Implementing gene curation for hereditary cancer susceptibility in Australia: achieving consensus on genes with clinical utility.

BACKGROUND: The strength of evidence supporting the validity of gene-disease relationships is variable. Hereditary cancer has the additional complexity of low or moderate penetrance for some confirmed disease-associated alleles. METHODS: To promote national consistency in interpretation of hereditary cancer/tumour gene test results, we requested opinions of representatives from Australian Family Cancer Clinics regarding the clinical utility of 157 genes initially collated for a national research project. Viewpoints were sought by initial survey, face-to-face workshop and follow-up survey. Subsequent review was undertaken by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee, a national resource providing evidence-based and consensus-driven cancer treatment protocols. RESULTS: Genes were categorised by clinical actionability as: relevant for testing on presentation of common cancer/tumour types (n=45); relevant for testing in the context of specific rare phenotypes (n=74); insufficient clinical utility (n=34) or contentious clinical utility (n=3). Opinions for several genes altered during the study time frame, due to new information. CONCLUSION: Through an iterative process, consensus was achieved on genes with clinical utility for hereditary cancer/tumour conditions in the Australian setting. This study highlighted need for regular review of gene-disease lists, a role assumed in Australia for hereditary cancer/tumour predisposition genes by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee.

Impact of national guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of advice.

BACKGROUND: This nationwide study assessed the impact of nationally agreed cancer genetics guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given by health professionals to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of such advice by patients. METHODS: Clinic files of 883 women who had initial proband screens for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants at 12 familial cancer clinics between July 2008-July 2009 (i.e. before guideline release), July 2010-July 2011 and July 2012-July 2013 (both after guideline release) were audited to determine reason given for genetic testing. Separately, the clinic files of 599 female carriers without a personal history of breast/ovarian cancer who underwent BRCA1/2 predictive genetic testing and received their results pre- and post-guideline were audited to ascertain the risk management advice given by health professionals. Carriers included in this audit were invited to participate in a telephone interview to assess uptake of advice, and 329 agreed to participate. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in the percentages of tested patients meeting at least one published indication for genetic testing - 79, 77 and 78% of files met criteria before guideline, and two-, and four-years post-guideline, respectively (χ = 0.25, p = 0.88). Rates of documentation of post-test risk management advice as per guidelines increased significantly from pre- to post-guideline for 6/9 risk management strategies. The strategies with the highest compliance amongst carriers or awareness post-release of guidelines were annual magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography in women 30-50 years (97%) and annual mammography in women > 50 years (92%). Of women aged over 40 years, 41% had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Amongst women aged > 40 years, 75% had a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Amongst women who had not had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, only 6% took risk-reducing medication. Fear of side-effects was cited as the main reasons for not taking these medicines by 73% of women. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines did not change the percentages of tested patients meeting genetic testing criteria but improved documentation of risk management advice by health professionals. Effective approaches to enhance compliance with guidelines are needed to improve risk management and quality of care.

Cost-effectiveness of long-term clinical management of BRCA pathogenic variant carriers.

PURPOSE: Women who inherit a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant are at high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of long-term management in clinical practice is lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world cost-effectiveness of BRCA carrier management within a structured clinical program. METHODS: Lifetime health outcomes and costs of clinical management for female unaffected BRCA carriers aged 20 were measured using a microsimulation model. For the intervention, women could attend a high-risk clinic, undergo risk-reducing surgery, and receive annual breast screening. Input data for the model was from a clinical database of 983 BRCA carriers. The comparator was no risk management. Outcomes were discounted at 5%. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the program was $32,359 to $48,263 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Limiting uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy to <50% of carriers decreased cost-effectiveness by $7000-8000 per QALY. Achieving perfect adherence to guidelines was less cost-effective for BRCA2 due to increased risk-reducing mastectomy costs with smaller incremental health benefit. CONCLUSION: Long-term management of BRCA carriers within a structured clinical program is cost-effective. Suboptimal adherence to risk management guidelines can substantially affect outcomes and is an important consideration for future studies.

