Chemosensitivity and Endocrine Sensitivity in Clinical Luminal Breast Cancer Patients in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) Predicted by Molecular Subtyping.

PURPOSE: Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) tumors have heterogeneous biology and present a challenge for determining optimal treatment. In the Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) patients were classified according to MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping to provide insight into the response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this predefined substudy was to compare MammaPrint/BluePrint with conventional 'clinical' immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization (IHC/FISH) subtyping in 'clinical luminal' [HR+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-)] breast cancer patients to predict treatment sensitivity. METHODS: NBRST IHC/FISH HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients (n = 474) were classified into four molecular subgroups by MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal type. Pathological complete response (pCR) rates were compared with conventional IHC/FISH subtype. RESULTS: The overall pCR rate for 'clinical luminal' patients to NCT was 11 %; however, 87 of these 474 patients were reclassified as Basal type by BluePrint, with a high pCR rate of 32 %. The MammaPrint index was highly associated with the likelihood of pCR (p < 0.001). Fifty-three patients with BluePrint Luminal tumors received NET with an aromatase inhibitor and 36 (68 %) had a clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: With BluePrint subtyping, 18 % of clinical 'luminal' patients are classified in a different subgroup, compared with conventional assessment, and these patients have a significantly higher response rate to NCT compared with BluePrint Luminal patients. MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping can help allocate effective treatment to appropriate patients. In addition, accurate identification of subtype biology is important in the interpretation of neoadjuvant treatment response since lack of pCR in luminal patients does not portend the worse prognosis associated with residual disease in Basal and HER2 subtypes.

Pertuzumab/Trastuzumab/CT Versus Trastuzumab/CT Therapy for HER2+ Breast Cancer: Results from the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST).

BACKGROUND: Pertuzumab became a standard part of neoadjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancers approximately halfway through Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) enrollment, providing a unique opportunity to determine biologically which clinical HER2+ patients benefit most from dual targeting. As a neoadjuvant phase 4 study, NBRST classifies patients by both conventional and molecular subtyping. METHODS: Of 308 clinical HER2+ patients enrolled in NBRST between 2011 and 2014 from 62 U.S. institutions, 297 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) with HER2-targeted therapy and underwent surgery. This study compared the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of BluePrint versus clinical subtypes with treatment, specifically differences between trastuzumab (T) treatment and trastuzumab and pertuzumab (T/P) treatment. RESULTS: In this study, 60% of the patients received NCT-T, and 40% received NCT-T/P. The overall pCR rate (ypT0/isN0) was 47%. BluePrint classified 161 tumors (54%) as HER2 type, with a pCR rate of 65%. This was significantly higher than the pCR rate for the 91 HER2+ tumors (31%) classified as luminal (18%) (p = 0.00001) and the 45 tumors (15%) classified as basal (44%) (p = 0.0166). The patients treated with T/P had higher pCR rates than those treated with trastuzumab alone. The difference was most pronounced in the BluePrint luminal patients (8 vs. 31%). The highest pCR was reached by the BluePrint HER2-type patients treated with T/P (76%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pertuzumab leads to increased pCR rates for all HER2+ patient groups except for the BluePrint basal-type patients. This better response was most pronounced for the BluePrint luminal-type patients.

Discordant assessment of tumor biomarkers by histopathological and molecular assays in the EORTC randomized controlled 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial breast cancer : Intratumoral heterogeneity and DCIS or normal tissue components are unlikely to be the cause of discordance.

