Jeffrey N. Weitzel

Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial

BACKGROUND Olaparib, a novel, orally active poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, induced synthetic lethality in BRCA-deficient cells. A maximum tolerated dose and initial signal of efficacy in BRCA-deficient ovarian cancers have been reported. We therefore assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of olaparib alone in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer. METHODS Women (aged >or=18 years) with confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent, advanced breast cancer were assigned to two sequential cohorts in a phase 2 study undertaken in 16 centres in Australia, Germany, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. The first cohort (n=27) was given continuous oral olaparib at the maximum tolerated dose (400 mg twice daily), and the second (n=27) was given a lower dose (100 mg twice daily). The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00494234. FINDINGS Patients had been given a median of three previous chemotherapy regimens (range 1-5 in cohort 1, and 2-4 in cohort 2). ORR was 11 (41%) of 27 patients (95% CI 25-59) in the cohort assigned to 400 mg twice daily, and six (22%) of 27 (11-41) in the cohort assigned to 100 mg twice daily. Toxicities were mainly at low grades. The most frequent causally related adverse events in the cohort given 400 mg twice daily were fatigue (grade 1 or 2, 11 [41%]; grade 3 or 4, four [15%]), nausea (grade 1 or 2, 11 [41%]; grade 3 or 4, four [15%]), vomiting (grade 1 or 2, three [11%]; grade 3 or 4, three [11%]), and anaemia (grade 1 or 2, one [4%]; grade 3 or 4, three [11%]). The most frequent causally related adverse events in the cohort given 100 mg twice daily were nausea (grade 1 or 2, 11 [41%]; none grade 3 or 4) and fatigue (grade 1 or 2, seven [26%]; grade 3 or 4, one [4%]). INTERPRETATION The results of this study provide positive proof of concept for PARP inhibition in BRCA-deficient breast cancers and shows a favourable therapeutic index for a novel targeted treatment strategy in patients with tumours that have genetic loss of function of BRCA1-associated or BRCA2-associated DNA repair. Toxicity in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations was similar to that reported previously in those without such mutations. FUNDING AstraZeneca.

Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality

CONTEXT Mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy are widely used by carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations to reduce their risks of breast and ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVE To estimate risk and mortality reduction stratified by mutation and prior cancer status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective, multicenter cohort study of 2482 women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations ascertained between 1974 and 2008. The study was conducted at 22 clinical and research genetics centers in Europe and North America to assess the relationship of risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy with cancer outcomes. The women were followed up until the end of 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES Breast and ovarian cancer risk, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality. RESULTS No breast cancers were diagnosed in the 247 women with risk-reducing mastectomy compared with 98 women of 1372 diagnosed with breast cancer who did not have risk-reducing mastectomy. Compared with women who did not undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, women who underwent salpingo-oophorectomy had a lower risk of ovarian cancer, including those with prior breast cancer (6% vs 1%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.59) and those without prior breast cancer (6% vs 2%; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.12-0.69]), and a lower risk of first diagnosis of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers (20% vs 14%; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.41-0.96]) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (23% vs 7%; HR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.16-0.82]). Compared with women who did not undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, undergoing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with lower all-cause mortality (10% vs 3%; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.26-0.61]), breast cancer-specific mortality (6% vs 2%; HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.76]), and ovarian cancer-specific mortality (3% vs 0.4%; HR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.06-0.80]). CONCLUSIONS Among a cohort of women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, the use of risk-reducing mastectomy was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer; risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a lower risk of ovarian cancer, first diagnosis of breast cancer, all-cause mortality, breast cancer-specific mortality, and ovarian cancer-specific mortality.

