Genomic characterization of metastatic patterns from prospective clinical sequencing of 25,000 patients.

Metastatic progression is the main cause of death in cancer patients, whereas the underlying genomic mechanisms driving metastasis remain largely unknown. Here, we assembled MSK-MET, a pan-cancer cohort of over 25,000 patients with metastatic diseases. By analyzing genomic and clinical data from this cohort, we identified associations between genomic alterations and patterns of metastatic dissemination across 50 tumor types. We found that chromosomal instability is strongly correlated with metastatic burden in some tumor types, including prostate adenocarcinoma, lung adenocarcinoma, and HR+/HER2+ breast ductal carcinoma, but not in others, including colorectal cancer and high-grade serous ovarian cancer, where copy-number alteration patterns may be established early in tumor development. We also identified somatic alterations associated with metastatic burden and specific target organs. Our data offer a valuable resource for the investigation of the biological basis for metastatic spread and highlight the complex role of chromosomal instability in cancer progression.

Author Correction: Tumour lineage shapes BRCA-mediated phenotypes.

An Amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Standard-of-care systemic therapy with or without stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with oligoprogressive breast cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer (Consolidative Use of Radiotherapy to Block [CURB] oligoprogression): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with metastatic cancer eventually develop resistance to systemic therapy, with some having limited disease progression (ie, oligoprogression). We aimed to assess whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) targeting oligoprogressive sites could improve patient outcomes. METHODS: We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial of SBRT in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic breast cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after having received at least first-line systemic therapy, with oligoprogression defined as five or less progressive lesions on PET-CT or CT. Patients aged 18 years or older were enrolled from a tertiary cancer centre in New York, NY, USA, and six affiliated regional centres in the states of New York and New Jersey, with a 1:1 randomisation between standard of care (standard-of-care group) and SBRT plus standard of care (SBRT group). Randomisation was done with a computer-based algorithm with stratification by number of progressive sites of metastasis, receptor or driver genetic alteration status, primary site, and type of systemic therapy previously received. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, measured up to 12 months. We did a prespecified subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint by disease site. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03808662, and is complete. FINDINGS: From Jan 1, 2019, to July 31, 2021, 106 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=51; 23 patients with breast cancer and 28 patients with NSCLC) or SBRT plus standard of care (n=55; 24 patients with breast cancer and 31 patients with NSCLC). 16 (34%) of 47 patients with breast cancer had triple-negative disease, and 51 (86%) of 59 patients with NSCLC had no actionable driver mutation. The study was closed to accrual before reaching the targeted sample size, after the primary efficacy endpoint was met during a preplanned interim analysis. The median follow-up was 11·6 months for patients in the standard-of-care group and 12·1 months for patients in the SBRT group. The median progression-free survival was 3·2 months (95% CI 2·0-4·5) for patients in the standard-of-care group versus 7·2 months (4·5-10·0) for patients in the SBRT group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·35-0·81; p=0·0035). The median progression-free survival was higher for patients with NSCLC in the SBRT group than for those with NSCLC in the standard-of-care group (10·0 months [7·2-not reached] vs 2·2 months [95% CI 2·0-4·5]; HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·75; p=0·0039), but no difference was found for patients with breast cancer (4·4 months [2·5-8·7] vs 4·2 months [1·8-5·5]; 0·78, 0·43-1·43; p=0·43). Grade 2 or worse adverse events occurred in 21 (41%) patients in the standard-of-care group and 34 (62%) patients in the SBRT group. Nine (16%) patients in the SBRT group had grade 2 or worse toxicities related to SBRT, including gastrointestinal reflux disease, pain exacerbation, radiation pneumonitis, brachial plexopathy, and low blood counts. INTERPRETATION: The trial showed that progression-free survival was increased in the SBRT plus standard-of-care group compared with standard of care only. Oligoprogression in patients with metastatic NSCLC could be effectively treated with SBRT plus standard of care, leading to more than a four-times increase in progression-free survival compared with standard of care only. By contrast, no benefit was observed in patients with oligoprogressive breast cancer. Further studies to validate these findings and understand the differential benefits are warranted. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Tumour lineage shapes BRCA-mediated phenotypes.

Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose individuals to certain cancers1-3, and disease-specific screening and preventative strategies have reduced cancer mortality in affected patients4,5. These classical tumour-suppressor genes have tumorigenic effects associated with somatic biallelic inactivation, although haploinsufficiency may also promote the formation and progression of tumours6,7. Moreover, BRCA1/2-mutant tumours are often deficient in the repair of double-stranded DNA breaks by homologous recombination8-13, and consequently exhibit increased therapeutic sensitivity to platinum-containing therapy and inhibitors of poly-(ADP-ribose)-polymerase (PARP)14,15. However, the phenotypic and therapeutic relevance of mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 remains poorly defined in most cancer types. Here we show that in the 2.7% and 1.8% of patients with advanced-stage cancer and germline pathogenic or somatic loss-of-function alterations in BRCA1/2, respectively, selective pressure for biallelic inactivation, zygosity-dependent phenotype penetrance, and sensitivity to PARP inhibition were observed only in tumour types associated with increased heritable cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers (BRCA-associated cancer types). Conversely, among patients with non-BRCA-associated cancer types, most carriers of these BRCA1/2 mutation types had evidence for tumour pathogenesis that was independent of mutant BRCA1/2. Overall, mutant BRCA is an indispensable founding event for some tumours, but in a considerable proportion of other cancers, it appears to be biologically neutral-a difference predominantly conditioned by tumour lineage-with implications for disease pathogenesis, screening, design of clinical trials and therapeutic decision-making.

Impact of reactive changes on multigene testing: histopathologic analysis of low-grade breast cancers with high-risk 21-gene recurrence scores.

PURPOSE: The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay predicts the recurrence risk and magnitude of chemotherapy benefit in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC). This study examined low-grade tumors yielding a high-risk RS and their outcomes.Kindly check the edit made in the article titleOk  METHODS: We compared patients with grade 1 BC and a high-risk RS to those with low-risk RS. Histologic sections were reviewed and features reported to elevate the RS were noted, mainly biopsy cavity and reactive stromal changes (BXC). RESULTS: A total of 54 patients had high-risk RS (median RS of 28, range 26-36). On review, BXC were seen in all cases. Thirty BCs in this group also had low to negative PR. Treatment regimens included: chemoendocrine therapy (63%), endocrine therapy alone (31%) and no adjuvant therapy (6%). There were no additional breast cancer events over a median follow-up of 54.0 months (range 6.2 to 145.3). A total of 108 patients had low-risk RS (median RS of 7, range 0-9). BXC were seen in 47% of cases and none were PR negative. One patient had a recurrence at 64.8 months while the rest had no additional events over a median of 68.1 months (2.4 to 100). CONCLUSION: We provide further evidence that reactive stromal changes and/or low-PR scores enhance the elevation of the RS. A high-RS result in low grade, PR-positive BC may not reflect actual risk and any suspected discrepancies should be discussed with the management teams. Multigene testing results should be interpreted after correlation with pathologic findings to optimize patient care.

Validation of a clinical breast cancer risk assessment tool combining a polygenic score for all ancestries with traditional risk factors.

PURPOSE: We previously described a combined risk score (CRS) that integrates a multiple-ancestry polygenic risk score (MA-PRS) with the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model to assess breast cancer (BC) risk. Here, we present a longitudinal validation of CRS in a real-world cohort. METHODS: This study included 130,058 patients referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing and negative for germline pathogenic variants in BC-associated genes. Data were obtained by linking genetic test results to medical claims (median follow-up 12.1 months). CRS calibration was evaluated by the ratio of observed to expected BCs. RESULTS: Three hundred forty BCs were observed over 148,349 patient-years. CRS was well-calibrated and demonstrated superior calibration compared with TC in high-risk deciles. MA-PRS alone had greater discriminatory accuracy than TC, and CRS had approximately 2-fold greater discriminatory accuracy than MA-PRS or TC. Among those classified as high risk by TC, 32.6% were low risk by CRS, and of those classified as low risk by TC, 4.3% were high risk by CRS. In cases where CRS and TC classifications disagreed, CRS was more accurate in predicting incident BC. CONCLUSION: CRS was well-calibrated and significantly improved BC risk stratification. Short-term follow-up suggests that clinical implementation of CRS should improve outcomes for patients of all ancestries through personalized risk-based screening and prevention.

