A clinical trial of lovastatin for modification of biomarkers associated with breast cancer risk.

Pre-clinical and epidemiologic studies provide rationale for evaluating lipophilic statins for breast cancer prevention. We conducted a single-arm, biomarker modulation trial of lovastatin among women with increased risk of breast cancer. Eligibility criteria included a deleterious germline mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, or TP53; lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥20 % as estimated by the Claus model; or personal history of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Participants received 40 mg of lovastatin orally twice daily for 6 months. We evaluated the following biomarkers before and after lovastatin use: breast duct cytology (primary endpoint), serum lipids, C-reactive protein, insulin-like growth factor-1, IGF binding protein-3, lipid peroxidation, oxidative DNA damage, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl CoA reductase genotype, and mammographic density. Thirty women were enrolled, and 26 (86.7 %) completed the study. For the primary endpoint of changes in breast duct cytology sampled by random periareolar fine needle aspiration, most participants [57.7 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 38.9-74.5 %] showed no change after lovastatin; 19.2 % (CI 8.1-38.3 %) had a favorable change in cytology, 7.7 % (95 % CI 1.0-25.3 %) had an unfavorable change, and 15.4 % (95 % CI 5.5-34.2 %) had equivocal results due to acellular specimens, usually after lovastatin. No significant changes were observed in secondary biomarker endpoints. The study was generally well-tolerated: 4 (13.3 %) participants did not complete the study, and one (3.8 %) required a dose reduction. This trial was technically feasible, but demonstrated no significant biomarker modulation; contributing factors may include insufficient sample size, drug dose and/or duration. The results are inconclusive and do not exclude a favorable effect on breast cancer risk.

C/EBPß-1 promotes transformation and chemoresistance in Ewing sarcoma cells.

CEBPB copy number gain in Ewing sarcoma was previously shown to be associated with worse clinical outcome compared to tumors with normal CEBPB copy number, although the mechanism was not characterized. We employed gene knockdown and rescue assays to explore the consequences of altered CEBPB gene expression in Ewing sarcoma cell lines. Knockdown of EWS-FLI1 expression led to a decrease in expression of all three C/EBPß isoforms while re-expression of EWS-FLI1 rescued C/EBPß expression. Overexpression of C/EBPß-1, the largest of the three C/EBPß isoforms, led to a significant increase in colony formation when cells were grown in soft agar compared to empty vector transduced cells. In addition, depletion of C/EBPß decreased colony formation, and re-expression of either C/EBPß-1 or C/EBPß-2 rescued the phenotype. We identified the cancer stem cell marker ALDH1A1 as a target of C/EBPß in Ewing sarcoma. Furthermore, increased expression of C/EBPß led to resistance to chemotherapeutic agents. In summary, we have identified CEBPB as an oncogene in Ewing sarcoma. Overexpression of C/EBPß-1 increases transformation, upregulates expression of the cancer stem cell marker ALDH1A1, and leads to chemoresistance.

Tumor BRCA1 Reversion Mutation Arising during Neoadjuvant Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Is Associated with Therapy Resistance.

Purpose: In germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers, restoration of tumor BRCA1/2 function by a secondary mutation is recognized as a mechanism of resistance to platinum and PARP inhibitors, primarily in ovarian cancer. We evaluated this mechanism of resistance in newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2-mutant breast cancer with poor response to neoadjuvant platinum-based therapy.Experimental Design: PrECOG 0105 was a phase II neoadjuvant study of gemcitabine, carboplatin, and iniparib in patients with stage I-IIIA triple-negative or BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer (n = 80). All patients underwent comprehensive BRCA1/2 genotyping. For mutation carriers with moderate or extensive residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy, BRCA1/2 status was resequenced in the residual surgical breast tumor tissue.Results: Nineteen patients had a deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and four had moderate residual disease at surgery. BRCA1/2 sequencing of residual tissue was performed on three patients. These patients had BRCA1 1479delAG, 3374insGA, and W1712X mutations, respectively, with LOH at these loci in the pretreatment tumors. In the first case, a new BRCA1 mutation was detected in the residual disease. This resulted in a 14-amino acid deletion and restoration of the BRCA1 reading frame. A local relapse biopsy 4 months later revealed the identical reversion mutation, and the patient subsequently died from metastatic breast cancer.Conclusions: We report a BRCA1 reversion mutation in a patient newly diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer that developed over 18 weeks of platinum-based neoadjuvant therapy. This was associated with poor therapy response, early relapse, and death. Clin Cancer Res; 23(13); 3365-70. ©2017 AACR.