The predicted impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing of people with incident colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the health impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) in people with incident colorectal cancer (CRC) in Australia. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We investigated the impact of LS testing strategies in a micro-simulation model (Policy1-Lynch), explicitly modelling the cost of testing all patients diagnosed with incident CRC during 2017, with detailed modelling of outcomes for patients identified as LS carriers (probands) and their at-risk relatives throughout their lifetimes. For people with confirmed LS, we modelled ongoing colonoscopic surveillance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness of six universal tumour testing strategies (testing for DNA mismatch repair deficiencies) and of universal germline gene panel testing of patients with incident CRC; impact on cost-effectiveness of restricting testing by age at CRC diagnosis (all ages, under 50/60/70 years) and of colonoscopic surveillance interval (one, two years). RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness ratio of universal tumour testing strategies (annual colonoscopic surveillance, no testing age limit) compared with no testing ranged from $28 915 to $31 904/life-year saved (LYS) (indicative willingness-to-pay threshold: $30 000-$50 000/LYS). These strategies could avert 184-189 CRC deaths with an additional 30 597-31 084 colonoscopies over the lifetimes of 1000 patients with incident CRC with LS and 1420 confirmed LS carrier relatives (164-166 additional colonoscopies/death averted). The most cost-effective strategy was immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $28 915/LYS). Universal germline gene panel testing was not cost-effective compared with universal tumour testing strategies (ICER, $2.4 million/LYS). Immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing was cost-effective at all age limits when paired with 2-yearly colonoscopic surveillance (ICER, $11 525-$32 153/LYS), and required 4778-15 860 additional colonoscopies to avert 46-181 CRC deaths (88-103 additional colonoscopies/death averted). CONCLUSIONS: Universal tumour testing strategies for guiding germline genetic testing of people with incident CRC for LS in Australia are likely to be cost-effective compared with no testing. Universal germline gene panel testing would not currently be cost-effective.

A Microsimulation Model for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cancer Risk Management for BRCA Pathogenic Variant Carriers: miBRovaCAre.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a validated model for evaluating the real-world effectiveness of long-term clinical management strategies for women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants. METHODS: A microsimulation model was developed that included a BRCA-specific natural history for breast and ovarian cancer, a clinical framework for carrier follow-up, and cancer risk management strategies (breast screening, risk-reducing mastectomy, and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy). Adherence rates and outcomes for breast screening and risk-reducing surgery were obtained from BRCA carriers seen through a familial cancer service in Melbourne, Australia. The model was assessed for internal and external validity. The model was used to compare women perfectly adhering to screening recommendations versus actual adherence of the clinical cohort. RESULTS: The model accurately predicted cancer incidence, pathology, and mortality. Using actual adherence for breast screening resulted in additional breast cancer deaths (per 1000 women: BRCA1, 2.7; BRCA2, 1.6) compared with perfect screening adherence. This decreased average life expectancy by 0.30 life-years for BRCA1 and 0.07 life-years for BRCA2. When carriers had access to risk-reducing mastectomy, the benefit from improved screening adherence was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The developed model is a good descriptor of BRCA carriers' lifetime trajectory and its modification by use of risk management strategies alone or in combination. Evaluations of breast screening in BRCA carriers may overestimate the benefits of screening programs unless adherence is considered. By incorporating real-world clinical practice and patient behavior, this model can assist in developing clinical services and improving clinical outcomes for carriers.

Assessing the medical workforces perceived barriers to the prescription of risk-reducing medication for women at high-risk of breast cancer.

This study aims to determine the attitudes and barriers of Australian oncology health professionals towards using tamoxifen as a breast cancer risk-reducing medication (RRM). Our target group was health professionals involved in breast cancer risk assessment or treatment. Members of relevant medical organizations in Australia and New Zealand were invited to participate in a web-based survey assessing: their attitudes towards tamoxifen as a RRM; which health professionals they felt were responsible for initiating and monitoring women on RRM and their views on workforce issues related to RRM prescription. There were 100 respondents, including 33 genetic health professionals, 32 medical oncologists and 20 surgeons. Respondents perceived tamoxifen to be effective as a RRM (99%). However, only 41% of prescribing health professionals (n = 64) had ever prescribed tamoxifen as a RRM. Overall, survey respondents felt that the initiation of RRM was the role of specialists. Assessing a patient's risk of breast cancer was reported to be the role of cancer geneticists/familial cancer clinicians (74%) and medical oncologists (66%). Discussion about the use of RRM was reported to be the role of these same groups (84% and 85% respectively). Medical oncologists (83%) and breast physicians (70%) were most frequently considered to be responsible for initiating the prescription and monitoring women once commenced on RRM (72% and 71% respectively). Oncology health professionals express confidence in the effectiveness of tamoxifen as a RRM despite reporting low prescription rates. Findings demonstrate that these oncology health professionals felt that initiation of RRM was the role of cancer specialists, despite preventative medicine being seen as a primary care activity. If uptake among at-risk women increases, this will put a significant burden on cancer services and GPs will need to take on a greater role in the delivery of RRM.

