A tumor focused approach to resolving the etiology of DNA mismatch repair deficient tumors classified as suspected Lynch syndrome.

Routine screening of tumors for DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (dMMR) in colorectal (CRC), endometrial (EC) and sebaceous skin (SST) tumors leads to a significant proportion of unresolved cases classified as suspected Lynch syndrome (SLS). SLS cases (n = 135) were recruited from Family Cancer Clinics across Australia and New Zealand. Targeted panel sequencing was performed on tumor (n = 137; 80×CRCs, 33×ECs and 24xSSTs) and matched blood-derived DNA to assess for microsatellite instability status, tumor mutation burden, COSMIC tumor mutational signatures and to identify germline and somatic MMR gene variants. MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MLH1 promoter methylation were repeated. In total, 86.9% of the 137 SLS tumors could be resolved into established subtypes. For 22.6% of these resolved SLS cases, primary MLH1 epimutations (2.2%) as well as previously undetected germline MMR pathogenic variants (1.5%), tumor MLH1 methylation (13.1%) or false positive dMMR IHC (5.8%) results were identified. Double somatic MMR gene mutations were the major cause of dMMR identified across each tumor type (73.9% of resolved cases, 64.2% overall, 70% of CRC, 45.5% of ECs and 70.8% of SSTs). The unresolved SLS tumors (13.1%) comprised tumors with only a single somatic (7.3%) or no somatic (5.8%) MMR gene mutations. A tumor-focused testing approach reclassified 86.9% of SLS into Lynch syndrome, sporadic dMMR or MMR-proficient cases. These findings support the incorporation of tumor sequencing and alternate MLH1 methylation assays into clinical diagnostics to reduce the number of SLS patients and provide more appropriate surveillance and screening recommendations.

Platinum-based chemotherapy for early triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer associated with shorter survival and a higher likelihood of the cancer returning. In early TNBC, platinum-based chemotherapy has been shown to improve pathological complete response (pCR); however, its effect on long-term survival outcomes has not been fully elucidated and recommendations to include platinum chemotherapy are not consistent in international guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of platinum-based chemotherapy as adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment in people with early triple-negative breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum chemotherapy for early TNBC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Our secondary outcomes were pCR, treatment adherence, grade III or IV toxicity related to chemotherapy, and quality of life. Prespecified subgroups included BRCA mutation status, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, frequency of chemotherapy, type of platinum agent used, and the presence or absence of anthracycline chemotherapy. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: From 3972 records, we included 20 published studies involving 21 treatment comparisons, and 25 ongoing studies. For most domains, risk of bias was low across studies. There were 16 neoadjuvant chemotherapy studies (one of which combined neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) and four adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Most studies used carboplatin (17 studies) followed by cisplatin (two), and lobaplatin (one). Eight studies had an anthracycline-free intervention arm, five of which had a carboplatin-taxane intervention compared to an anthracycline-taxane control. All studies reporting DFS and OS used carboplatin. Inclusion of platinum chemotherapy improved DFS in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings (neoadjuvant: hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.75; 7 studies, 8 treatment comparisons, 1966 participants; high-certainty evidence; adjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 4 studies, 1256 participants; high-certainty evidence). Platinum chemotherapy in the regimen improved OS (neoadjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; 7 studies, 8 treatment comparisons, 1973 participants; high-certainty evidence; adjuvant: 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96; 4 studies, 1256 participants; high-certainty evidence). Median follow-up for survival outcomes ranged from 36 to 97.6 months. Our analysis confirmed platinum chemotherapy increased pCR rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.59; 15 studies, 16 treatment comparisons, 3083 participants; high-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses showed no evidence of differences in DFS according to BRCA mutation status, HRD status, lymph node status, or whether the intervention arm contained anthracycline chemotherapy or not. Platinum chemotherapy was associated with reduced dose intensity, with participants more likely to require chemotherapy delays (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.94; 4 studies, 5 treatment comparisons, 1053 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), dose reductions (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.02; 7 studies, 8 treatment comparisons, 2055 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and early cessation of treatment (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.38; 16 studies, 17 treatment comparisons, 4178 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Increased haematological toxicity occurred in the platinum group who were more likely to experience grade III/IV neutropenia (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.63; 19 studies, 20 treatment comparisons, 4849 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), anaemia (RR 8.20, 95% CI 5.66 to 11.89; 18 studies, 19 treatment comparisons, 4757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and thrombocytopenia (RR 7.59, 95% CI 5.10 to 11.29; 18 studies, 19 treatment comparisons, 4731 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between chemotherapy groups in febrile neutropenia (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.49; 11 studies, 3771 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Renal impairment was very rare (0.4%, 2 events in 463 participants; note 3 studies reported 0 events in both arms; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Treatment-related death was very rare (0.2%, 7 events in 3176 participants and similar across treatment groups; RR 0.58, 95% 0.14 to 2.33; 10 studies, 11 treatment comparisons; note 8 studies reported treatment-related deaths but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 3 studies rather than 11; 3176 participants; high-certainty evidence). Five studies collected quality of life data but did not report them. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Platinum-based chemotherapy using carboplatin in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting improves long-term outcomes of DFS and OS in early TNBC, with no evidence of differences by subgroup. This was at the cost of more frequent chemotherapy delays and dose reductions, and greater haematological toxicity, though serious adverse events including neuropathy, febrile neutropenia or treatment-related death were not increased. These findings support the use of platinum-based chemotherapy for people with early TNBC. The optimal dose and regimen are not defined by this analysis, but there is a suggestion that similar relative benefits result from the addition of carboplatin to either anthracycline-free regimens or those containing anthracycline agents.