Beyond Li Fraumeni Syndrome: Clinical Characteristics of Families With p53 Germline Mutations

PURPOSE A clinical testing cohort was used to gain a broader understanding of the spectrum of tumors associated with germline p53 mutations to aid clinicians in identifying high-risk families. PATIENTS AND METHODS Full sequencing of the coding exons (2 to 11) and associated splice junctions of the p53 gene was performed on 525 consecutive patients whose blood samples were submitted for diagnostic testing. Clinical features of p53 germline carriers in this cohort were characterized, clinical referral schemes based on reported p53-associated family phenotypes were evaluated, and practical mutation prevalence tables were generated. RESULTS Mutations were identified in 91 (17%) of 525 patients submitted for testing. All families with a p53 mutation had at least one family member with a sarcoma, breast, brain, or adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). Every individual with a choroid plexus tumor (eight of eight) and 14 of 21 individuals with a childhood ACC had a mutation regardless of family history. Based on reported personal and family history, 95% of patients (71 of 75) with a mutation met either classic Li Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) or Chompret criteria. A simplified prevalence table provides a concise summary of individual and family characteristics associated with p53 mutations. CONCLUSION This is, to our knowledge, the largest single report of diagnostic testing for germline p53 mutations, yielding practical mutation prevalence tables and suggesting clinical utility of classic LFS and Chompret criteria for identifying a subset of cancer-prone families with p53 germline mutations, with important implications for diagnosis and management.

Breast-Cancer Risk in Families with Mutations in PALB2

BACKGROUND Germline loss-of-function mutations in PALB2 are known to confer a predisposition to breast cancer. However, the lifetime risk of breast cancer that is conferred by such mutations remains unknown. METHODS We analyzed the risk of breast cancer among 362 members of 154 families who had deleterious truncating, splice, or deletion mutations in PALB2. The age-specific breast-cancer risk for mutation carriers was estimated with the use of a modified segregation-analysis approach that allowed for the effects of PALB2 genotype and residual familial aggregation. RESULTS The risk of breast cancer for female PALB2 mutation carriers, as compared with the general population, was eight to nine times as high among those younger than 40 years of age, six to eight times as high among those 40 to 60 years of age, and five times as high among those older than 60 years of age. The estimated cumulative risk of breast cancer among female mutation carriers was 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 20) by 50 years of age and 35% (95% CI, 26 to 46) by 70 years of age. Breast-cancer risk was also significantly influenced by birth cohort (P<0.001) and by other familial factors (P=0.04). The absolute breast-cancer risk for PALB2 female mutation carriers by 70 years of age ranged from 33% (95% CI, 25 to 44) for those with no family history of breast cancer to 58% (95% CI, 50 to 66) for those with two or more first-degree relatives with breast cancer at 50 years of age. CONCLUSIONS Loss-of-function mutations in PALB2 are an important cause of hereditary breast cancer, with respect both to the frequency of cancer-predisposing mutations and to the risk associated with them. Our data suggest the breast-cancer risk for PALB2 mutation carriers may overlap with that for BRCA2 mutation carriers. (Funded by the European Research Council and others.).

Common Breast Cancer-Predisposition Alleles Are Associated with Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 confer high risks of breast cancer. However, evidence suggests that these risks are modified by other genetic or environmental factors that cluster in families. A recent genome-wide association study has shown that common alleles at single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in FGFR2 (rs2981582), TNRC9 (rs3803662), and MAP3K1 (rs889312) are associated with increased breast cancer risks in the general population. To investigate whether these loci are also associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, we genotyped these SNPs in a sample of 10,358 mutation carriers from 23 studies. The minor alleles of SNP rs2981582 and rs889312 were each associated with increased breast cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers (per-allele hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.20-1.45, p(trend) = 1.7 x 10(-8) and HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.24, p(trend) = 0.02) but not in BRCA1 carriers. rs3803662 was associated with increased breast cancer risk in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (per-allele HR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.06-1.20, p(trend) = 5 x 10(-5) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 combined). These loci appear to interact multiplicatively on breast cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers. The differences in the effects of the FGFR2 and MAP3K1 SNPs between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers point to differences in the biology of BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer tumors and confirm the distinct nature of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Tamoxifen and contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers: an update