Clinical Impact of a Rapid Genetic Testing Model for Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Genetic testing may alter clinical management for individuals with metastatic prostate cancer by identifying additional therapies. Traditional counseling models are unlikely to enable time-sensitive therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and clinical impact of an alternative hereditary genetic testing model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of a multicenter, single-arm prospective trial, individuals with advanced prostate cancer were referred by their oncologist for testing of 14 genes associated with hereditary prostate cancer. Pretest education (brochure and video) was provided in the oncology clinic. Questionnaires assessing participant satisfaction with both pretest education and decision to undergo genetic testing were collected. A genetic counselor contacted participants by phone to obtain family history and discuss results. Medical records were queried to determine whether a change in clinical management was discussed. RESULTS: Of 501 participants consented to germline analysis, 51 (10.2%) had at least 1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant. Change in treatment was discussed with 22/48 (45.8%) of eligible participants who tested positive. Feasibility of this model was assessed by participant satisfaction and turnaround time. Average±SD satisfaction with the pretest education (15.5±2.2, 4-20 scale) and with the decision to undergo genetic testing (17.1±2.9, 4-20 scale) were both high. Results were returned 20 days (median) after sample collection. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist-initiated germline genetic testing in collaboration with a genetic counselor is a feasible approach to testing advanced prostate cancer patients with impactful clinical actionability. The testing model and educational material serve as resources to clinicians treating prostate cancer patients.

Mutational Status is Associated with a Higher Rate of Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) occurs in up to 20% of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancers. Whether this differs among BRCA mutation carriers is uncertain. This study compared pCR between BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and matched sporadic control subjects. METHODS: From November 2013 to January 2022, this study identified 522 consecutive women with clinical stage I to III HR+/HER2- breast cancer treated with NAC and surgery. The study matched BRCA1/2 mutation carriers 1:2 to non-carriers in terms of age, clinical tumor (cT) and nodal (cN) stage, and differentiation. Two-sample non-parametric tests compared baseline characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression assessed pCR (i.e., ypT0/ispN0) by BRCA1/2 mutational status. RESULTS: Of the 522 women (median age, 50 years), 59 had BRCA1/2 mutations, 78% of which were clinically node positive. Anthracycline-based NAC was administered to 97%. More BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were younger, had cT1 tumors, and had poorly differentiated disease. After matching, 58 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were similar to 116 non-carriers in terms of age (p = 0.6), cT (p = 0.9), cN stage (p = 0.7), and tumor differentiation (p > 0.9). Among the mutation carriers, the pCR rate was 15.5% for BRCA1/2, 38% (8/21) for BRCA1, and 2.7% (1/37) for BRCA2 versus 7.8% (9/116) for the non-carriers (p < 0.001). After NAC, 5 (41.7%) of the 12 BRCA1 mutation carriers converted to pN0 versus 10 (37%) of the 27 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 19 (20.9%) of the 91 non-carriers (p = 0.3). In the multivariable analysis, BRCA1 mutation status was associated with higher odds of pCR than non-carrier status (odds ratio [OR] 6.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.95-20.5; p = 0.002), whereas BRCA2 mutation status was not (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.02-2.67; p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that BRCA1 mutation carriers with HR+/HER2- breast cancers have a higher rate of pCR than sporadic cancers and may derive greater benefit from chemotherapy. The use of NAC to downstage these patients should be considered.

Association of Moderate-Risk Breast Cancer Genes with Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Bilateral Disease.

BACKGROUND: The impact of ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, the three most prevalent moderate-risk breast cancer genes, on surgical decision making is not well known. METHODS: Our retrospective study included patients with resectable non-metastatic breast cancer who underwent multigene panel testing between July 2014 and January 2020 with at least one genetic alteration (pathogenic or variant of uncertain significance [VUS] in ATM [n = 49], CHEK [n = 57], or PALB2 [n = 27]). Our objectives were to determine the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and the rate of bilateral breast cancer. Univariable analyses (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed to identify factors associated with CPM and bilateral breast cancer. RESULTS: The rate of CPM was 39% (n = 49/127), with 54% (n = 25/46) of patients with a pathogenic mutation and 30% (n = 24/81) of patients with a VUS choosing CPM. On MVA, premenopausal status (odds ratio [OR] 3.46) and a pathogenic alteration (OR 3.01) were associated with increased use of CPM. Bilateral disease was noted in 16% (n = 22/138). Patients with pathogenic mutations had a 22% (n = 11/51) incidence of bilateral breast cancer, while patients with VUS had a 13% (n = 11/87) incidence, although this was not statistically significant on UVA or MVA. On MVA, premenopausal status was associated with a decreased risk of bilateral disease (OR 0.33, p = 0.022). During follow-up, a breast cancer event occurred in 16% (n = 22/138). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified a high rate of CPM among those with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 alterations, including VUS. Further studies are needed to clarify reasons for CPM among patients with moderate-risk alterations.