Catastrophic chemotherapy toxicity leading to diagnosis of Fanconi anaemia due to FANCD1/BRCA2 during adulthood: description of an emerging phenotype.

Fanconi anaemia due to biallelic loss of BRCA2 (Fanconi anaemia subtype D1) is traditionally diagnosed during childhood with cancer rates historically reported as 97% by 5.2 years. This report describes an adult woman with a history of primary ovarian failure, who was diagnosed with gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma and BRCA2-associated Fanconi anaemia at 23 years of age, only after she suffered severe chemotherapy toxicity. The diagnostic challenges include atypical presentation, initial false-negative chromosome fragility testing and variant classification. It highlights gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma as a consideration for adults with biallelic BRCA2 pathogenic variants with implications for surveillance. After over 4 years, the patient has no evidence of gastrointestinal cancer recurrence although the tumour was initially considered only borderline resectable. The use of platinum-based chemotherapy, to which heterozygous BRCA2 carriers are known to respond, may have had a beneficial anticancer effect, but caution is advised given its extreme immediate toxicity at standard dosing. Fanconi anaemia should be considered as a cause for women with primary ovarian failure of unknown cause and referral to cancer genetic services recommended when there is a family history of cancer in the hereditary breast/ovarian cancer spectrum.

Lynch syndrome testing of colorectal cancer patients in a high-income country with universal healthcare: a retrospective study of current practice and gaps in seven australian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: To inform effective genomic medicine strategies, it is important to examine current approaches and gaps in well-established applications. Lynch syndrome (LS) causes 3-5% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). While guidelines commonly recommend LS tumour testing of all CRC patients, implementation in health systems is known to be highly variable. To provide insights on the heterogeneity in practice and current bottlenecks in a high-income country with universal healthcare, we characterise the approaches and gaps in LS testing and referral in seven Australian hospitals across three states. METHODS: We obtained surgery, pathology, and genetics services data for 1,624 patients who underwent CRC resections from 01/01/2017 to 31/12/2018 in the included hospitals. RESULTS: Tumour testing approaches differed between hospitals, with 0-19% of patients missing mismatch repair deficiency test results (total 211/1,624 patients). Tumour tests to exclude somatic MLH1 loss were incomplete at five hospitals (42/187 patients). Of 74 patients with tumour tests completed appropriately and indicating high risk of LS, 36 (49%) were missing a record of referral to genetics services for diagnostic testing, with higher missingness for older patients (0% of patients aged ≤ 40 years, 76% of patients aged > 70 years). Of 38 patients with high-risk tumour test results and genetics services referral, diagnostic testing was carried out for 25 (89%) and identified a LS pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant for 11 patients (44% of 25; 0.7% of 1,624 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Given the LS testing and referral gaps, further work is needed to identify strategies for successful integration of LS testing into clinical care, and provide a model for hereditary cancers and broader genomic medicine. Standardised reporting may help clinicians interpret tumour test results and initiate further actions.

