BRCA1 deficiency in mature CD8+ T lymphocytes impairs antitumor immunity.

Women with BRCA1 germline mutations have approximately an 80% lifetime chance of developing breast cancer. While the tumor suppressor function of BRCA1 in breast epithelium has been studied extensively, it is not clear whether BRCA1 deficiency in non-breast somatic cells also contribute to tumorigenesis. Here, we report that mouse Brca1 knockout (KO) in mature T lymphocytes compromises host antitumor immune response to transplanted syngeneic mouse mammary tumors. T cell adoptive transfer further corroborates CD8+ T cell-intrinsic impact of Brca1 KO on antitumor adaptive immunity. T cell-specific Brca1 KO mice exhibit fewer total CD8+, more exhausted, reduced cytotoxic, and reduced memory tumor-infiltrating T cell populations. Consistent with the preclinical data, cancer-free BRCA1 mutation-carrying women display lower abundance of circulating CD8+ lymphocytes than the age-matched control group. Thus, our findings support the notion that BRCA1 deficiency in adaptive immunity could contribute to BRCA1-related tumorigenesis. We also suggest that prophylactic boosting of adaptive immunity may reduce cancer incidence among at-risk women.

IsoPSA® Reduces Provider Recommendations for Biopsy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men with Total Prostate Specific Antigen ≥4 ng/ml: A Real-World Observational Clinical Utility Study.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed the impact of the IsoPSA® test for prostate cancer risk assessment on provider patient management decisions in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: A total of 38 providers, including advanced practice providers, fellowship trained oncologists and general urologists in the Cleveland Clinic health system including both community-based practices and academic locations, enrolled 900 men being evaluated for prostate cancer; 734 met inclusion criteria (age ≥50 years, total serum prostate specific antigen [PSA] ≥4 and <100 ng/ml and no history of prostate cancer) and IsoPSA indication for use. A standard template was used to document biopsy recommendation prior to and after receiving IsoPSA results. The primary outcome was the number of biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging recommendation changes occurring after IsoPSA testing. RESULTS: IsoPSA testing resulted in a 55% (284 vs 638) net reduction in recommendations for prostate biopsy for men with total PSA ≥4 ng/ml. Additionally, a 9% reduction in recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging was observed. There was strong concordance between IsoPSA results and provider recommendations for prostate biopsy, with 87% of patients with an IsoPSA index above the threshold recommended for biopsy and 92% of patients with an IsoPSA index below the threshold not recommended for biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world clinical setting, providers from diverse training backgrounds and practice settings readily adopted IsoPSA with substantial reductions in the rate of recommended prostate biopsies in patients with elevated PSA values (≥4 ng/ml). There was a high concordance between recommendation for or against prostate biopsy and the IsoPSA result.

Racial disparities in breast cancer hereditary risk assessment referrals.

For poorly understood reasons, Black non-Hispanic (BNH) women meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing for breast cancer risk are less likely than White non-Hispanic (WNH) women to undergo testing (Armstrong, Micco, Carney, Stopfer, & Putt, JAMA, 293, 1729 and 2005). We compared physician referral rates and uptake for genetic testing of BNH and WNH women meeting select NCCN criteria (breast cancer under age 50, two primary breast cancers, triple-negative disease under age 60) in the Cancer Center at George Washington University (GWCC) between 2015 and 2018. Of the 723 BNH and WNH patients treated for breast cancer at GWCC, 28% met study criteria for genetic counseling referral (n = 252; BNH n = 115, WNH n = 137). Physician referral rates to genetic counseling differed significantly by race (BNH 75.7%, n = 87 and WNH 92.7%; n = 127; χ2  = 14.19, p-value < .01). Once referred, though, there was no significant difference in uptake of genetic counseling by race (BNH 95.4%, n = 83; WNH 97.6%, n = 124, χ2  = 1.33, p-value = .25) for patients appropriately referred.

Relationship Between Hereditary Cancer Syndromes and Oncotype DX Recurrence Score.

BACKGROUND: Oncotype DX (ODX) is a genomic assay of tumor tissue that is utilized to predict the likelihood of recurrence and benefit of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Five to 10% of breast cancers are hereditary, and hereditary syndromes may not be uncovered through family history alone. We hypothesized that high ODX recurrence score (RS) may signal a potential hereditary cancer risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients who had undergone ODX and germline genetic testing. The chi-square test and Fisher exact test were used to examine univariable association between RS and germline mutation status. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to examine if there was an association of RS with germline mutation status. RESULTS: In univariable analysis, the association of RS with germline mutation status was significant (P < .0001). In the multivariable logistic regression model predicting germline mutation status, RS level remained significantly associated with germline mutation, in particular BRCA1 or BRCA2. The mean RS for those with non-BRCA1/2 germline mutations versus those without germline mutations was not significant (P = .38). CONCLUSION: High RS is associated with germline mutation status. Breast cancer patients with high RS are more likely to harbor a mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. If confirmed prospectively, oncologists may consider referring patients with high RS for genetic risk assessment and counseling to inform management plans, as well as counseling of family members.