Accurate identification of breast cancer patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant systemic therapies is crucial. Better understanding of differences between methods can lead to an improved ER, PgR, and HER-2 assessment. The purpose of this preplanned translational research is to investigate the correlation of central IHC/FISH assessments with microarray mRNA readouts of ER, PgR, and HER-2 status in the MINDACT trial and to determine if any discordance could be attributed to intratumoral heterogeneity or the DCIS and normal tissue components in the specimens. MINDACT is an international, prospective, randomized, phase III trial investigating the clinical utility of MammaPrint in selecting patients with early breast cancer for adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 6694 patients). Gene-expression data were obtained by TargetPrint; IHC and/or FISH were assessed centrally (n = 5788; 86 %). Macroscopic and microscopic evaluation of centrally submitted FFPE blocks identified 1427 cases for which the very same sample was submitted for gene-expression analysis. TargetPrint ER had a positive agreement of 98 %, and a negative agreement of 95 % with central pathology. Corresponding figures for PgR were 85 and 94 % and for HER-2 72 and 99 %. Agreement of mRNA versus central protein was not different when the same or a different portion of the tumor tissue was analyzed or when DCIS and/or normal tissue was included in the sample subjected to mRNA assays. This is the first large analysis to assess the discordance rate between protein and mRNA analysis of breast cancer markers, and to look into intratumoral heterogeneity, DCIS, or normal tissue components as a potential cause of discordance. The observed difference between mRNA and protein assessment for PgR and HER-2 needs further research; the present analysis does not support intratumoral heterogeneity or the DCIS and normal tissue components being likely causes of the discordance.

Impact of Tumor Size on Probability of Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Symphony Trial (NBRST) study found that MammaPrint/BluePrint functional molecular subtype is superior to conventional immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization subtyping for predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The purpose of this substudy was to determine if the rate of pCR is affected by tumor size. METHODS: The NBRST study includes breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping classified patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), and Basal type. Probability of pCR (ypT0/isN0) as a function of tumor size and molecular subgroup was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients were evaluable with overall pCR rates of 28.5 %. Luminal A and B patients had significantly lower rates of pCR (6.1 and 8.7 %, respectively) than either basal (37.1 %) or HER2 (55.0 %) patients (p < 0.001). The probability of pCR significantly decreased with tumor size >5 cm [p = 0.022, odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.36, 0.93]. This relationship was statistically significant in the Basal (p = 0.026, OR 0.46, 95 % CI 0.23, 0.91) and HER2 (p = 0.039, OR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.14, 0.95) subgroups. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, the dichotomized tumor size variable was not significant in any of the molecular subgroups. DISCUSSION: Even though tumor size would intuitively be a clinical determinant of pCR, the current analysis showed that the adjusted OR for tumor size was not statistically significant in any of the molecular subgroups. Factors significantly associated with pCR were PR status, grade, lymph node status, and BluePrint molecular subtyping, which had the strongest correlation.

Molecular subtyping improves diagnostic stratification of patients with primary breast cancer into prognostically defined risk groups.

Combined use of MammaPrint and a molecular subtyping profile (BluePrint) identifies disease subgroups with marked differences in long-term outcome and response to neo-adjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of molecular subtyping using MammaPrint and BluePrint in women with early-stage breast cancer (BC) treated at US institutions following National Comprehensive Cancer Network standard guidelines. Tumor samples were collected from stage 1-2B consecutively diagnosed BC patients (n = 373) who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy with an axillary staging procedure between 1992 and 2010 at two institutes (NorthShore University HealthSystem and Fox Chase Cancer Center) in the United States of America, with a median follow-up time of 9.5 years. MammaPrint low-risk patients had a 10-year DMFS of 96 % (95 %CI 92.8-99.4), while MammaPrint high-risk patients had a 10-year DMFS of 87 % (95 %CI 81.9-92.1) with a hazard ratio of 3.62 (95 %CI 1.38-9.50) (p = 0.005). Uni- and multivariate analyses included age, tumor size, grade, ER, and Her2; in multivariate analysis, MammaPrint reached near-significance (HR 3.01; p 0.08). When comparing BluePrint molecular subtyping with clinical stratification, the prognosis (10-year DMFS) was significantly different in 10-year DMFS between the different molecular subtypes (p < 0.001). This retrospective study with 10-year follow-up data provides valuable insight into prognosis of patients with primary BC comparing clinical with molecular subtyping. The BluePrint molecular stratification assay identifies patients with significantly different outcomes compared with standard clinical molecular stratification.