Ovarian suppression for adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women are hormone receptor-positive. Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and in premenopausal women includes oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, and permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Recent international consensus statements recommend single-agent tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with ovarian function suppression (OFS) as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy). This review examined the role of adding OFS to another treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both) or comparing OFS to no further adjuvant treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of OFS for treatment of premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 26 September 2019. We screened the reference lists of related articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials assessing any method of OFS, that is, oophorectomy, radiation-induced ovarian ablation, or LHRH agonists, as adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. We included studies that compared (1) OFS versus observation, (2) OFS + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, (3) OFS + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen, and (4) OFS + chemotherapy + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy + tamoxifen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Toxicity, contralateral breast cancer, and second malignancy were represented as risk ratios (RRs), and quality of life data were extracted when provided. MAIN RESULTS: This review update included 15 studies involving 11,538 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer; these studies were conducted from 1978 to 2014. Some of these treatments are not current standard of care, and early studies did not assess HER2 receptor status. Studies tested OFS versus observation (one study), OFS plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (six studies), OFS plus tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (six studies), and OFS plus chemotherapy and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy and tamoxifen (two studies). Of those studies that reported the chemotherapy regimen, an estimated 72% of women received an anthracycline. The results described below relate to the overall comparison of OFS versus no OFS. High-certainty evidence shows that adding OFS to treatment resulted in a reduction in mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.94; 11 studies; 10,374 women; 1933 reported events). This treatment effect was seen when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, or to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on mortality was not observed when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; 5 studies; 3087 women; median follow-up: range 7.7 to 12.1 years). The addition of OFS resulted in improved DFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90; 10 studies; 8899 women; 2757 reported events; high-certainty evidence). The DFS treatment effect persisted when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, and to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on DFS was reduced when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01; 5 studies; 2450 women). Heterogeneity was low to moderate across studies for DFS and OS (respectively). Evidence suggests that adding OFS slightly increases the incidence of hot flushes (grade 3/4 or any grade; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 6 studies; 5581 women; low-certainty evidence, as this may have been under-reported in these studies). Two other studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis reported a higher number of hot flushes in the OFS group than in the no-OFS group. Seven studies involving 5354 women collected information related to mood; however this information was reported as grade 3 or 4 depression, anxiety, or neuropsychiatric symptoms, or symptoms were reported without the grade. Two studies reported an increase in depression, anxiety, and neuropsychiatric symptoms in the OFS group compared to the no-OFS group, and five studies indicated an increase in anxiety in both treatment groups (but no difference between groups) or no difference overall in symptoms over time or between treatment groups. A single study reported bone health as osteoporosis (defined as T score < -2.5); this limited evidence suggests that OFS increases the risk of osteoporosis compared to no-OFS at median follow-up of 5.6 years (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 28.82; 2011 women; low-certainty evidence). Adding OFS to treatment likely reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; 9 studies; 9138 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; four studies used validated tools, and the fifth study provided no information on how data were collected. Two studies reported worse quality of life indicators (i.e. vaginal dryness, day and night sweats) for women receiving OFS compared to those in the no-OFS group. The other two studies indicated worsening of symptoms (e.g. vasomotor, gynaecological, vaginal dryness, decline in sexual interest, bone and joint pain, weight gain); however these side effects were reported in both OFS and no-OFS groups. The study that did not use a validated quality of life tool described no considerable differences between groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found evidence that supports adding OFS for premenopausal women with early, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. The benefit of OFS persisted when compared to observation, and when added to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen) or chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (tamoxifen). The decision to use OFS may depend on the overall risk assessment based on tumour and patient characteristics, and may follow consideration of all side effects that occur with the addition of OFS.

