The estrogen receptor-alpha S118P variant does not affect breast cancer incidence or response to endocrine therapies.

PURPOSE: Estrogen receptor-alpha (ER) is a therapeutic target of ER-positive (ER+) breast cancers. Although ER signaling is complex, many mediators of this pathway have been identified. Specifically, phosphorylation of ER at serine 118 affects responses to estrogen and therapeutic ligands and has been correlated with clinical outcomes in ER+ breast cancer patients. We hypothesized that a newly described germline variant (S118P) at this residue would drive cellular changes consistent with breast cancer development and/or hormone resistance. METHODS: Isogenic human breast epithelial cell line models harboring ER S118P were developed via genome editing and characterized to determine the functional effects of this variant. We also examined the frequency of ER S118P in a case-control study (N = 536) of women with and without breast cancer with a familial risk. RESULTS: In heterozygous knock-in models, the S118P variant demonstrated no significant change in proliferation, migration, MAP Kinase pathway signaling, or response to the endocrine therapies tamoxifen and fulvestrant. Further, there was no difference in the prevalence of S118P between women with and without cancer relative to population registry databases. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the ER S118P variant does not affect risk for breast cancer or hormone therapy resistance. Germline screening and modification of treatments for patients harboring this variant are likely not warranted.

Evaluation of osteopenia and osteoporosis in younger breast cancer survivors compared with cancer-free women: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis, an indicator of significant bone loss, has been consistently reported among older breast cancer survivors. Data are limited on the incidence of osteopenia, an earlier indicator of bone loss, and osteoporosis in younger breast cancer survivors compared with cancer-free women. METHODS: We prospectively examined bone loss in 211 breast cancer survivors (mean age at breast cancer diagnosis = 47 years) compared with 567 cancer-free women in the same cohort with familial risk for breast cancer. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate HRs and 95% CIs of osteopenia and/or osteoporosis incidence based on physician diagnosis. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 5.8 years, 66% of breast cancer survivors and 53% of cancer-free women reported having a bone density examination, and 112 incident cases of osteopenia and/or osteoporosis were identified. Breast cancer survivors had a 68% higher risk of osteopenia and osteoporosis compared to cancer-free women (HR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.12-2.50). The association was stronger among recent survivors after only 2 years of follow-up (HR = 2.74, 95% CI = 1.37-5.47). A higher risk of osteopenia and osteoporosis was also observed among survivors aged ≤ 50 years, estrogen receptor-positive tumors, and those treated with aromatase inhibitors alone or chemotherapy plus any hormone therapy relative to cancer-free women. CONCLUSIONS: Younger breast cancer survivors are at higher risk for osteopenia and osteoporosis compared to cancer-free women. Studies are needed to determine effective approaches to minimize bone loss in this population.

The ENGAGE study: evaluation of a conversational virtual agent that provides tailored pre-test genetic education to cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Novel approaches are needed to ensure all patients with cancer have access to quality genetic education before genetic testing to enable informed treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to test the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) intervention for the delivery of genetic education by non-genetic providers to patients with cancer undergoing active treatment. METHODS: A conversational AI-based application was developed on the HealthFAX platform to provide tailored genetic education to patients with cancer and tested at Johns Hopkins Hospital between April 2021 and Feb 2022. Patients' responses around the adoption, use, and experience of the AI application were assessed. RESULTS: Out of 64 individuals who consented to the study, 51 accessed the tool. The responding participants had a mean age of 61 years (ranging from 30-90 years) with 39 individuals undergoing active treatment for breast cancer and 12 for advanced prostate cancer. All patients chose to complete the tool at home. The median time between study enrollment and AI application initiation was 1 day, and the median time to complete the application was 24 min. All participants in their survey responses felt that the tool was secure, easy to use, liked the convenience of viewing it at home, and felt it provided valuable information. Eighteen percent of participants viewed the application with a family member. Ninety-eight percent of the participants completed their genetic education prior to receiving their test results. In 16%, a pathogenic variant was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The 51 patients who adopted the AI application were highly satisfied with its usability and convenience. Our results support the continued evaluation of this cost-effective AI application in a large-scale study. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Tailored pre-test genetic education can be successfully delivered to patients with cancer undergoing active treatment via an AI application at their convenience.

Olaparib Use in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Harboring Somatic BRCA1/2 Mutations or Mutations in Non-BRCA1/2, DNA Damage Repair Genes.

BACKGROUND: Poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) are active in patients with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated breast cancer, accounting for 5% to 10% of all breast cancers. Another 5% to 10% harbor somatic BRCA1/2 (sBRCA1/2) mutations or mutations in non-BRCA1/2, homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes but until recently, there were no data for the use of PARPi in these patients. This study examines the use of olaparib in patients with metastatic breast cancer harboring sBRCA1/2 or germline or somatic non-BRCA1/2, HRR mutations and demonstrates potential activity of PARPi in this setting. METHODS: In this retrospective, single institution study, patients who were treated with off-label, off-protocol olaparib for metastatic breast cancer harboring sBRCA1/2 or germline or somatic non-BRCA1/2, HRR mutations were identified. The primary aim was to describe these patients' demographics, tumor characteristics, mutations, safety and tolerability, response rates, progression free survival, PARPi-associated survival and subsequent treatment. RESULTS: Seven patients were treated off-label, off-trial with olaparib for sBRCA1/2-mutated cancers (n = 4) or non-BRCA1/2, HRR-mutated cancers (n = 3). All patients with sBRCA1/2-mutated cancers responded to PARP inhibition; patients with non-BRCA1/2, HRR-mutated cancers did not respond. The median progression free survival in patients with a sBRCA1/2 mutation was 6.5 months (range 5-9 months) vs. 3 months (range 2-4 months) in patients with non-BRCA1/2, HRR mutations. CONCLUSION: This single institution experience adds to recent larger reports confirming evidence for PARPi therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer harboring sBRCA1/2 mutations. No activity was observed in patients with either germline or somatic non-BRCA1/2, HRR-mutated cancers.

Personalized Medicine in the Oncology Clinic: Implementation and Outcomes of the Johns Hopkins Molecular Tumor Board.

PURPOSE: Tumor genomic profiling for personalized oncology therapy is being widely applied in clinical practice even as it is being evaluated more formally in clinical trials. Given the complexities of genomic data and its application to clinical use, molecular tumor boards with diverse expertise can provide guidance to oncologists and patients seeking to implement personalized genetically targeted therapy in practice. METHODS: A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board reviewed tumor molecular profiling reports from consecutive referrals at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins over a 3-year period. The tumor board weighed evidence for actionability of genomic alterations identified by molecular profiling and provided recommendations including US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug therapy, clinical trials of matched targeted therapy, off-label use of such therapy, and additional tumor or germline genetic testing. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five patients were reviewed. Actionable genomic alterations were identified in 132 patients (85%). Off-label therapies were recommended in 37 patients (24%). Eleven patients were treated off-label, and 13 patients were enrolled onto clinical trials of matched targeted therapies. Median progression-free survival of patients treated with matched therapies was 5 months (95% CI, 2.9 months to not reached), and the progression-free survival probability at 6 months was 43%(95% CI, 26% to 71%). Lack of locally available clinical trials was the major limitation on clinical actionability of tumor profiling reports. CONCLUSION: The molecular tumor board recommended off-label targeted therapies for a quarter of all patients reviewed. Outcomes were heterogeneous, although 43% of patients receiving genomically matched therapy derived clinical benefit lasting at least 6 months. Until more data become available from precision oncology trials, molecular tumor boards can help guide appropriate use of tumor molecular testing to direct therapy.