Chemosensitivity predicted by BluePrint 80-gene functional subtype and MammaPrint in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST).

PURPOSE: The purpose of the NBRST study is to compare a multigene classifier to conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC)/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) subtyping to predict chemosensitivity as defined by pathological complete response (pCR) or endocrine sensitivity as defined by partial response. METHODS: The study includes women with histologically proven breast cancer, who will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. BluePrint in combination with MammaPrint classifies patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal. RESULTS: A total of 426 patients had definitive surgery. Thirty-seven of 211 (18 %) IHC/FISH hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- patients were reclassified by Blueprint as Basal (n = 35) or HER2 (n = 2). Fifty-three of 123 (43 %) IHC/FISH HER2+ patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 36) or Basal (n = 17). Four of 92 (4 %) IHC/FISH triple-negative (TN) patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 2) or HER2 (n = 2). NCT pCR rates were 2 % in Luminal A and 7 % Luminal B patients versus 10 % pCR in IHC/FISH HR+/HER2- patients. The NCT pCR rate was 53 % in BluePrint HER2 patients. This is significantly superior (p = 0.047) to the pCR rate in IHC/FISH HER2+ patients (38 %). The pCR rate of 36 of 75 IHC/FISH HER2+/HR+ patients reclassified as BPLuminal is 3 %. NCT pCR for BluePrint Basal patients was 49 of 140 (35 %), comparable to the 34 of 92 pCR rate (37 %) in IHC/FISH TN patients. CONCLUSIONS: BluePrint molecular subtyping reclassifies 22 % (94/426) of tumors, reassigning more responsive patients to the HER2 and Basal categories while reassigning less responsive patients to the Luminal category. These findings suggest that compared with IHC/FISH, BluePrint more accurately identifies patients likely to respond (or not respond) to NCT.

Molecular subtyping of early-stage breast cancer identifies a group of patients who do not benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term outcome (distant metastases-free survival [DMFS]) in patients with early-stage breast cancer using BluePrint and MammaPrint molecular subtyping versus clinical subtyping using immunohistochemistry/fluorescence in situ hybridization (IHC/FISH) for the determination of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2). Data were analyzed from 437 patients in four neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials. BluePrint and MammaPrint outcomes were determined from 44K Agilent arrays, the I-SPY 1 data portal, or Affymetrix U133A arrays. The pCR rate differed substantially among BluePrint molecular subgroups: 6 % in Luminal A-type, 10 % in Luminal B-type, 47 % in HER2-type, and 37 % in Basal-type patients. In the Luminal A-type group (n = 90; including seven HER2-positive patients and eight triple-negative patients by IHC/FISH), the 5-year DMFS rate was 93 %. The pCR rate provided no prognostic information, suggesting these patients may not benefit from chemotherapy. Forty-three of 107 (40 %) HER2-positive patients were classified as Luminal-type by BluePrint and may have lower response rates to targeted therapy. Molecular subtyping identified 90 of 435 (21 %) patients as Luminal A-type (BluePrint Luminal-type/MammaPrint Low Risk) with excellent survival. The pCR rate provided no prognostic information. Molecular subtyping can improve the stratification of patients in the neoadjuvant setting: Luminal A-type (MammaPrint Low Risk) patients have a good prognosis with excellent survival and do not seem to benefit from chemotherapy. We observed marked benefit in response and DMFS to neoadjuvant treatment in patients subtyped as HER2-type and Basal-type. BluePrint with MammaPrint molecular subtyping helps to improve prognostic estimation and the choice of therapy versus IHC/FISH.

A diagnostic gene profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer associated with treatment response.