Risk-reducing medications for primary breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most frequently occurring malignancy and the second cause of death for cancer in women. Cancer prevention agents (CPAs) are a promising approach to reduce the burden of breast cancer. Currently, two main types of CPAs are available: selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs, such as tamoxifen and raloxifene) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs, such as exemestane and anastrozole). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of single CPAs for the prevention of primary breast cancer, in unaffected women, at an above-average risk of developing breast cancer.Using a network meta-analysis, to rank single CPAs, based on their efficacy and acceptability (an endpoint that is defined as the inverse of CPA-related toxicity). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 17 August 2018. We handsearched reference lists to identify additional relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled women without a personal history of breast cancer but with an above-average risk of developing a tumor. Women had to be treated with a CPA and followed up to record the occurrence of breast cancer and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments of the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Outcome data included incidence of breast carcinoma (both invasive and in situ carcinoma) and adverse events (both overall and severe toxicity). We performed a conventional meta-analysis (for direct comparisons of a single CPA with placebo or a different CPA) and network meta-analysis (for indirect comparisons). MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies enrolling 50,927 women randomized to receive one CPA (SERMs: tamoxifen or raloxifene, or AIs: exemestane or anastrozole) or placebo. Three studies compared tamoxifen and placebo, two studies compared AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) versus placebo, and one study compared tamoxifen versus raloxifene. The risk of bias was low for all RCTs.For the tamoxifen versus placebo comparison, tamoxifen likely resulted in a lower risk of developing breast cancer compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.76; 3 studies, 22,832 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, tamoxifen likely increased the risk of severe toxicity compared to placebo (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47; 2 studies, 20,361 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In particular, women randomized to receive tamoxifen experienced a higher incidence of both endometrial carcinoma (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.38; high-certainty evidence) and thromboembolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.89; high-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo.For the AIs versus placebo comparison, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) reduced the risk of breast cancer by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63; 2 studies, 8424 women; high-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, AIs increased the risk of severe toxicity by 18% (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28; 2 studies, 8352 women; high-certainty evidence). These differences were sustained especially by endocrine (e.g. hot flashes), gastrointestinal (e.g. diarrhea), and musculoskeletal (e.g. arthralgia) adverse events, while there were no differences in endometrial cancer or thromboembolism rates between AIs and placebo.For the tamoxifen versus raloxifene comparison, raloxifene probably performed worse than tamoxifen in terms of breast cancer incidence reduction (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.43; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), but its use was associated with lower toxicity rates (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), particularly relating to incidence of endometrial cancer and thromboembolism.An indirect comparison of treatment effects allowed us to compare the SERMs and AIs in this review. In terms of efficacy, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) may have reduced breast cancer incidence slightly compared to tamoxifen (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; 5 RCTs, 31,256 women); however, the certainty of evidence was low. A lack of model convergence did not allow us to analyze toxicity data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For women with an above-average risk of developing breast cancer, CPAs can reduce the incidence of this disease. AIs appear to be more effective than SERMs (tamoxifen) in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer. AIs are not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. However, long-term data on toxicities from tamoxifen are available while the follow-up toxicity data on unaffected women taking AIs is relatively short. Additional data from direct comparisons are needed to fully address the issues of breast cancer prevention by risk-reducing medications, with special regards to acceptability (i.e. the benefit/harm ratio).

Sequencing of anthracyclines and taxanes in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anthracyclines and taxanes are chemotherapeutic agents widely used in a sequential regimen in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment of early breast cancer to reduce the risk of cancer recurrence. Standard practice is to administer anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by a taxane. Anthracyclines tend to be administered first as they were established before taxanes for treatment of early breast cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the sequence in which anthracyclines and taxanes are administered affects outcomes for people with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 1 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing administering a taxane prior to an anthracycline with taxane following anthracycline to people with early breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. The studies needed to have reported on at least one of our outcomes of interest, which included overall survival, disease-free survival, pathological response, treatment adherence, toxicity and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included disease-free survival, pathological response (in the neoadjuvant setting only), adverse events, treatment adherence and quality of life. For time-to-event outcomes of overall survival and disease-free survival, we derived hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where possible. For dichotomous outcomes of pathological complete response, treatment adherence and adverse events, we reported the treatment effect as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI where possible. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence separately for the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. MAIN RESULTS: There were 1415 participants in five neoadjuvant studies and 280 participants in four adjuvant studies involving five treatment comparisons. Four of the five neoadjuvant studies collected data for the primary outcome (overall survival) and two studies had data available; one of the four adjuvant studies collected overall survival data.The neoadjuvant studies suggested that the administration of taxanes first probably resulted in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.08; 947 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and disease-free survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09; 828 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Administration of taxanes first also resulted in little to no difference in pathological complete response (absence of cancer in the breast and axilla: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38; 1280 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). However, there appeared to be a trend in favour of taxanes first. Studies reported treatment adherence using a range of measures. Administration of taxanes first probably did not increase the likelihood of requiring dose reductions compared to administration of anthracyclines first (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.11; 280 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably little to no difference in the risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.82; 280 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) or grade 3/4 neurotoxicity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.65; 1108 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) when taxanes were given first. There were no data on quality of life.Only one adjuvant study collected data on overall survival and disease-free survival but did not report data. Administration of taxanes first reduced the risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97; 279 participants; 4 studies, 5 treatment comparisons; high-certainty evidence) and appeared to result in little to no difference in grade 3/4 neurotoxicity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.46; 162 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was probably little to no difference in the proportions experiencing dose delays when taxanes are given first compared to anthracyclines given first (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.12; 238 participants; 3 studies, 4 treatment comparisons; moderate-certainty evidence). One study reported on quality of life and indicated that scores (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast Cancer (FACT-B) validated questionnaire) were similar in both groups though did not provide numerical data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the neoadjuvant setting, there is high- to low-certainty evidence of equivalent outcomes for the sequence in which taxanes are delivered. In the adjuvant setting, none of the studies reported on overall survival or disease-free survival. In most institutions, standard practice would be to deliver anthracycline followed by taxane, and currently available data do not support a change in this practice. We wait for the full-text publication of a relevant neoadjuvant study for women with HER2-negative breast cancer for inclusion in an update of this review.