Cost-effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of cancer risk management strategies in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To review the evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cancer risk management interventions for BRCA carriers. METHODS: Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses were identified by searching scientific and health economic databases. Eligible studies modeled the impact of a cancer risk management intervention in BRCA carriers on life expectancy (LE), cancer incidence, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with or without costs. RESULTS: Twenty-six economic evaluations and eight comparative effectiveness analyses were included. Combined risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and prophylactic mastectomy resulted in the greatest LE and was cost-effective in most analyses. Despite leading to increased LE and QALYs, combined mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was less likely to be cost-effective than either mammography or MRI alone, particularly for women over 50 and BRCA2 carriers. Variation in patient compliance to risk management interventions was incorporated in 11/34 studies with the remaining analyses assuming 100% adherence. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic surgery and intensive breast screening are effective and cost-effective in models of BRCA carrier risk management. Findings were based predominantly on assuming perfect adherence to recommendations without assessment of the health-care resource use and costs related to engaging patients and maximizing compliance, meaning the real-world impact on clinical outcomes and resource use remains unclear.

A population-based analysis of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing among ovarian cancer patients in an era of histotype-specific approaches to ovarian cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Identifying female carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is imperative for prevention of ovarian cancer and breast cancer. There are five major histologic subtypes of ovarian cancer and high grade serous cancer (the most common) is reported in 75-100% of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We examined histology-based referral to the Hereditary Cancer Program following an educational prevention campaign recommending BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation screening for all high-grade serous cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective study in the province of British Columbia, Canada that included all patients visiting the Hereditary Cancer Program for genetic counselling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation between 2001 and 2014. We examined the difference in rates of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing between serous cancer patients and endometrioid and clear cell cancer patients using a differences in differences analysis. We also calculated the mean number of family members tested for every BRCA1 and BRCA2 identified ovarian cancer patient before and after the educational campaign. RESULTS: There were 5712 women tested for a BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation at the HCP between 2001 and 2014, 887 of which had previously received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. By 2013, 43% of serous cancer patients were being tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations compared with 20% of endometrioid and clear cell patients (p < 0.001). The mean number of family members tested for each BRCA1 and BRCA2 positive ovarian cancer patient increased after the educational campaign from 2.54 to 3.27 (p = 0.071), and the number of family members identified as BRCA positive also increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for histology-based referral significantly increased the likelihood of serous cancer patients being tested for BRCA mutations. There was also an increase in the number of carrier tests performed for each BRCA1 and BRCA2 index ovarian cancer patient.

Making Sense of SNPs: Women's Understanding and Experiences of Receiving a Personalized Profile of Their Breast Cancer Risks.

Genome wide association studies have identified a number of common genetic variants - single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) - that combine to increase breast cancer risk. SNP profiling may enhance the accuracy of risk assessment and provides a personalized risk estimate. SNP testing for breast cancer risks may supplement other genetic tests in the future, however, before it can be implemented in the clinic we need to know how it will be perceived and received. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 39 women who had previously had a breast cancer diagnosis and undergone BRCA1/2 testing, participated in the Variants in Practice (ViP) study and received personalized risk (SNP) profiles. Interviews explored their understanding and experiences of receiving this SNP information. Women reported feeling positive about receiving their personalized risk profile, because it: provided an explanation for their previous diagnosis of cancer, vindicated previous risk management decisions and clarified their own and other family members' risks. A small group was initially shocked to learn of the increased risk of a second primary breast cancer. This study suggests that the provision of personalized risk information about breast cancer generated by SNP profiling is understood and well received. However, a model of genetic counseling that incorporates monogenic and polygenic genetic information will need to be developed prior to clinical implementation.