Classification of breast cancer into molecular subtypes maybe important for the proper selection of therapy, as tumors with seemingly similar histopathological features can have strikingly different clinical outcomes. Herein, we report the development of a molecular subtyping profile (BluePrint), that enables rationalization in patient selection for either chemotherapy or endocrine therapy prescription. An 80-Gene Molecular Subtyping Profile (BluePrint) was developed using 200 breast cancer patient specimens and confirmed on four independent validation cohorts (n = 784). Additionally, the profile was tested as a predictor of chemotherapy response in 133 breast cancer patients, treated with T/FAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BluePrint classification of a patient cohort that was treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 133) shows improved distribution of pathological Complete Response (pCR), among molecular subgroups compared with local pathology: 56% of the patients had a pCR in the Basal-type subgroup, 3% in the MammaPrint Low-risk, Luminal-type subgroup, 11% in the MammaPrint High-risk, Luminal-type subgroup, and 50% in the HER2-type subgroup. The group of genes identifying Luminal-type breast cancer is highly enriched for genes having an Estrogen Receptor binding site proximal to the promoter-region, suggesting that these genes are direct targets of the Estrogen Receptor. Implementation of this profile may improve the clinical management of breast cancer patients, by enabling the selection of patients who are most likely to benefit from either chemotherapy or from endocrine therapy.

Comparison of molecular subtyping with BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint to local clinical subtyping in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To compare breast cancer subtyping with the three centrally assessed microarray-based assays BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint with locally assessed clinical subtyping using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). METHODS: BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint were all performed on fresh tumor samples. Microarray analysis was performed at Agendia Laboratories, blinded for clinical and pathological data. IHC/FISH assessments were performed according to local practice at each institution; estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) assessments were performed on 132 samples, and Ki-67 on 79 samples. RESULTS: The concordance between BluePrint and IHC/FISH subtyping was 94 % for the Luminal-type, 95 % for the HER2-type, and 94 % for the Basal-type subgroups. The concordance of BluePrint with subtyping using mRNA single gene readout (TargetPrint) was 96 % for the Luminal-type, 97 % for the HER2-type, and 98 % for the Basal-type subgroups. The concordance for substratification into Luminal A and B using MammaPrint and Ki-67 was 68 %. The concordance between TargetPrint and IHC/FISH was 97 % for ER, 80 % for PR, and 95 % for HER2. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of multigene assays such as TargetPrint, BluePrint, and MammaPrint may improve the clinical management of breast cancer patients. High discordance between Luminal A and B substratification based on MammaPrint versus locally assessed Ki-67 or grade indicates that chemotherapy decisions should not be based on the basis of Ki-67 readout or tumor grade alone. TargetPrint serves as a second opinion for those local pathology settings where high-quality standardization is harder to maintain.

Effectiveness and causes for failure of surveillance of CDKN2A-mutated melanoma families.

BACKGROUND: For more than 25 years families with an increased susceptibility to melanoma have been under surveillance at our institution. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the effectiveness of surveillance for CDKN2A-mutated families and causes for failure of the program in patients with more advanced tumors. METHODS: In a retrospective case-control study, Breslow thickness of melanomas diagnosed in relatives enrolled in the surveillance program were compared with melanomas of unscreened index patients. We investigated the influence of mode of detection and length of surveillance interval on outcome. RESULTS: Surveillance melanomas (n = 226, median thickness: 0.50 mm) had a significantly lower Breslow thickness (multiplication factor: 0.61 [95% confidence interval 0.47-0.80], P < .001) than index melanomas (n = 40, median thickness: 0.98 mm). Index melanomas were more likely diagnosed with a Breslow thickness greater than 1.0 mm (odds ratio: 3.1 [95% confidence interval 1.2-8.1], P = .022). In all, 53% of surveillance melanomas were diagnosed during regular screens, 7% during patients' first screen, 20% between regular screens, and 20% in patients who were noncompliant with the surveillance schedule. The majority of surveillance melanomas (58%) were detected within 6 months after the last screen. There was no correlation between tumor thickness and the length of the screening interval for tumors diagnosed within 24 months since the last screen. LIMITATIONS: The study is retrospective. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance was associated with earlier detection of melanomas. Noncompliance was an important cause for failing surveillance. Shortening surveillance intervals may advance detection of tumors, but may paradoxically have little impact on prognosis.