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.

Fulvestrant for hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fulvestrant is a selective oestrogen receptor down-regulator (SERD), which by blocking proliferation of breast cancer cells, is an effective endocrine treatment for women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer. The goal of such systemic therapy in this setting is to reduce symptoms, improve quality of life, and increase survival time. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant for hormone-sensitive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women, as compared to other standard endocrine agents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 July 2015. We also searched major conference proceedings (American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium) and practice guidelines from major oncology groups (ASCO, European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and Cancer Care Ontario). We handsearched reference lists from relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included for analyses randomised controlled trials that enrolled postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer (TNM classifications: stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC) or metastatic breast cancer (TNM classification: stage IV) with an intervention group treated with fulvestrant with or without other standard anticancer therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from trials identified in the searches, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessments of the included studies, and assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcome data extracted from these trials for our analyses and review included progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP) or time to treatment failure, overall survival, clinical benefit rate, toxicity, and quality of life. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analysis where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies randomising 4514 women for meta-analysis and review. Overall results for the primary endpoint of PFS indicated that women receiving fulvestrant did at least as well as the control groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.18, I2= 56%, 4258 women, 9 studies, high-quality evidence). In the one high-quality study that tested fulvestrant at the currently approved and now standard dose of 500 mg against anastrozole, women treated with fulvestrant 500 mg did better than anastrozole, with a HR for TTP of 0.66 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.93; 205 women) and a HR for overall survival of 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; 205 women). There was no difference in PFS whether fulvestrant was used in combination with another endocrine therapy or in the first- or second-line setting, when compared to control treatments: for monotherapy HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.04) versus HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.99) for combination therapy when compared to control, and HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.03) in the first-line setting and HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.04) in the second-line setting.Overall, there was no difference between fulvestrant and control treatments in clinical benefit rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; P = 0.29, I2 = 24%, 4105 women, 9 studies, high-quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09, P = 0.62, I2 = 66%, 2480 women, 5 studies, high-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in vasomotor toxicity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18, 3544 women, 8 studies, high-quality evidence), arthralgia (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09, 3244 women, 7 studies, high-quality evidence), and gynaecological toxicities (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.57, 2848 women, 6 studies, high-quality evidence). Four studies reported quality of life, none of which reported a difference between the fulvestrant and control arms, though specific data were not presented. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer, fulvestrant is at least as effective and safe as the comparator endocrine therapies in the included studies. However, fulvestrant may be potentially more effective than current therapies when given at 500 mg, though this higher dosage was used in only one of the nine studies included in the review. We saw no advantage with combination therapy, and fulvestrant was equally as effective as control therapies in both the first- and second-line setting. Our review demonstrates that fulvestrant is a safe and effective systemic therapy and can be considered as a valid option in the sequence of treatments for postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer.

Bisphosphonates and other bone agents for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM). SEARCH METHODS: In this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.In women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.In women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).In women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.Reported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.

New Approaches to Continuing Medical Education: a QStream (spaced education) Program for Research Translation in Ovarian Cancer.