Effects of Cancer Genetic Panel Testing on at-Risk Individuals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of screening patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer syndromes with an extended panel of cancer predisposition genes to identify actionable genetic mutations. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients presenting to a multidisciplinary cancer program for genetic counseling and testing from January 2015 to December 2016. Individuals presenting to the program were identified as at-risk by a personal or family history of cancer, by their health care provider, or by self-referral. All participants met current National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for genetic risk evaluation for hereditary cancer. The results of testing and its implications for management, based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, were recorded. RESULTS: Of 670 at-risk patients who underwent genetic testing, 66 (9.9%) had BRCA-limited testing; of these, 26 of 670 (3.9%) had a deleterious or likely pathogenic mutation. Expanded panel testing was done for 560 of the 670 patients (83.4%), and abnormal results were found in 65 of 670 (9.7%); non-BRCA mutations (predominantly CHEK2) were found in 49 of the 65 (75%). Abnormal genetic testing was associated with increased surveillance in 96% of those with deleterious mutations, whereas negative testing for a known familial mutation in 45 patients was associated with a downgrade of their risk and reduction of subsequent surveillance and management. CONCLUSION: Guideline-based management is frequently altered by genetic testing, including panel testing, in patients at risk for cancer. We recommend that obstetrics and gynecology providers routinely refer at-risk patients for genetic counseling and testing when clinically appropriate.

The Perils of Single-Site Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes in the Era of Next-Generation Sequencing.

A challenge in counseling patients with a family history suggesting a hereditary cancer syndrome is deciding which genetic tests or panels to order. In this article, we discuss the identification of multiple familial mutations through genetic counseling and panel testing. For patients meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for clinical genetic testing, providers should consider expanded panels to provide a more complete assessment of one's genetic risk. The continued use of expanded panel testing in the clinical setting will help inform optimal management of cancer patients, as well as the management of their unaffected family members. The mutation discovered in this case was in the ATM gene. The clinical significance of the mutation, potential therapeutic targets, and proper clinical management are discussed. KEY POINTS: With single-site genetic testing, there is the potential to miss hereditary genetic syndromes that can be managed clinically.Between 4% and 6% of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes are caused by genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2.ATM is a DNA mismatch repair gene associated with double-stranded DNA break repair and cell cycle checkpoint arrest.The risk of developing female breast cancer by age 50 and by age 80 in ATM heterozygotes is 9% and 17%-52%, respectively.

Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: the third case series.

After repeated media attention in 2013 due to the Angelina Jolie disclosure and the Supreme Court decision to ban gene patents, the demand for cancer genetic counseling and testing services has never been greater. Debate has arisen regarding who should provide such services and the quality of genetics services being offered. In this ongoing case series, we document 35 new cases from 7 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Utah) and the District of Columbia of adverse outcomes in cancer genetic testing when performed without the involvement of a certified genetic counselor. We identified 3 major themes of errors: wrong genetic tests ordered, genetic test results misinterpreted, and inadequate genetic counseling. Patient morbidity and mortality were an issue in several of these cases. The complexity of cancer genetic testing and counseling has grown exponentially with the advent of multigene panels that include rare genes and the potential for more variants of uncertain significance. We conclude that genetic counseling and testing should be offered by certified genetics providers to minimize the risks, maximize the benefits, and utilize health care dollars most efficiently.

Sigma54 enhancer binding proteins and Myxococcus xanthus fruiting body development.

A search of the M1genome sequence, which includes 97% of the Myxococcus xanthus genes, identified 53 sequence homologs of sigma54-dependent enhancer binding proteins (EBPs). A DNA microarray was constructed from the M1genome that includes those homologs and 318 other M. xanthus genes for comparison. To screen the developmental program with this array, an RNA extract from growing cells was compared with one prepared from developing cells at 12 h. Previous reporter studies had shown that M. xanthus has initiated development and has begun to express many developmentally regulated genes by 12 h. The comparison revealed substantial increases in the expression levels of 11 transcription factors that may respond to environmental stimuli. Six of the 53 EBP homologs were expressed at significantly higher levels at 12 h of development than during growth. Three were previously unknown genes, and they were inactivated to look for effects on fruiting body development. One knockout mutant produced fruiting bodies of abnormal shape that depended on the composition of the medium.