Clinical and histologic characteristics of malignant melanoma in families with a germline mutation in CDKN2A.

BACKGROUND: About 10% of cutaneous malignant melanomas (CMM) occur in individuals with a family history of melanoma. In 20% to 40% of melanoma families germline mutations in CDKN2A are detected. Knowledge of the clinicohistologic characteristics of melanomas and patients from these families is important for optimization of management strategies, and may shed more light on the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors in the pathogenesis of melanoma. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the clinical and histologic characteristics of CMM in CDKN2A-mutated families. METHODS: Clinical and histologic characteristics of 182 patients with 429 CMM from families with a founder mutation in CDKN2A (p16-Leiden mutation) were compared with 7512 patients with 7842 CMM from a population-based cancer registry. RESULTS: Patients with p16-Leiden had their first melanoma 15.3 years younger than control patients. The 5-year cumulative incidence of second primary CMM was 23.4% for patients with p16-Leiden compared with 2.3% for control patients. The risk of a second melanoma was twice as high for patients with p16-Leiden who had their first melanoma before age 40 years, compared with older patients with p16-Leiden. Unlike control patients, there was no body site concordance of the first and second melanoma in patients with p16-Leiden and multiple primary melanomas. Patients with p16-Leiden had significantly more superficial spreading, and less nodular and lentiginous melanomas. LIMITATIONS: Ascertainment of patients with p16-Leiden was family based. The study was performed in families with a founder mutation, the p16-Leiden mutation. CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with a pathogenic pathway of melanoma development from nevi, starting early and ongoing throughout life, and not related to chronic sun exposure.

Gene expression profiling impacts treatment decision making in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients in the prospective PROMMIS trial.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous hematologic malignancy associated with several risk factors including genetic aberrations which impact disease response and survival. Thorough risk classification is essential to select the best clinical strategy to optimize outcomes. The SKY92 molecular signature classifies patients as standard- or high-risk for progression. The PRospective Observational Multiple Myeloma Impact Study (PROMMIS; NCT02911571) measures impact of SKY92 on risk classification and treatment plan. Newly diagnosed MM patients had bone marrow aspirates analyzed for SKY92. Physicians completed a questionnaire for each patient capturing risk classification, hypothetical treatment plan, and physician confidence in the treatment plan, before and after unblinding SKY92. One hundred forty seven MM patients were enrolled. Before unblinding SKY92, physicians regarded 74 (50%) patients as clinical standard-risk. After unblinding SKY92, 16 patients were re-assigned as high-risk by the physician, and for 15 of them treatment strategy was impacted, resulting in an escalated treatment plan. For the 73 (50%) clinical high-risk patients, SKY92 indicated 46 patients to be standard-risk; for 31 of these patients the treatment strategy was impacted consistent with a de-escalation of risk. Overall, SKY92 impacted treatment decisions in 37% of patients (p < 0.001). For clinical decision-making, physicians incorporated SKY92, and the final assigned clinical risk was in line with SKY92 for 89% of patients. Furthermore, SKY92 significantly increased the confidence of the physicians' treatment decisions (p < 0.001). This study shows potential added value of SKY92 in MM for treatment decision making.

Selection criteria for genetic assessment of patients with familial melanoma.