Continuing medical education (CME) is challenging and often has limited impact on clinician behavior or patient outcomes. This study examined the impact of an online Qstream education program on senior clinicians to determine its utility for increasing clinician knowledge about the latest guidelines regarding genetic assessment and consideration of genetic testing for women with particular types of ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. Participants were recruited into a pilot study that involved responding to case-based scenarios at spaced and repeated intervals. At the completion of the program, semi-structured interviews were conducted to ascertain the impact on their knowledge and referral behavior. Findings from interviews were subject to thematic analysis that involved the identification of categories and themes. Twenty-one participants commenced the program, seventeen completed and twelve participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis yielded several themes including knowledge change, curriculum and format and changes in referral patterns. A majority of participants (n = 10) agreed the program had helped update their knowledge about referring women, and eight agreed they would now change their referral patterns. The use of QStream as an approach to CME has significant advantages when working with busy clinicians. QStream has a well accepted format and most participants indicated it is very appropriate for disseminating updates to clinical guidelines and protocols. It is important to supplement CME programs with other implementation techniques, such as audit and feedback as multifaceted approaches are more likely to result in behavior change.

Germline potential should not be overlooked for cancer variants identified in tumour-only somatic mutation testing.

DNA sequencing of tumour tissue has become the standard care for many solid cancers because of the option to detect somatic variants that have significant therapeutic, diagnostic and prognostic implications. Variants found within the tumour may be either somatic or germline in origin. Somatic cancer gene panels are developed to detect acquired (somatic) variants that are relevant for therapeutic or molecular characterisation of the tumour, expanding gene panels now include genes which may also inform patient management such as cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) genes. Identifying germline cancer predisposition variants can alter cancer management, the risk of developing new primary cancers and risk for cancer in at-risk family members. This paper discusses the clinical, technical and ethical challenges related to identifying and reporting potential germline pathogenic variants that are detected on tumour sequencing. It also highlights the existence of the eviQ national guidelines for CPS with advice on germline confirmation of somatic findings to pathology laboratories in Australia.

An Australian mainstream genetic testing program: Clinicians views about current and future practices.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing results can guide treatment decisions for oncology patients and are now offered to many cancer patients. Mainstream testing refers to genetic testing arranged by a non-genetics specialist. This repeated cross-sectional study aimed: (1) to capture clinician views on the existing mainstreaming genetic testing program for ovarian, breast, prostate, and endometrial cancer patients, and (2) to ascertain the interest of clinicians to consider changing practice to adopt mainstream testing. METHODS: Mainstreaming has occurred since 2015 for patients with ovarian and some breast cancer patients, expanding to include prostate cancer patients in 2019, and endometrial cancer patients in 2020. Two web-based surveys were administered within two health districts, covering seven hospitals in NSW. RESULTS: Fifty-four clinicians (70% response rate) participated. Clinicians who had arranged mainstream genetic testing (n = 30) were overall satisfied (76%), viewed the process as time-efficient and accessible for patients, and desired continuation of the program. Of those clinicians yet to engage in the program (n = 24), 88% expressed an interest in learning about mainstream testing. These clinicians identified time constraints, maintenance of current genetic knowledge, and completing the consenting and counseling process as barriers to mainstreaming. Future mainstreaming models are discussed. CONCLUSION: From the clinician's perspective, the mainstreaming program is considered a desirable pathway for germline testing of oncology patients. Access to ongoing education and resources is needed for the ongoing success of the program.

