Circulating small-sized endothelial microparticles as predictors of clinical outcome after chemotherapy for breast cancer: an exploratory analysis.

PURPOSE: Therapeutic exploitation of angiogenesis in breast cancer has been limited by the lack of reliable biomarkers. Circulating small-sized endothelial microparticles (sEMP) are likely to play a significant role as messengers of angiogenesis. Higher levels of EMP have been observed in cancer patients, but their prognostic value in breast cancer is unknown. Our aim was to determine the value of circulating sEMP as a marker of response to chemotherapy in breast cancer. METHODS: We included patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant or first-line chemotherapy. Baseline and post-treatment circulating sEMP (CD144+) were quantified using a flow cytometer approach specifically designed for analysis of small-sized particles (0.1-0.5 µm). Small-sized EMP response was defined as a post-treatment decrease of sEMP larger than the median decrease of sEMP after chemotherapy. Baseline and post-chemotherapy VEGFA levels were determined with ELISA. RESULTS: Forty-four breast cancer patients were included (19 with metastatic and 25 with locally advanced disease). Median levels of sEMP decreased after chemotherapy (P = 0.005). Response to chemotherapy showed a non-significant trend to associate with sEMP response (P = 0.056). A sEMP response was observed in 51% of patients and was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.87; P = 0.02) and progression free survival (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.09-0.99; P = 0.04) in the group of women with metastatic disease. Post-chemotherapy decrease of VEGFA levels was not associated with breast cancer prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results did not support sEMP as a marker of response to chemotherapy. However, our exploratory analysis suggests that in patients with metastatic breast cancer, the decrease of sEMP levels after chemotherapy is associated with better overall and disease free survival and might be superior to VEGFA levels as an angiogenesis-related prognostic marker.

Psychological factors and prognostic communication preferences in advanced cancer: multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: Communication regarding prognosis to patients with advanced cancer is fundamental for informed medical decision making. Our objective was to analyse (1) the proportion of subjects with advanced cancer who prefer to know their prognosis, (2) the characteristics associated with patients' preference for prognostic information, (3) the psychological factors that impact the preference to know prognosis and 4) the concordance between preference for prognostic information perceived among physicians and patients. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional design was adopted. Data were collected from 748 participants with advanced cancer at 15 tertiary hospitals in Spain. Participants completed the following questionnaires: Mental Adjustment to Cancer; Trust in the Physician; Uncertainty in Illness Scale Patient's Prognostic Preferences. RESULTS: Fifty-two per cent of advanced cancer sufferers preferred to know the prognosis of their disease. Compared with participants who preferred not to know, those who did reported more uncertainty, greater satisfaction with their physician and higher scores on positive attitude (all p=0.001). Thirty-seven per cent of the physicians believed that patients want to know their prognosis, indicating that they underestimate the number of such patients. No significant differences were found regarding preference to know prognosis as a function of sociodemographic and clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of individuals with advanced cancer prefer to know the prognosis of their disease. It appears that knowing their prognosis was mainly motivated by a need to maintain a positive attitude, lessen uncertainty and by satisfaction with the physician. It is important to explore patients' preferences for information to offer more personalised communication.

Recurrent genetic variants and prioritization of variants of uncertain clinical significance associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in families from the Region of Murcia.

Objectives: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) follows an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern of cancer susceptibility genes. The risk of developing this disease is primarily associated with germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The advent of massive genetic sequencing technologies has expanded the mutational spectrum of this hereditary syndrome, thereby increasing the number of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) detected by genetic testing. Methods: A prevalence study of HBOC was performed within 2,928 families from the Region of Murcia, in southeastern Spain. Genetic testing enabled the identification of recurrent pathogenic variants and founder mutations, which were mainly related to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. VUS testing was performed using a prioritization algorithm designed by our working group. Results: Variants c.68_69del, c.212+1G>A, and c.5123C>A were detected in 30 % of BRCA1 carriers, whereas exon 2 deletion concurrent with c.3264dupT, c.3455T>G and c.9117G>A variants were found in 30 % of BRCA2 carriers. A total of 16 VUS (15 %) were prioritized. Conclusions: The genotype-phenotype correlation observed in our study is consistent with the scientific literature. Furthermore, the founder effect of c.1918C>T (BRCA1) and c.8251_8254del (ATM) was verified in the Murcian population, whereas exon 2 deletion (BRCA2) was proven to be a Spanish founder mutation. Our algorithm enabled us to prioritize potentially pathogenic VUS that required further testing to determine their clinical significance and potential role in HBOC.

Next step in molecular genetics of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer: Multigene panel testing in clinical actionably genes and prioritization algorithms in the study of variants of uncertain significance.

INTRODUCTION: BRCA1 and BRCA2 are the two main genes causing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). However, thanks to the development of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), other genes linked to this syndrome (CHEK2, BRIP1, ATM and PALB2 among others) can be analysed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: an analysis by multigene panel testing was performed in 138 index cases (ICs) from HBOC Spanish families with a previous non-informative result for BRCA1/2. The BRCA Hereditary Cancer Master™ Plus kit, including 26 actionable and candidate genes related to HBOC was employed. Once classified, an algorithm was employed to prioritized those variants of unknown significance with a higher risk of having a deleterious effect. Moreover, a mRNA splicing assay was performed for the prioritized VUS c.3402+3A > C in ATM, located at intron 23. RESULTS: A total of 82 variants were found: 70 VUS and 12 pathogenic or probably pathogenic variants. The diagnostic yield in actionable genes non-BRCA was 7.97% of the total tested ICs. Overall, 19 VUS were prioritized, which meant 27% of the 70 total VUS. RNA analysis of the variant 3402+3A > C confirmed a deleterious impact on splicing. DISCUSSION: The implementation of a multigene panel in HBOC studied families improved the diagnostic yield, concordant with results obtained in previous publications. Due to the important number of VUS obtained in NGS, the application of a prioritization algorithm is needed in order to select those variants in which it is necessary to conduct further studies.

Molecular characterization and clinical interpretation of BRCA1/BRCA2 variants in families from Murcia (south-eastern Spain) with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: clinical-pathological features in BRCA carriers and non-carriers.

This is the first study performed in Murcia (south-eastern Spain) in which 592 families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer were identified thanks to Genetic Counselling Units from this area over 6 years. Diagnostic performance was 18.1% and 194 different genetic variants were obtained. Variants with uncertain significance accounted for only 5.6% of the total number of reports, so our population has been well characterised. In BRCA1 gene, two novel variants were found (c.1859delT and c.3205C > T) and the most frequently detected mutations were c.68_69delAG, c.212 + 1G > A, c.5123C > A, c.211A > G and c.1918C > T, which together represented 56.67% of total pathogenic mutations. In BRCA2 gene, four recurrent variants were described (deletion of entire exon 2, c.9117G > A, c.3264dupT and c.3455T > G) representing 43.5% of the mutations in this gene. Mutation c.68_69delAG and deletion of entire exon 2 in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes respectively were the most prevalent variants in our population. Regarding the genotype-phenotype relation, mutation c.212 + 1G > A appeared in an important percentage of breast and ovarian cancer cases, c.5123C > A in bilateral breast cancer and c.9117G > A in bilateral breast cancer and ovarian cancer. With respect to clinical-pathological characteristic, BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers showed earlier onset age of breast tumour and higher risk of developing contra lateral breast cancer than non-informative cases. Moreover, association between either molecular subtype triple negative breast cancer or ovarian cancer and BRCA1 carriers was obtained.