Approximately 5% to 10% of melanoma may be hereditary in nature, and about 2% of melanoma can be specifically attributed to pathogenic germline mutations in cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A). To appropriately identify the small proportion of patients who benefit most from referral to a genetics specialist for consideration of genetic testing for CDKN2A, we have reviewed available published studies of CDKN2A mutation analysis in cohorts with invasive, cutaneous melanoma and found variability in the rate of CDKN2A mutations based on geography, ethnicity, and the type of study and eligibility criteria used. Except in regions of high melanoma incidence, such as Australia, we found higher rates of CDKN2A positivity in individuals with 3 or more primary invasive melanomas and/or families with at least one invasive melanoma and two or more other diagnoses of invasive melanoma and/or pancreatic cancer among first- or second-degree relatives on the same side of the family. The work summarized in this review should help identify individuals who are appropriate candidates for referral for genetic consultation and possible testing.

Increased risk of cancer other than melanoma in CDKN2A founder mutation (p16-Leiden)-positive melanoma families.

PURPOSE: We report the largest study to date analyzing the risk of cancers other than melanoma in melanoma families positive for the same CDKN2A mutation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We studied family members of 22 families positive for the p16-Leiden founder mutation who had attended a surveillance clinic or were their close relatives. Within this cohort, observed and expected rates of cancer were computed by mutation status consisting of 221 (proven plus obligate) carriers, 639 (proven plus obligate) noncarriers, and 668 first-degree relatives whose carrier risk was estimated from the relationship to known carriers and the age and melanoma status of that person and their relatives. RESULTS: Our analysis shows a relative risk (RR) of cancer other than melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer of 4.4 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 3.3-5.6], predominantly attributable to the increased risk for pancreatic cancer (RR, 46.6; 95% CI, 24.7-76.4), but also for other cancers. We provide substantial proof for pancreatic cancer being a key component of the p16-Leiden phenotype. Inclusion of this cancer in a penetrance analysis leads to an estimated RR of pancreatic cancer for mutation carriers of 47.8 (95% CI, 28.4-74.7). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows clear evidence of increased risk of cancers other than melanoma in CDKN2A families carrying the p16-Leiden mutation. Further research is necessary to determine if similar risks apply to families with CDKN2A mutations other than p16-Leiden.

Genome-wide linkage scan for atypical nevi in p16-Leiden melanoma families.

In most Dutch melanoma families, a founder deletion in the melanoma susceptibility gene CDKN2A (which encodes p16) is present. This founder deletion (p16-Leiden) accounts for a significant proportion of the increased melanoma risk. However, it does not account for the Atypical Nevus (AN) phenotype that segregates in both p16-Leiden carriers and non-carriers. The AN-affected p16-Leiden family members are therefore a unique valuable resource for unraveling the genetic etiology of the AN phenotype, which is considered both a risk factor and a precursor lesion for melanoma. In this study, we performed a genome-wide scan for linkage in four p16-Leiden melanoma pedigrees, classifying family members with five or more AN as affected. The strongest evidence for an atypical nevus susceptibility gene was mapped to chromosome band 7q21.3 (two-point LOD score=2.751), a region containing candidate gene CDK6.

Genetic testing in familial melanoma: uptake and implications.

OBJECTIVE: We report on the uptake and psychological impact of p16-Leiden genetic testing to contribute to a greater understanding of counseling melanoma families. METHODS: Within a defined research setting, genetic counseling and testing were offered to members of p16-Leiden-positive melanoma pedigrees, at risk of carrying a gene defect associated with an increased risk of melanoma and pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-four individuals sought counseling, of which 141 (77%) opted for genetic testing. Uptake of genetic counseling and testing, and psychological motivation was evaluated in 94 (57%) individuals. Higher pre-test risk of carrying the mutation and older age proved significantly predictive for counseling uptake. Age was predictive for test acceptance, whereas fearful test expectancies predicted test decline. Counselees had lower distress levels than those reported in other oncogenetic testing settings. CONCLUSION: We are the first to report on genetic testing for familial melanoma. Following the first counseling session, we found a relatively high uptake rate for p16-Leiden testing and no clinically worrisome levels of distress.