FANCM c.5791C>T nonsense mutation (rs144567652) induces exon skipping, affects DNA repair activity and is a familial breast cancer risk factor.

Numerous genetic factors that influence breast cancer risk are known. However, approximately two-thirds of the overall familial risk remain unexplained. To determine whether some of the missing heritability is due to rare variants conferring high to moderate risk, we tested for an association between the c.5791C>T nonsense mutation (p.Arg1931*; rs144567652) in exon 22 of FANCM gene and breast cancer. An analysis of genotyping data from 8635 familial breast cancer cases and 6625 controls from different countries yielded an association between the c.5791C>T mutation and breast cancer risk [odds ratio (OR) = 3.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.28-12.11; P = 0.017)]. Moreover, we performed two meta-analyses of studies from countries with carriers in both cases and controls and of all available data. These analyses showed breast cancer associations with OR = 3.67 (95% CI = 1.04-12.87; P = 0.043) and OR = 3.33 (95% CI = 1.09-13.62; P = 0.032), respectively. Based on information theory-based prediction, we established that the mutation caused an out-of-frame deletion of exon 22, due to the creation of a binding site for the pre-mRNA processing protein hnRNP A1. Furthermore, genetic complementation analyses showed that the mutation influenced the DNA repair activity of the FANCM protein. In summary, we provide evidence for the first time showing that the common p.Arg1931* loss-of-function variant in FANCM is a risk factor for familial breast cancer.

Streamlined genetic education is effective in preparing women newly diagnosed with breast cancer for decision making about treatment-focused genetic testing: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

PURPOSE: Increasingly, women newly diagnosed with breast cancer are being offered treatment-focused genetic testing (TFGT). As the demand for TFGT increases, streamlined methods of genetic education are needed. METHODS: In this noninferiority trial, women aged <50 years with either a strong family history (FH+) or other features suggestive of a germ-line mutation (FH-) were randomized before definitive breast cancer surgery to receive TFGT education either as brief written materials (intervention group (IG)) or during a genetic counseling session at a familial cancer clinic (usual-care group (UCG)). Women completed self-report questionnaires at four time points over 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 135 women were included in the analysis, all of whom opted for TFGT. Decisional conflict about TFGT choice (primary outcome) was not inferior in the IG compared with the UCG (noninferiority margin of -10; mean difference = 2.45; 95% confidence interval -2.87-7.76; P = 0.36). Costs per woman counseled in the IG were significantly lower (AUD$89) compared with the UCG (AUD$173; t(115) = 6.02; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A streamlined model of educating women newly diagnosed with breast cancer about TFGT seems to be a cost-effective way of delivering education while ensuring that women feel informed and supported in their decision making, thus freeing resources for other women to access TFGT.Genet Med 19 4, 448-456.

Breast cancer risk prediction using a polygenic risk score in the familial setting: a prospective study from the Breast Cancer Family Registry and kConFab.

PURPOSE: This study examined the utility of sets of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in familial but non-BRCA-associated breast cancer (BC). METHODS: We derived a polygenic risk score (PRS) based on 24 known BC risk SNPs for 4,365 women from the Breast Cancer Family Registry and Kathleen Cuningham Consortium Foundation for Research into Familial Breast Cancer familial BC cohorts. We compared scores for women based on cancer status at baseline; 2,599 women unaffected at enrollment were followed-up for an average of 7.4 years. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyze the association of PRS with BC risk. The BOADICEA risk prediction algorithm was used to measure risk based on family history alone. RESULTS: The mean PRS at baseline was 2.25 (SD, 0.35) for affected women and was 2.17 (SD, 0.35) for unaffected women from combined cohorts (P < 10-6). During follow-up, 205 BC cases occurred. The hazard ratios for continuous PRS (per SD) and upper versus lower quintiles were 1.38 (95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.56) and 3.18 (95% confidence interval: 1.84-5.23) respectively. Based on their PRS-based predicted risk, management for up to 23% of women could be altered. CONCLUSION: Including BC-associated SNPs in risk assessment can provide more accurate risk prediction than family history alone and can influence recommendations for cancer screening and prevention modalities for high-risk women.Genet Med 19 1, 30-35.