Phase II Study of Gemcitabine, Carboplatin, and Iniparib As Neoadjuvant Therapy for Triple-Negative and BRCA1/2 Mutation-Associated Breast Cancer With Assessment of a Tumor-Based Measure of Genomic Instability: PrECOG 0105.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess efficacy, safety, and predictors of response to iniparib in combination with gemcitabine and carboplatin in early-stage triple-negative and BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-arm phase II study enrolled patients with stage I to IIIA (T ≥ 1 cm) estrogen receptor-negative (≤ 5%), progesterone receptor-negative (≤ 5%), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative or BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer. Neoadjuvant gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV] on days 1 and 8), carboplatin (area under curve of 2 IV on days 1 and 8), and iniparib (5.6 mg/kg IV on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) were administered every 21 days for four cycles, until the protocol was amended to six cycles. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (no invasive carcinoma in breast or axilla). All patients underwent comprehensive BRCA1/2 genotyping, and homologous recombination deficiency was assessed by loss of heterozygosity (HRD-LOH) in pretreatment core breast biopsies. RESULTS: Among 80 patients, median age was 48 years; 19 patients (24%) had germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations; clinical stage was I (13%), IIA (36%), IIB (36%), and IIIA (15%). Overall pathologic complete response rate in the intent-to-treat population (n = 80) was 36% (90% CI, 27 to 46). Mean HRD-LOH scores were higher in responders compared with nonresponders (P = .02) and remained significant when BRCA1/2 germline mutations carriers were excluded (P = .021). CONCLUSION: Preoperative combination of gemcitabine, carboplatin, and iniparib is active in the treatment of early-stage triple-negative and BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer. The HRD-LOH assay was able to identify patients with sporadic triple-negative breast cancer lacking a BRCA1/2 mutation, but with an elevated HRD-LOH score, who achieved a favorable pathologic response. Confirmatory controlled trials are warranted.

Feasibility evaluation of an online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations face difficult decisions about managing their high risks of breast and ovarian cancer. We developed an online tool to guide decisions about cancer risk reduction (available at: http://brcatool.stanford.edu ), and recruited patients and clinicians to test its feasibility. We developed questionnaires for women with BRCA1/2 mutations and clinicians involved in their care, incorporating the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the Center for Healthcare Evaluation Provider Satisfaction Questionnaire (CHCE-PSQ). We enrolled BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who were seen by local physicians or participating in a national advocacy organization, and we enrolled clinicians practicing at Stanford University and in the surrounding community. Forty BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 16 clinicians participated. Both groups found the tool easy to use, with SUS scores of 82.5-85 on a scale of 1-100; we did not observe differences according to patient age or gene mutation. General satisfaction was high, with a mean score of 4.28 (standard deviation (SD) 0.96) for patients, and 4.38 (SD 0.89) for clinicians, on a scale of 1-5. Most patients (77.5 %) were comfortable using the tool at home. Both patients and clinicians agreed that the decision tool could improve patient-doctor encounters (mean scores 4.50 and 4.69, on a 1-5 scale). Patients and health care providers rated the decision tool highly on measures of usability and clinical relevance. These results will guide a larger study of the tool's impact on clinical decisions.

Online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations must choose between prophylactic surgeries and screening to manage their high risks of breast and ovarian cancer, comparing options in terms of cancer incidence, survival, and quality of life. A clinical decision tool could guide these complex choices. METHODS: We built a Monte Carlo model for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, simulating breast screening with annual mammography plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from ages 25 to 69 years and prophylactic mastectomy (PM) and/or prophylactic oophorectomy (PO) at various ages. Modeled outcomes were cancer incidence, tumor features that shape treatment recommendations, overall survival, and cause-specific mortality. We adapted the model into an online tool to support shared decision making. RESULTS: We compared strategies on cancer incidence and survival to age 70 years; for example, PO plus PM at age 25 years optimizes both outcomes (incidence, 4% to 11%; survival, 80% to 83%), whereas PO at age 40 years plus MRI screening offers less effective prevention, yet similar survival (incidence, 36% to 57%; survival, 74% to 80%). To characterize patients' treatment and survivorship experiences, we reported the tumor features and treatments associated with risk-reducing interventions; for example, in most BRCA2 mutation carriers (81%), MRI screening diagnoses stage I, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers, which may not require chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Cancer risk-reducing options for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers vary in their impact on cancer incidence, recommended treatments, quality of life, and survival. To guide decisions informed by multiple health outcomes, we provide an online tool for joint use by patients with their physicians (http://brcatool.stanford.edu).

Breast cancer risk factors differ between Asian and white women with BRCA1/2 mutations.

The prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations may differ between Asians and whites. We investigated BRCA1/2 mutations and cancer risk factors in a clinic-based sample. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were enrolled from cancer genetics clinics in Hong Kong and California according to standardized entry criteria. We compared BRCA mutation position, cancer history, hormonal and reproductive exposures. We analyzed DNA samples for single-nucleotide polymorphisms reported to modify breast cancer risk. We performed logistic regression to identify independent predictors of breast cancer. Fifty Asian women and forty-nine white American women were enrolled. BRCA1 mutations were more common among whites (67 vs. 42 %, p = 0.02), and BRCA2 mutations among Asians (58 vs. 37 %, p = 0.04). More Asians had breast cancer (76 vs. 53 %, p = 0.03); more whites had relatives with breast cancer (86 vs. 50 %, p = 0.0003). More whites than Asians had breastfed (71 vs. 42 %, p = 0.005), had high BMI (median 24.3 vs. 21.2, p = 0.04), consumed alcohol (2 drinks/week vs. 0, p < 0.001), and had oophorectomy (61 vs. 34 %, p = 0.01). Asians had a higher frequency of risk-associated alleles in MAP3K1 (88 vs. 59 %, p = 0.005) and TOX3/TNRC9 (88 vs. 55 %, p = 0.0002). On logistic regression, MAP3K1 was associated with increased breast cancer risk for BRCA2, but not BRCA1 mutation carriers; breast density was associated with increased risk among Asians but not whites. We found significant differences in breast cancer risk factors between Asian and white BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Further investigation of racial differences in BRCA1/2 mutation epidemiology could inform targeted cancer risk-reduction strategies.