Routine clinical parameters and laboratory testing predict therapy-related myeloid neoplasms after treatment for breast cancer.

We aim to identify predictors of therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MN) in patients with breast cancer (BC) and cytopenias to determine the timing of bone marrow biopsy (BMBx). Patients with BC and cytopenias who were referred for BMBx between 2002-2018 were identified using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center institutional database. Characteristics associated with the risk of t-MN were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression and included in a predictive model. The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was estimated by 5-fold cross-validation. Of the 206 BC patients who underwent BMBx included in our study, 107 had t-MN. By multivariable analysis, white blood cell count 4-11 K/mcL, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥1.5 K/mcL, hemoglobin ≥12.2 g/dL, red cell distribution width 11.5-14.5%, the presence of bone metastasis and a time from BC diagnosis to BMBx <15 months significantly decreased the likelihood of t-MN. The average AUC was 0.88. We stratified our cohort by bone metastasis and by findings on peripheral smear. In both the subset without bone metastasis (n=159) and in the cohort with no blasts or dysplastic cells on peripheral smear (n=96) our variables had similar effects on the risk of t-MN. Among the 47 patients with bone metastasis, an ANC ≥1.5 K/mcL was the only variable associated with a decreased risk of t-MN. Our findings show that in patients with BC and unexplained cytopenias, clinical and laboratory parameters can predict t-MN and assist clinicians in determining the timing of a BMBx.

Summary of the experiences, knowledge, medical management, and family communication of monoallelic MUTYH carriers.

Germline genetic testing for inherited cancer risk is increasingly being performed with multigene panel testing with MUTYH often included on colorectal cancer- and polyposis-focused panels, as well as on broader pan-cancer panels. With up to 1%-2% of the general population being monoallelic MUTYH carriers, pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in MUTYH are one of the most common findings on multigene cancer panels. However, little is known about patient experience and understanding of monoallelic MUTYH P/LP variants, nor whether such findings influence medical management recommendations and familial communication, which this study aims to better understand. Monoallelic P/LP MUTYH carriers were recruited from the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT) and completed a cross-sectional self-report survey on sociodemographic characteristics, medical and family history, experiences with MUTYH genetic testing, genetics and MUTYH knowledge, perceived cancer risk, and familial communication. Of 115 eligible PROMPT participants, 49 (43%) completed the survey who were primarily female (94%), white (96%), had a history of cancer (61%), and a median age of 51.4 years. Most participants (61%) reported satisfaction with how their healthcare provider managed their genetic test result and care, and 65% of survey participants reported their provider recommended colonoscopy based on their genetic test results. Participants' responses also reflected variable levels of knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening recommendations for MUTYH carriers. The majority (98%) of participants shared their genetic test results with at least some of their relatives; however, only 13% of eligible relatives reportedly underwent cascade testing. Taken together, this study provides needed insight into the overall experiences of monoallelic MUTYH carriers and highlights numerous areas for improvement in clinician education, communication, and management of these individuals.

Disparities in cancer genetics care by race/ethnicity among pan-cancer patients with pathogenic germline variants.