Psychosocial and behavioral impact of breast cancer risk assessed by testing for common risk variants: protocol of a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The 'common variant, common disease' model predicts that a significant component of hereditary breast cancer unexplained by pathogenic variants in moderate or high-penetrance genes is due to the cumulative effect of common risk variants in DNA (polygenic risk). Assessing a woman's breast cancer risk by testing for common risk variants can provide useful information for women who would otherwise receive uninformative results by traditional monogenic testing. Despite increasing support for the utility of common risk variants in hereditary breast cancer, research findings have not yet been integrated into clinical practice. Translational research is therefore critical to ensure results are effectively communicated, and that women do not experience undue adverse psychological outcomes. METHODS: In this prospective study, 400 women with a personal and/or high risk family history of breast cancer will be recruited from six familial cancer centers (FCCs) in Australia. Eligible women will be invited to attend a FCC and receive their personal polygenic risk result for breast cancer. Genetic health professionals participating in the study will receive training on the return of polygenic risk information and a training manual and visual aids will be developed to facilitate patient communication. Participants will complete up to three self-administered questionnaires over a 12-months period to assess the short-and long-term psychological and behavioral outcomes of receiving or not receiving their personal polygenic risk result. DISCUSSION: This is the world's first study to assess the psychological and behavioral impact of offering polygenic risk information to women from families at high risk of breast cancer. Findings from this research will provide the basis for the development of a new service model to provide polygenic risk information in familial cancer clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered on 27th April 2017 with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Group (Registration no: ACTRN12617000594325; clinical trial URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372743 ).

Targeted massively parallel sequencing of a panel of putative breast cancer susceptibility genes in a large cohort of multiple-case breast and ovarian cancer families.

INTRODUCTION: Gene panel testing for breast cancer susceptibility has become relatively cheap and accessible. However, the breast cancer risks associated with mutations in many genes included in these panels are unknown. METHODS: We performed custom-designed targeted sequencing covering the coding exons of 17 known and putative breast cancer susceptibility genes in 660 non-BRCA1/2 women with familial breast cancer. Putative deleterious mutations were genotyped in relevant family members to assess co-segregation of each variant with disease. We used maximum likelihood models to estimate the breast cancer risks associated with mutations in each of the genes. RESULTS: We found 31 putative deleterious mutations in 7 known breast cancer susceptibility genes (TP53, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, CDH1, PTEN and STK11) in 45 cases, and 22 potential deleterious mutations in 31 cases in 8 other genes (BARD1, BRIP1, MRE11, NBN, RAD50, RAD51C, RAD51D and CDK4). The relevant variants were then genotyped in 558 family members. Assuming a constant relative risk of breast cancer across age groups, only variants in CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2 and TP53 showed evidence of a significantly increased risk of breast cancer, with some supportive evidence that mutations in ATM confer moderate risk. CONCLUSIONS: Panel testing for these breast cancer families provided additional relevant clinical information for <2% of families. We demonstrated that segregation analysis has some potential to help estimate the breast cancer risks associated with mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes, but very large case-control sequencing studies and/or larger family-based studies will be needed to define the risks more accurately.

Acute kidney injury is under-recognised and under-reported in hospitalised patients in Australia.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalised patients is associated with adverse outcomes; however, it remains unrecognised and under-reported. A total of 48 045 serum creatinine results from 8129 tertiary hospital inpatients were reviewed. The prevalence of AKI was 4.33%. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with AKI (16.76%) compared to those without AKI (1.88%, P < 0.001). Documentation of AKI in discharge summaries was poor.

Monogenic and polygenic determinants of sarcoma risk: an international genetic study.

