be highly effective in patients with a multifocal tumour. Though the tumour-positive rate of the sentinel node was twice as high in the multifocal group compared to the unifocal group, further nodal involvement after a positive sentinel node was similar in both groups. This suggests that the SNB procedure is safe in patients with multifocal breast cancer. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p>

Radiotherapy or Surgery of the Axilla After a Positive Sentinel Node in Breast Cancer: 10-Year Results of the Randomized Controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS Trial

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10981-22023 AMAROS trial evaluated axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus axillary radiotherapy (ART) in patients with cT1-2, node-negative breast cancer and a positive sentinel node (SN) biopsy. At 5 years, both modalities showed excellent and comparable axillary control, with significantly less morbidity after ART. We now report the preplanned 10-year analysis of the axillary recurrence rate (ARR), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS), and an updated 5-year analysis of morbidity and quality of life. METHODS: In this open-label multicenter phase III noninferiority trial, 4,806 patients underwent SN biopsy; 1,425 were node-positive and randomly assigned to either ALND (n = 744) or ART (n = 681). RESULTS: Per intention-to-treat analysis, 10-year ARR cumulative incidence was 0.93% (95% CI, 0.18 to 1.68; seven events) after ALND and 1.82% (95% CI, 0.74 to 2.94; 11 events) after ART (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 0.67 to 4.39). There were no differences in OS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.52) or DFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.46). ALND was associated with a higher lymphedema rate in updated 5-year analyses (24.5% v 11.9%; P < .001). Quality-of-life scales did not differ by treatment through 5 years. Exploratory analysis showed a 10-year cumulative incidence of second primary cancers of 12.1% (95% CI, 9.6 to 14.9) after ART and 8.3% (95% CI, 6.3 to 10.7) after ALND. CONCLUSION: This 10-year analysis confirms a low ARR after both ART and ALND with no difference in OS, DFS, and locoregional control. Considering less arm morbidity, ART is preferred over ALND for patients with SN-positive cT1-2 breast cancer

Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: If treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects. METHODS: Patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00014612. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1–8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00–0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31–2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00–5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. INTERPRETATION: Axillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity. FUNDING: EORTC Charitable Trust