Platinum chemotherapy for early triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer associated with shorter survival and a higher likelihood of recurrence. In early TNBC, platinum chemotherapy has been shown to improve pathological complete response (pCR); however, its effect on long-term survival outcomes has not been fully elucidated. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials examining neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum chemotherapy for early TNBC were included. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were pCR, treatment adherence, grade III or IV toxicity related to chemotherapy, and quality of life. RESULTS: From 3972 records, we included 20 published studies. All studies reporting DFS and OS used carboplatin. Inclusion of platinum chemotherapy improved DFS (neoadjuvant: hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.75; adjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88) and OS (neoadjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; adjuvant: 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96). Our analysis confirmed platinum chemotherapy increased pCR rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.59). There were no differences seen in examined subgroups. Platinum chemotherapy was associated with reduced dose intensity and increased haematological toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Platinum-based chemotherapy using carboplatin in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting improves long-term outcomes of DFS and OS in early TNBC, with no evidence of differences by subgroup. This was at the cost of more frequent chemotherapy delays and dose reductions, and greater haematological toxicity. These findings support the use of platinum-based chemotherapy for people with early TNBC.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in OlympiA: A Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Adjuvant Olaparib in gBRCA1/2 Mutations and High-Risk Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Early Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The OlympiA randomized phase III trial compared 1 year of olaparib (OL) or placebo (PL) as adjuvant therapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2, high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy ([N]ACT), surgery, and radiotherapy. The patient-reported outcome primary hypothesis was that OL-treated patients may experience greater fatigue during treatment. METHODS: Data were collected before random assignment, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary end point was fatigue, measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary end points, assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30 item, included nausea and vomiting (NV), diarrhea, and multiple functional domains. Scores were compared between treatment groups using mixed model for repeated measures. Two-sided P values <.05 were statistically significant for the primary end point. All secondary end points were descriptive. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight patients (NACT: 746, ACT: 792) contributed to the analysis. Fatigue severity was statistically significantly greater for OL versus PL, but not clinically meaningfully different by prespecified criteria (≥3 points) at 6 months (diff OL v PL: NACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .022; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.2]; P = .017) and 12 months (NACT: -1.6 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.3]; P = .017; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .025). There were no significant differences in fatigue severity between treatment groups at 18 and 24 months. NV severity was worse in patients treated with OL compared with PL at 6 months (NACT: 6.0 [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.0]; ACT: 5.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 7.2]) and 12 months (NACT: 6.4 [95% CI, 4.4 to 8.3]; ACT: 4.5 [95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1]). During treatment, there were some clinically meaningful differences between groups for other symptoms but not for function subscales or global health status. CONCLUSION: Treatment-emergent symptoms from OL were limited, generally resolving after treatment ended. OL- and PL-treated patients had similar functional scores, slowly improving during the 24 months after (N)ACT and there was no clinically meaningful persistence of fatigue severity in OL-treated patients.

Post-operative radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

BACKGROUND: The addition of radiotherapy (RT) following breast conserving surgery (BCS) was first shown to reduce the risk of ipsilateral recurrence in the treatment of invasive breast cancer. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a pre-invasive lesion. Recurrence of ipsilateral disease following BCS can be either DCIS or invasive breast cancer. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that RT can reduce the risk of recurrence, but assessment of potential long-term complications from addition of RT following BSC for DCIS has not been reported for women participating in RCTs. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the data from RCTs testing the addition of RT to BCS for treatment of DCIS to determine the balance between the benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register (2 June 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1), MEDLINE (2 June 2011), EMBASE (2 June 2011) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP; 2 June 2011). Reference lists of articles and handsearching of ASCO (2007), ESMO (2002 to 2007), and St Gallen (2005 to 2007) conferences were performed. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of breast conserving surgery with and without radiotherapy in women at first diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ (no invasive disease present). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed each potentially eligible trial for inclusion and its quality. Two authors also independently extracted data from published Kaplan-Meier analysis (survival curves) and reported summary statistics. Data were extracted and pooled for four trials. Data for planned subgroups were extracted and pooled for analysis.There were insufficient data to pool for long-term toxicity from radiotherapy. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs involving 3925 women were identified and included in this review. All were high quality with minimal risk of bias. Three trials compared the addition of RT to BCS. One trial was a two by two factorial design comparing the use of RT and tamoxifen, each separately or together, in which participants were randomised in at least one arm. Analysis confirmed a statistically significant benefit from the addition of radiotherapy on all ipsilateral breast events (hazards ratio (HR) 0.49; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.58, P < 0.00001), ipsilateral invasive recurrence (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76, p=0.001) and ipsilateral DCIS recurrence (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.95, P = 0.03). All the subgroups analysed benefited from addition of radiotherapy. No significant long-term toxicity from radiotherapy was found. No information about short-term toxicity from radiotherapy or quality of life data were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms the benefit of adding radiotherapy to breast conserving surgery for the treatment of all women diagnosed with DCIS. No long-term toxicity from use of radiotherapy was identified.

DNA Mismatch Repair Gene Variant Classification: Evaluating the Utility of Somatic Mutations and Mismatch Repair Deficient Colonic Crypts and Endometrial Glands.