BACKGROUND: Sarcomas are rare, phenotypically heterogeneous cancers that disproportionately affect the young. Outside rare syndromes, the nature, extent, and clinical significance of their genetic origins are not known. We aimed to investigate the genetic basis for bone and soft-tissue sarcoma seen in routine clinical practice. METHODS: In this genetic study, we included 1162 patients with sarcoma from four cohorts (the International Sarcoma Kindred Study [ISKS], 966 probands; Project GENESIS, 48 probands; Asan Bio-Resource Center, 138 probands; and kConFab, ten probands), who were older than 15 years at the time of consent and had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of sarcoma, recruited from specialist sarcoma clinics without regard to family history. Detailed clinical, pathological, and pedigree information was collected, and cancer diagnoses in probands and relatives were independently verified. Targeted exon sequencing using blood (n=1114) or saliva (n=48) samples was done on 72 genes (selected due to associations with increased cancer risk) and rare variants were stratified into classes approximating the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) clinical classification for genetic variation. We did a case-control rare variant burden analysis using 6545 Caucasian controls included from three cohorts (ISKS, 235 controls; LifePool, 2010 controls; and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Exome Sequencing Project [ESP], 4300 controls). FINDINGS: The median age at cancer diagnosis in 1162 sarcoma probands was 46 years (IQR 29-58), 170 (15%) of 1162 probands had multiple primary cancers, and 155 (17%) of 911 families with informative pedigrees fitted recognisable cancer syndromes. Using a case-control rare variant burden analysis, 638 (55%) of 1162 sarcoma probands bore an excess of pathogenic germline variants (combined odds ratio [OR] 1·43, 95% CI 1·24-1·64, p<0·0001), with 227 known or expected pathogenic variants occurring in 217 individuals. All classes of pathogenic variants (known, expected, or predicted) were associated with earlier age of cancer onset. In addition to TP53, ATM, ATR, and BRCA2, an unexpected excess of functionally pathogenic variants was seen in ERCC2. Probands were more likely than controls to have multiple pathogenic variants compared with the combined control cohort group and the LifePool control cohort (OR 2·22, 95% CI 1·57-3·14, p=1·2 × 10(-6)) and the cumulative burden of multiple variants correlated with earlier age at cancer diagnosis (Mantel-Cox log-rank test for trend, p=0·0032). 66 of 1162 probands carried notifiable variants following expert clinical review (those recognised to be clinically significant to health and about which patients should be advised), whereas 293 (25%) probands carried variants with potential therapeutic significance. INTERPRETATION: About half of patients with sarcoma have putatively pathogenic monogenic and polygenic variation in known and novel cancer genes, with implications for risk management and treatment. FUNDING: Rainbows for Kate Foundation, Johanna Sewell Research Foundation, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Australia, Sarcoma UK, National Cancer Institute, Liddy Shriver Sarcoma Initiative.

Male breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: pathology data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and, more commonly, BRCA2 mutations are associated with increased risk of male breast cancer (MBC). However, only a paucity of data exists on the pathology of breast cancers (BCs) in men with BRCA1/2 mutations. Using the largest available dataset, we determined whether MBCs arising in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers display specific pathologic features and whether these features differ from those of BRCA1/2 female BCs (FBCs). METHODS: We characterised the pathologic features of 419 BRCA1/2 MBCs and, using logistic regression analysis, contrasted those with data from 9675 BRCA1/2 FBCs and with population-based data from 6351 MBCs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. RESULTS: Among BRCA2 MBCs, grade significantly decreased with increasing age at diagnosis (P = 0.005). Compared with BRCA2 FBCs, BRCA2 MBCs were of significantly higher stage (P for trend = 2 × 10(-5)) and higher grade (P for trend = 0.005) and were more likely to be oestrogen receptor-positive [odds ratio (OR) 10.59; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.15-21.80] and progesterone receptor-positive (OR 5.04; 95 % CI 3.17-8.04). With the exception of grade, similar patterns of associations emerged when we compared BRCA1 MBCs and FBCs. BRCA2 MBCs also presented with higher grade than MBCs from the SEER database (P for trend = 4 × 10(-12)). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the largest series analysed to date, our results show that BRCA1/2 MBCs display distinct pathologic characteristics compared with BRCA1/2 FBCs, and we identified a specific BRCA2-associated MBC phenotype characterised by a variable suggesting greater biological aggressiveness (i.e., high histologic grade). These findings could lead to the development of gender-specific risk prediction models and guide clinical strategies appropriate for MBC management.