BACKGROUND: Germline risk assessment is increasing as part of cancer care; however, disparities in subsequent genetic counseling are unknown. METHODS: Pan-cancer patients were prospectively consented to tumor-normal sequencing via custom next generation sequencing panel (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets) inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes from January 2015 through December 2019 (97.5% research nonbillable) with protocol for genetics referral. Rates of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs) and downstream counseling were compared across ancestry groups (mutually exclusive groups based on self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish [AJ] heritage) using nonparametric tests and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 15,775 patients (59.6%, non-Hispanic [NH]-White; 15.7%, AJ; 20.5%, non-White [6.9%, Asian; 6.8%, Black/African American (AA); 6.7%, Hispanic; 0.1%, Other], and 4.2%, unknown), 2663 (17%) had a PV. Non-White patients had a lower PV rate (n = 433, 13.4%) compared to NH-Whites (n = 1451, 15.4%) and AJ patients (n = 683, 27.6%), p < .01, with differences in mostly moderate and low/recessive/uncertain penetrance variants. Among 2239 patients with new PV, 1652 (73.8%) completed recommended genetic counseling. Non-White patients had lower rates of genetic counseling (67.7%) than NH-White (73.7%) and AJ patients (78.8%), p < .01, with lower rates occurring in Black/AA (63%) compared to NH-White patients, even after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.97; p = .036). Non-White, particularly Black/AA and Asian, probands had a trend toward lower rates and numbers of at-risk family members being seen for counseling/genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Despite minimizing barriers to genetic testing, non-White patients were less likely to receive recommended cancer genetics follow-up, with potential implications for oncologic care, cancer risk reduction, and at-risk family members. LAY SUMMARY: Genetic testing is becoming an important part of cancer care, and we wanted to see if genetics care was different between individuals of different backgrounds. We studied 15,775 diverse patients with cancer who had genetic testing using a test called MSK-IMPACT that was covered by research funding. Clinically important genetic findings were high in all groups. However, Black patients were less likely to get recommended counseling compared to White patients. Even after removing many roadblocks, non-White and especially Black patients were less likely to get recommended genetics care, which may affect their cancer treatments and families.

Associations between circulating proteins and risk of breast cancer by intrinsic subtypes: a Mendelian randomisation analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aetiologic role of circulating proteins in the development of breast cancer subtypes is not clear. We aimed to examine the potential causal effects of circulating proteins on the risk of breast cancer by intrinsic-like subtypes within the Mendelian randomisation (MR) framework. METHODS: MR was performed using summary statistics from two sources: the INTERVAL protein quantitative trait loci (pQTL) Study (1890 circulating proteins and 3301 healthy individuals) and the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC; 106,278 invasive cases and 91,477 controls). The inverse-variance (IVW)-weighted method was used as the main analysis to evaluate the associations between genetically predicted proteins and the risk of five different intrinsic-like breast cancer subtypes and the weighted median MR method, the Egger regression, the MR-PRESSO, and the MRLocus method were performed as secondary analysis. RESULTS: We identified 98 unique proteins significantly associated with the risk of one or more subtypes (Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate < 0.05). Among them, 51 were potentially specific to luminal A-like subtype, 14 to luminal B/Her2-negative-like, 11 to triple negative, 3 to luminal B-like, and 2 to Her2-enriched-like breast cancer (ntotal = 81). Associations for three proteins (ICAM1, PLA2R1 and TXNDC12) showed evident heterogeneity across the subtypes. For example, higher levels of genetically predicted ICAM1 (per unit of increase) were associated with an increased risk of luminal B/HER2-negative-like cancer (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.03-1.08, BH-FDR = 2.43 × 10-4) while inversely associated with triple-negative breast cancer with borderline significance (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.95-0.99, BH-FDR = 0.065, Pheterogeneity < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found potential causal associations with the risk of subtypes of breast cancer for 98 proteins. Associations of ICAM1, PLA2R1 and TXNDC12 varied substantially across the subtypes. The identified proteins may partly explain the heterogeneity in the aetiology of distinct subtypes of breast cancer and facilitate the personalised risk assessment of the malignancy.

Penetrance of male breast cancer susceptibility genes: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Several male breast cancer (MBC) susceptibility genes have been identified, but the MBC risk for individuals with a pathogenic variant in each of these genes (i.e., penetrance) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the penetrance of MBC susceptibility genes to better summarize current estimates of penetrance. METHODS: A search query was developed to identify MBC-related papers indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE. A validated natural language processing method was applied to identify papers reporting penetrance estimates. These penetrance studies' bibliographies were reviewed to ensure comprehensiveness. We accessed the potential ascertainment bias for each enrolled study. RESULTS: Fifteen penetrance studies were identified from 12,182 abstracts, covering five purported MBC susceptibility genes: ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2. Cohort (n = 6, 40%) and case-control (n = 5, 33%) studies were the two most common study designs, followed by family-based (n = 3, 20%), and a kin-cohort study (n = 1, 7%). Seven of the 15 studies (47%) adjusted for ascertainment adequately and therefore the MBC risks reported by these seven studies can be considered applicable to the general population. Based on these seven studies, we found pathogenic variants in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2 c.1100delC, and PALB2 show an increased risk for MBC. The association between BRCA1 and MBC was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This work supports the conclusion that pathogenic variants in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2 c.1100delC, and PALB2 increase the risk of MBC, whereas pathogenic variants in BRCA1 may not be associated with increased MBC risk.