Germline pathogenic variants in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes (Lynch syndrome) predispose to colorectal (CRC) and endometrial (EC) cancer. Lynch syndrome specific tumor features were evaluated for their ability to support the ACMG/InSiGHT framework in classifying variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) in the MMR genes. Twenty-eight CRC or EC tumors from 25 VUS carriers (6xMLH1, 9xMSH2, 6xMSH6, 4xPMS2), underwent targeted tumor sequencing for the presence of microsatellite instability/MMR-deficiency (MSI-H/dMMR) status and identification of a somatic MMR mutation (second hit). Immunohistochemical testing for the presence of dMMR crypts/glands in normal tissue was also performed. The ACMG/InSiGHT framework reclassified 7/25 (28%) VUS to likely pathogenic (LP), three (12%) to benign/likely benign, and 15 (60%) VUS remained unchanged. For the seven re-classified LP variants comprising nine tumors, tumor sequencing confirmed MSI-H/dMMR (8/9, 88.9%) and a second hit (7/9, 77.8%). Of these LP reclassified variants where normal tissue was available, the presence of a dMMR crypt/gland was found in 2/4 (50%). Furthermore, a dMMR endometrial gland in a carrier of an MSH2 exon 1-6 duplication provides further support for an upgrade of this VUS to LP. Our study confirmed that identifying these Lynch syndrome features can improve MMR variant classification, enabling optimal clinical care.

A tumor focused approach to resolving the etiology of DNA mismatch repair deficient tumors classified as suspected Lynch syndrome.

Routine screening of tumors for DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (dMMR) in colorectal (CRC), endometrial (EC) and sebaceous skin (SST) tumors leads to a significant proportion of unresolved cases classified as suspected Lynch syndrome (SLS). SLS cases (n=135) were recruited from Family Cancer Clinics across Australia and New Zealand. Targeted panel sequencing was performed on tumor (n=137; 80xCRCs, 33xECs and 24xSSTs) and matched blood-derived DNA to assess for microsatellite instability status, tumor mutation burden, COSMIC tumor mutational signatures and to identify germline and somatic MMR gene variants. MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MLH1 promoter methylation were repeated. In total, 86.9% of the 137 SLS tumors could be resolved into established subtypes. For 22.6% of these resolved SLS cases, primary MLH1 epimutations (2.2%) as well as previously undetected germline MMR pathogenic variants (1.5%), tumor MLH1 methylation (13.1%) or false positive dMMR IHC (5.8%) results were identified. Double somatic MMR gene mutations were the major cause of dMMR identified across each tumor type (73.9% of resolved cases, 64.2% overall, 70% of CRC, 45.5% of ECs and 70.8% of SSTs). The unresolved SLS tumors (13.1%) comprised tumors with only a single somatic (7.3%) or no somatic (5.8%) MMR gene mutations. A tumor-focused testing approach reclassified 86.9% of SLS into Lynch syndrome, sporadic dMMR or MMR-proficient cases. These findings support the incorporation of tumor sequencing and alternate MLH1 methylation assays into clinical diagnostics to reduce the number of SLS patients and provide more appropriate surveillance and screening recommendations.

The clinical utility and costs of whole-genome sequencing to detect cancer susceptibility variants-a multi-site prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Many families and individuals do not meet criteria for a known hereditary cancer syndrome but display unusual clusters of cancers. These families may carry pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes and be at higher risk for developing cancer. METHODS: This multi-centre prospective study recruited 195 cancer-affected participants suspected to have a hereditary cancer syndrome for whom previous clinical targeted genetic testing was either not informative or not available. To identify pathogenic disease-causing variants explaining participant presentation, germline whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and a comprehensive cancer virtual gene panel analysis were undertaken. RESULTS: Pathogenic variants consistent with the presenting cancer(s) were identified in 5.1% (10/195) of participants and pathogenic variants considered secondary findings with potential risk management implications were identified in another 9.7% (19/195) of participants. Health economic analysis estimated the marginal cost per case with an actionable variant was significantly lower for upfront WGS with virtual panel ($8744AUD) compared to standard testing followed by WGS ($24,894AUD). Financial analysis suggests that national adoption of diagnostic WGS testing would require a ninefold increase in government annual expenditure compared to conventional testing. CONCLUSIONS: These findings make a case for replacing conventional testing with WGS to deliver clinically important benefits for cancer patients and families. The uptake of such an approach will depend on the perspectives of different payers on affordability.