Risk of metastasis in BRCA2 carriers diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is the neoplasia most associated with BRCA1 germline pathogenic variants (PV) and is more likely to develop metastases than the other breast cancer (BC) subtypes, mainly in the lungs and the central nervous system (CNS). Recently, BRCA2 carriers were shown to have a higher risk for developing CNS metastases. However, the patterns of recurrence and metastases of BRCA2 carriers with TNBC are unknown. METHODS: TNBC patient data attending the A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, from 1998 through 2020, were verified either by medical records or by BRCA1/2 genetic testing carried out. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to the data to assess the independent factors for bone and CNS metastases. Adjustment was done using all independent variables with p < 0.2 in the univariable Cox model to describe the relationship between the independent variables until time of death. RESULTS: A total of 388 TNBC patients were evaluated. We identified PV in BRCA1/2 genes in 21% (82/388), being 17.7% (69/388) in BRCA1 and only 3.3% (13/388) in BRCA2. A total of 120 patients (31%) developed distant metastases. Bone or CNS metastases were observed in 40% and 60% of BRCA2 PV carriers (p = 0.155), respectively. The BRCA2 carriers tended to have a higher likelihood of developing bone metastases (OR, 4.06; 95% CI, 0.82-20.01; p = 0.085), when compared to BRCA1 carriers (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.12-2.87; p = 0.528). BRCA2 carriers had an OR of 1.75 (95% CI, 0.33-9.14; p = 0.503) for CNS metastasis development, while BRCA1 carriers had an OR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.23-2.23; p = 0.574). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with TNBC and PV in the BRCA2 gene had higher frequencies of secondary bone involvement and CNS in the course of the disease. However, the BRCA2 PV did not represent an independent outcome predictor of metastases and overall survival. Efforts to increase the number of BRCA2 carriers among TNBC patients are crucial for determining their risk of developing bone and CNS metastases compared to BRCA2 noncarriers.

Cancer Chemoprevention: Classic and Epigenetic Mechanisms Inhibiting Tumorigenesis. What Have We Learned So Far?

Cancers derive from step by step processes which are differentiated by the progressively accumulated mutations. For some tumors there is a clear progressive advancement from benign lesions to malignancy and for these, preventive screening programs exist. In such cases having those benign lesions are a clear indicator of predisposition while for some other cases, familial patterns of cancer incidence and the identification of mutations are the main indicators of higher risk for having the disease. For patients identified as having predisposition, chemoprevention is a goal and in some cases a possibility. Chemoprevention is the use of any compound, either natural or synthetic that abrogates carcinogenesis or tumor progression, through different mechanisms, some of which have already been described. For example, the classic mechanisms may involve activation of free radical scavenging enzymes, control of chronic inflammation, and downregulation of specific signaling pathways. More recently, epigenetics allowed further understanding of the chemopreventive potential of several agents, such as sulforaphane, green tea derived compounds, resveratrol, isoflavones, and others which we exploit in this review article. Throughout the text we discuss the properties compounds should have in order to be classified as chemopreventive ones and the challenges in translational research in this area, as lots of the success achieved in vitro cannot be translated into the clinical settings, due to several different drawbacks, which include toxicity, cost, dose definition, patient adherence, and regimen of use.