Targeted BRCA1/2 population screening among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals using a web-enabled medical model: An observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate uptake and follow-up using internet-assisted population genetic testing (GT) for BRCA1/2 Ashkenazi Jewish founder pathogenic variants (AJPVs). METHODS: Across 4 cities in the United States, from December 2017 to March 2020, individuals aged ≥25 years with ≥1 Ashkenazi Jewish grandparent were offered enrollment. Participants consented and enrolled online with chatbot and video education, underwent BRCA1/2 AJPV GT, and chose to receive results from their primary care provider (PCP) or study staff. Surveys were conducted at baseline, at 12 weeks, and annually for 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 5193 participants enrolled and 4109 (79.1%) were tested (median age = 54, female = 77.1%). Upon enrollment, 35.1% of participants selected a PCP to disclose results, and 40.5% of PCPs agreed. Of those tested, 138 (3.4%) were AJPV heterozygotes of whom 21 (15.2%) had no significant family history of cancer, whereas 86 (62.3%) had a known familial pathogenic variant. At 12 weeks, 85.5% of participants with AJPVs planned increased cancer screening; only 3.7% with negative results and a significant family history reported further testing. CONCLUSION: Although continued follow-up is needed, internet-enabled outreach can expand access to targeted GT using a medical model. Observed challenges for population genetic screening efforts include recruitment barriers, improving PCP engagement, and increasing uptake of additional testing when indicated.

Points to Consider Regarding Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in High-, Moderate-, and Low-Penetrance Gene Carriers.

Risk-reducing mastectomy is considered a safe and effective surgical procedure in high-risk individuals with BRCA1/2 germline mutations. Multigene panels identify women with alterations in breast cancer susceptibility genes other than BRCA1/2. International guidelines classify these genes as high-, moderate-, and low-penetrance based on their associated relative risk for breast cancer. Classification of specific genes is not always concordant among guidelines, and the indications for risk-reducing mastectomy are not defined. In this opinion paper, we review some considerations to clarify these controversial points.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism biomarkers of adjuvant anastrozole-induced estrogen suppression in early breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Based on our previous findings that postmenopausal women with estrone (E1) and estradiol (E2) concentrations at or above 1.3 pg/ml and 0.5 pg/ml, respectively, after 6 months of adjuvant anastrozole therapy had a three-fold risk of recurrence, we aimed to identify a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based model that would predict elevated E1 and E2 and then validate it in an independent dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The test set consisted of 322 women from the M3 study and the validation set consisted of 152 patients from MA.27. All patients were treated with adjuvant anastrozole, had on-anastrozole E1 and E2 concentrations and genome-wide genotyping. RESULTS: SNPs were identified from the M3 genome-wide association study. The best model to predict the E1-E2 phenotype with high balanced accuracy was a support vector machine model using clinical factors plus 46 SNPs. We did not have an independent cohort that is similar to the M3 study with clinical, E1-E2 phenotypes and genotype data to test our model. Hence, we chose a nested matched case-control cohort (MA.27 study) for testing. Our E1-E2 model was not validated but we found the MA.27 validation cohort was both clinically and genomically different. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a SNP-based model that had excellent performance characteristics for predicting the phenotype of elevated E1 and E2 in women treated with anastrozole. This model was not validated in an independent dataset but that dataset was clinically and genomically substantially different. The model will need validation in a prospective study.

Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To address demands for timely germline information to guide treatments, we evaluated experiences of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer with a mainstreaming genetic testing model wherein multigene panel testing was ordered by oncologists with standardized pretest patient education, and genetic counselors delivered results and post-test genetic counseling via telephone. METHODS: Among 1,203 eligible patients, we conducted a prospective single-arm study to examine patient uptake and acceptability (via self-report surveys at baseline and three weeks and three months following result return) of this mainstreaming model. RESULTS: Only 10% of eligible patients declined participation. Among 1,054 tested participants, 10% had pathogenic variants (PV), 16% had variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and 74% had no variant identified (NV). Participants reported high initial acceptability, including high satisfaction with their testing decision. Variability over time in several outcomes existed for participants with PV or NV: those with NV experienced a temporary increase in depression (pTime < 0.001; pTime2 < 0.001), and those with PV experienced a small increase in genetic testing distress (p = 0.03). Findings suggested that result type, sex, and cancer type were also associated with outcomes including clinical depression and uncertainty. CONCLUSION: This mainstreaming model may offer a feasible approach for extending access to germline genetic information.