High-risk melanoma susceptibility genes and pancreatic cancer, neural system tumors, and uveal melanoma across GenoMEL.

GenoMEL, comprising major familial melanoma research groups from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia has created the largest familial melanoma sample yet available to characterize mutations in the high-risk melanoma susceptibility genes CDKN2A/alternate reading frames (ARF), which encodes p16 and p14ARF, and CDK4 and to evaluate their relationship with pancreatic cancer (PC), neural system tumors (NST), and uveal melanoma (UM). This study included 466 families (2,137 patients) with at least three melanoma patients from 17 GenoMEL centers. Overall, 41% (n = 190) of families had mutations; most involved p16 (n = 178). Mutations in CDK4 (n = 5) and ARF (n = 7) occurred at similar frequencies (2-3%). There were striking differences in mutations across geographic locales. The proportion of families with the most frequent founder mutation(s) of each locale differed significantly across the seven regions (P = 0.0009). Single founder CDKN2A mutations were predominant in Sweden (p.R112_L113insR, 92% of family's mutations) and the Netherlands (c.225_243del19, 90% of family's mutations). France, Spain, and Italy had the same most frequent mutation (p.G101W). Similarly, Australia and United Kingdom had the same most common mutations (p.M53I, c.IVS2-105A>G, p.R24P, and p.L32P). As reported previously, there was a strong association between PC and CDKN2A mutations (P < 0.0001). This relationship differed by mutation. In contrast, there was little evidence for an association between CDKN2A mutations and NST (P = 0.52) or UM (P = 0.25). There was a marginally significant association between NST and ARF (P = 0.05). However, this particular evaluation had low power and requires confirmation. This GenoMEL study provides the most extensive characterization of mutations in high-risk melanoma susceptibility genes in families with three or more melanoma patients yet available.

From sporadic atypical nevi to familial melanoma: risk analysis for melanoma in sporadic atypical nevus patients.

BACKGROUND: Atypical nevi (AN), present in either a familial or a sporadic setting, are strong indicators of increased melanoma risk. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent of this risk and the extent of reclassification of sporadic to familial cases during follow-up. METHODS: We studied 167 sporadic patients with AN (>or=5). At the end of follow-up we updated the family history regarding melanoma and performed germline mutation analysis of the known melanoma susceptibility genes. RESULTS: We found a relative risk for melanoma of 46.1 (95% confidence interval 21.0-87.5). Six of 167 patients were carriers of a CDKN2A mutation. At the end of follow-up, 10 of 136 patients with sporadic AN reported being a member of a melanoma family. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted in an area with a founder mutation in many of its melanoma families; therefore the results may not be applicable to other populations. CONCLUSION: We report a high relative risk of 46.1 of melanoma development in patients with sporadic AN. A significant proportion of this Dutch cohort reported additional cases in their families over time.

A mutation hotspot at the p14ARF splice site.

Germline mutations of CDKN2A that affect the p16INK4a transcript have been identified in numerous melanoma pedigrees worldwide. In the UK, over 50% of pedigrees with three or more cases of melanoma have been found to carry mutations of CDKN2A. Mutations that affect p14ARF exon 1beta exclusively are very rare. This has led to the suggestion that it is p16INK4a and not p14ARF that plays the critical role in melanoma predisposition. We report the identification of a cluster of five different germline mutations at the p14ARF exon 1beta splice donor site in melanoma pedigrees. All the five splice site variants showed evidence of being causal mutations. Three of the variants were demonstrated to result in aberrant splicing of the p14ARF mRNA, confirming their role in melanoma predisposition. No other point mutations were identified in the coding region of p14ARF. The p14ARF transcript of CDKN2A is clearly important in disease predisposition in a subset of melanoma pedigrees. Curiously, the only mutations so far reported to affect p14ARF exon 1beta exclusively have been knockout mutations. Further investigation into the spectrum of mutations observed in this gene may help clarify the exact role of p14ARF in melanoma predisposition.