An international survey of surveillance schemes for unaffected BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Female BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers are at substantially increased risk for developing breast and/or ovarian cancer, and are offered enhanced surveillance including screening from a young age and risk-reducing surgery (RRS)-mastectomy (RRM) and/or salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). While there are established guidelines for early detection of breast cancer in high-risk women who have not undergone RRM, there are less developed guidelines after RRM. We evaluated the schemes offered before and after RRS in internationally diverse high-risk clinics. An e-mailed survey was distributed to high-risk clinics affiliated with CIMBA. Overall, 22 centers from 16 countries responded. Pre RRS surveillance schemes overwhelmingly included breast imaging (primarily MRI) from 18 to 30 years and clinical breast exam (CBE) at 6-12 month intervals. For ovarian cancer, all but 6 centers offered semiannual/annual gynecological exam, transvaginal ultrasound, and CA 125 measurements. Post RRM, most centers offered only annual CBE while 4 centers offered annual MRI, primarily for substantial residual breast tissue. After RRSO only 4 centers offered specific gynecological surveillance. Existing guidelines for breast/ovarian cancer detection in BRCA carriers are being applied pre RRS but are not globally harmonized, and most centers offer no specific surveillance post RRS. From this comprehensive multinational study it is clear that evidence-based, long-term prospective data on the most effective scheme for BRCA carriers post RRS is needed.

Efficacy and safety of olaparib monotherapy in germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with advanced ovarian cancer and three or more lines of prior therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of olaparib, an oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, was investigated in a subgroup of patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutated (gBRCA1/2m) advanced ovarian cancer who had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy. Primary data from this Phase II study (Study 42, ClinicalTrials.govNCT01078662) have been reported previously. METHODS: Eligible patients were treated with oral olaparib 400mg bid capsule monotherapy until disease progression according to RECIST v1.1. Objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) were assessed for patients with measurable disease at baseline. Safety and tolerability were assessed for all patients by adverse event (AE) incidence and changes in laboratory parameters. Platinum resistance status was obtained retrospectively, and responses to olaparib evaluated. RESULTS: In patients with gBRCA1/2m ovarian cancer, 154/193 (80%) had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy, of whom 137/154 (89%) had measurable disease at baseline. ORR was 34% (46/137; 95% confidence interval [CI] 26-42) and median DoR was 7.9 (95% CI 5.6-9.6) months. ORR in platinum-resistant tumors was 30%. Median DoR for platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant disease was similar: 8.2months (95% CI 5.6-13.5) compared with 8.0months (4.8-14.8), respectively. Six of the 193 (3%) patients had an AE with an outcome of death. None of these AEs at time of occurrence was considered causally related to olaparib. CONCLUSION: Following ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy, olaparib 400mg bid (capsule form) monotherapy demonstrated notable antitumor activity in patients with gBRCA1/2m advanced ovarian cancer. No new safety signals were identified.

Synthetic lethality between CCNE1 amplification and loss of BRCA1.

High-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSCs) are characterized by a high frequency of TP53 mutations, BRCA1/2 inactivation, homologous recombination dysfunction, and widespread copy number changes. Cyclin E1 (CCNE1) gene amplification has been reported to occur independently of BRCA1/2 mutation, and it is associated with primary treatment failure and reduced patient survival. Insensitivity of CCNE1-amplified tumors to platinum cross-linking agents may be partly because of an intact BRCA1/2 pathway. Both BRCA1/2 dysfunction and CCNE1 amplification are known to promote genomic instability and tumor progression. These events may be mutually exclusive, because either change provides a path to tumor development, with no selective advantage to having both mutations. Using data from a genome-wide shRNA synthetic lethal screen, we show that BRCA1 and members of the ubiquitin pathway are selectively required in cancers that harbor CCNE1 amplification. Furthermore, we show specific sensitivity of CCNE1-amplified tumor cells to the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. These findings provide an explanation for the observed mutual exclusivity of CCNE1 amplification and BRCA1/2 loss in HGSC and suggest a unique therapeutic approach for treatment-resistant CCNE1-amplified tumors.