PARP (Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase) inhibitors for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer remains a challenge to treat. With emerging study results, it is important to interpret the available clinical data and apply the evidence offering the most effective treatment to the right patient. Poly(ADP Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are a new class of drug and their role in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer is being established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: On 8 June 2020, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via OvidSP, Embase via OvidSP, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) search portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences as well as scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors of trials for further information, where needed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials on participants with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer comparing 1) chemotherapy in combination with PARP inhibitors, compared to the same chemotherapy without PARP inhibitors or 2) treatment with PARP inhibitors, compared to treatment with other chemotherapy. We included studies that reported on our primary outcome of overall survival and secondary outcomes including progression-free survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 49 articles for qualitative synthesis, describing five randomised controlled trials that were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). A sixth trial was assessed as eligible but had ended prematurely and no data were available for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Risk of bias was predominately low to unclear across all studies except in regards to performance bias (3/5 high risk) and detection bias for the outcomes of quality of life (2/2 high risk) and reporting of adverse events (3/5 high risk). High-certainty evidence shows there may be a small advantage in overall survival (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; 4 studies; 1435 patients). High-certainty evidence shows that PARP inhibitors offer an improvement in PFS in locally advanced/metastatic HER2-negative, BRCA germline mutated breast cancer patients (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 5 studies; 1474 patients). There was no statistical heterogeneity for these outcomes. Subgroup analyses for PFS outcomes based on trial level data were performed for triple-negative breast cancer, hormone-positive and/or HER2-positive breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations, and patients who had received prior chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer or not. The subgroup analyses showed a persistent PFS benefit regardless of the subgroup chosen. Pooled analysis shows PARP inhibitors likely result in a moderate improvement in tumour response rate compared to other treatment arms (66.9% vs 48.9%; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.54; 5 studies; 1185 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The most common adverse events reported across all five studies included neutropenia, anaemia and fatigue. Grade 3 or higher adverse events probably occur no less frequently in patients receiving PARP inhibitors (59.4% for PARP arm versus 64.5% for non-PARP arm, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 5 studies; 1443 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Only two studies reported quality of life outcomes so this was not amenable to meta-analysis. However, both studies that did assess quality of life showed PARP inhibitors were superior compared to physician's choice of chemotherapy in terms of participant-reported outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative, BRCA germline mutated breast cancer, PARP inhibitors offer an improvement in progression-free survival, and likely improve overall survival and tumour response rates. This systematic review provides evidence supporting the use of PARP inhibitors as part of the therapeutic strategy for breast cancer patients in this subgroup. The toxicity profile for PARP inhibitors is probably no worse than chemotherapy but more information is required regarding quality of life outcomes, highlighting the importance of collecting such data in future studies. Future studies should also be powered to detect clinically important differences in overall survival and could focus on the role of PARP inhibitors in other relevant breast cancer populations, including HER2-positive, BRCA-negative/homologous recombination repair-deficient and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PDL1) positive.

Improving our model of cascade testing for hereditary cancer risk by leveraging patient peer support: a concept report.

Consensus and evidence suggest that cascade testing is critical to achieve the promise of cancer genetic testing. However, barriers to cascade testing include effective family communication of genetic risk information and family members' ability to cope with genetic risk. These barriers are further complicated by the developmental needs of unaffected family members during critical windows for family communication and adaptation. Peer support could address these barriers. We provide two illustrative examples of ongoing BRCA1/2-related clinical trials that apply a peer support model to improve family communication and functioning. Peer support can augment currently available genetic services to facilitate adjustment to and effective use of cancer genetic risk information. Importantly, this scalable approach can address the presence of cancer risk within families across multiple developmental stages. This applies a family-centered perspective that accommodates all potentially at-risk relatives. This peer support model can be further applied to emerging topics in clinical genetics to expand reach and impact.