Common genetic variants and modification of penetrance of BRCA2-associated breast cancer.

The considerable uncertainty regarding cancer risks associated with inherited mutations of BRCA2 is due to unknown factors. To investigate whether common genetic variants modify penetrance for BRCA2 mutation carriers, we undertook a two-staged genome-wide association study in BRCA2 mutation carriers. In stage 1 using the Affymetrix 6.0 platform, 592,163 filtered SNPs genotyped were available on 899 young (<40 years) affected and 804 unaffected carriers of European ancestry. Associations were evaluated using a survival-based score test adjusted for familial correlations and stratified by country of the study and BRCA2*6174delT mutation status. The genomic inflation factor (λ) was 1.011. The stage 1 association analysis revealed multiple variants associated with breast cancer risk: 3 SNPs had p-values<10(-5) and 39 SNPs had p-values<10(-4). These variants included several previously associated with sporadic breast cancer risk and two novel loci on chromosome 20 (rs311499) and chromosome 10 (rs16917302). The chromosome 10 locus was in ZNF365, which contains another variant that has recently been associated with breast cancer in an independent study of unselected cases. In stage 2, the top 85 loci from stage 1 were genotyped in 1,264 cases and 1,222 controls. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for stage 1 and 2 were combined and estimated using a retrospective likelihood approach, stratified by country of residence and the most common mutation, BRCA2*6174delT. The combined per allele HR of the minor allele for the novel loci rs16917302 was 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.86, ) and for rs311499 was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.85, ). FGFR2 rs2981575 had the strongest association with breast cancer risk (per allele HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.18-1.39, ). These results indicate that SNPs that modify BRCA2 penetrance identified by an agnostic approach thus far are limited to variants that also modify risk of sporadic BRCA2 wild-type breast cancer.

A surveillance conundrum: a case of 4 distinct primary malignancies in a BRCA-1 mutation carrier.

Women with HBOC syndrome present a unique challenge to the oncology community, as will many genetic cancer syndromes yet to be discovered as genetic testing increases in availability. Issues of management and, most importantly, implication are yet to be elucidated. After a diagnosis of epithelial ovarian carcinoma lifelong follow-up is recommended. Given the high recurrence rate and dismal long term prognosis of advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma this recommendation is more often than not moot. There are no clear guidelines or recommendations for surveillance designed for women with disease free survival greater than five years. This case presents a unique scenario of a woman with predictable disease that remains unpreventable.

Synchronous colonic adenocarcinoma and pelvic schwannoma.

Pelvic schwannomas are rare; it is even more rare for a pelvic schwannoma to occur concurrently with a colon cancer. The authors report the case of a 62-year-old woman with a cecal mass that was surgically removed and the histopathologic diagnosis was adenocarcinoma of the colon. Meanwhile, aretroperitonealpelvic nodalmasswas detected as questionable metastasis of the primary tumor. A subsequent computed tomography-guided fine-needle biopsy was carried out to establish the tumor stage. Surprisingly, the fine-needle biopsy revealed a benign schwannoma. This unusual case posed a dilemma in postoperative staging of the colon cancer.

Secondary Cytoreduction and Carboplatin Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: An MSK Team Ovary Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with carboplatin for recurrent ovarian cancer during secondary cytoreductive surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were intraoperatively randomly assigned to carboplatin HIPEC (800 mg/m2 for 90 minutes) or no HIPEC, followed by five or six cycles of postoperative IV carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively. Based on a binomial single-stage pick-the-winner design, an arm was considered winner if ≥ 17 of 49 patients were without disease progression at 24 months post-surgery. Secondary objectives included postoperative toxicity and HIPEC pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Of 98 patients, 49 (50%) received HIPEC. Complete gross resection was achieved in 82% of the HIPEC patients and 94% of the standard-arm patients. Bowel resection was performed in 37% of patients in the HIPEC arm compared with 65% in the standard (P = .008). There was no perioperative mortality and no difference in use of ostomies, length of stay, or postoperative toxicity. At 24 months, eight patients (16.3%; 1-sided 90% CI, 9.7 to 100) were without progression or death in the HIPEC arm and 12 (24.5%; 1-sided 90% CI, 16.5 to 100) in the standard arm. With a medium follow-up of 39.5 months, 82 patients progressed and 37 died. The median progression-free survival in the HIPEC and standard arms were 12.3 and 15.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1 to 2.37; P = .05). There was no significant difference in median overall survival (52.5 v 59.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.67; P = .31). These analyses were exploratory. CONCLUSION: HIPEC with carboplatin was well tolerated but did not result in superior clinical outcomes. This study does not support the use of HIPEC with carboplatin during secondary cytoreductive surgery for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

Secondary surgical cytoreduction for advanced ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the effect of adding secondary cytoreductive surgery to postoperative chemotherapy on progression-free survival and overall survival among patients who had advanced ovarian cancer and residual tumor exceeding 1 cm in diameter after primary surgery. METHODS: Women were enrolled within six weeks after primary surgery. If, after three cycles of postoperative paclitaxel plus cisplatin, a patient had no evidence of progressive disease, she was randomly assigned to undergo secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by three more cycles of chemotherapy or three more cycles of chemotherapy alone. RESULTS: We enrolled 550 women. After completing three cycles of postoperative chemotherapy, 216 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy and 208 to receive chemotherapy alone. Surgery was declined by or medically contraindicated in 15 patients who were assigned to secondary surgery (7 percent). As of March 2003, 296 patients had died and 82 had progressive disease. The likelihood of progression-free survival in the group assigned to secondary surgery plus chemotherapy, as compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, was 1.07 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.54), and the relative risk of death was 0.99 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.24; P=0.92). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma in whom primary cytoreductive surgery was considered to be maximal, the addition of secondary cytoreductive surgery to postoperative chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus cisplatin does not improve progression-free survival or overall survival.

Large prospective study of ovarian cancer screening in high-risk women: CA125 cut-point defined by menopausal status.

Previous screening trials for early detection of ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women have used the standard CA125 cut-point of 35 U/mL, the 98th percentile in this population yielding a 2% false positive rate, whereas the same cut-point in trials of premenopausal women results in substantially higher false positive rates. We investigated demographic and clinical factors predicting CA125 distributions, including 98th percentiles, in a large population of high-risk women participating in two ovarian cancer screening studies with common eligibility criteria and screening protocols. Baseline CA125 values and clinical and demographic data from 3,692 women participating in screening studies conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Cancer Genetics Network and Gynecologic Oncology Group were combined for this preplanned analysis. Because of the large effect of menopausal status on CA125 levels, statistical analyses were conducted separately in pre- and postmenopausal subjects to determine the impact of other baseline factors on predicted CA125 cut-points on the basis of 98th percentile. The primary clinical factor affecting CA125 cut-points was menopausal status, with premenopausal women having a significantly higher cut-point of 50 U/mL, while in postmenopausal subjects the standard cut-point of 35 U/mL was recapitulated. In premenopausal women, current oral contraceptive (OC) users had a cut-point of 40 U/mL. To achieve a 2% false positive rate in ovarian cancer screening trials and in high-risk women choosing to be screened, the cut-point for initial CA125 testing should be personalized primarily for menopausal status (50 for premenopausal women, 40 for premenopausal on OC, and 35 for postmenopausal women).