Women with a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 face a lifetime risk of breast cancer of ∼80%, and following the first diagnosis the10‐year risk of contralateral breast cancer is ∼30%. It has been shown that both tamoxifen and oophorectomy prevent contralateral breast cancer, but it is not clear whether there is a benefit in giving tamoxifen to women who have previously undergone an oophorectomy. Furthermore, the relative degree of protection in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has not been well evaluated. We studied 285 women with bilateral breast cancer and a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, and 751 control women with unilateral breast cancer and a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a matched case‐control study. Control women were of similar age and had a similar age of diagnosis of breast cancer and had been followed for as long as the case for a second primary breast cancer. The history of tamoxifen use for treating the first breast cancer was compared between bilateral and unilateral cases. The multivariate odds ratio for contralateral breast cancer associated with tamoxifen use was 0.50 for carriers of BRCA1 mutations (95% CI, 0.30–0.85) and was 0.42 for carriers of BRCA2 mutations (95% CI, 0.17–1.02). The protective effect of tamoxifen was not seen among women who had undergone an oophorectomy (OR = 0.83; 95%CI, 0.24–2.89) but this subgroup was small. In contrast, a strong protective effect of tamoxifen was apparent among women who were premenopausal or who had undergone natural menopause (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27–0.65).

ASCO/SSO Review of Current Role of Risk-Reducing Surgery in Common Hereditary Cancer Syndromes

Although the etiology of solid cancers is multifactorial, with environmental and genetic factors playing a variable role, a significant portion of the burden of cancer is accounted for by a heritable component. Increasingly, the heritable component of cancer predispositions has been linked to mutations in specific genes, and clinical interventions have been formulated for mutation carriers within affected families. The primary interventions for mutations carriers for highly penetrant syndromes such as multiple endocrine neoplasias, familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes are primarily surgical. For that reason, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) have undertaken an educational effort within the oncology community. A joint ASCO/SSO Task Force was charged with presenting an educational symposium on the surgical management of hereditary cancer syndromes at the annual ASCO and SSO meetings, resulting in an educational position article on this topic. Both the content of the symposium and the article were developed as a consensus statement by the Task Force, with the intent of summarizing the current standard of care. This article is divided into four sections addressing breast, colorectal, ovarian and endometrial cancers, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. For each, a brief introduction on the genetics and natural history of the disease is provided, followed by a detailed description of modern surgical approaches, including a description of the clinical and genetic indications and timing of prophylactic surgery, and the efficacy of prophylactic surgery when known. Although a number of recent reviews have addressed the role of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, including the richly illustrated Cancer Genetics and Cancer Predisposition Testing curriculum by the ASCO Cancer Genetics Working Group (available through http://www.asco.org), this article focuses on the issues surrounding the why, how, and when of surgical prophylaxis for inherited forms of cancer. This is a complex process, which requires a clear understanding of the natural history of the disease and variance of penetrance, a realistic appreciation of the potential benefit and risk of a risk-reducing procedure in a potentially otherwise healthy individual, the long-term sequelae of such surgical intervention, as well as the individual patient and familys perception of surgical risk and anticipated benefit.

Effect of pregnancy as a risk factor for breast cancer in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers

Early age at first birth and multiparity have been associated with a decrease in the risk of breast cancer in women in the general population. We examined whether this relationship is also present in women at high risk of breast cancer due to the presence of a mutation in either of the 2 breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 or BRCA2. We performed a matched case‐control study of 1,260 pairs of women with known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, recruited from North America, Europe and Israel. Women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer were matched with unaffected control subjects for year of birth, country of residence, and mutation (BRCA1 or BRCA2). Study subjects completed a questionnaire detailing their reproductive histories. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived by conditional logistic regression. Among BRCA1 carriers, parity per se was not associated with the risk of breast cancer (OR for parous vs. nulliparous = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.75–1.19; p = 0.62). However, women with a BRCA1 mutation and 4 or more children had a 38% decrease in breast cancer risk compared to nulliparous women (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.41–0.94). In contrast, among BRCA2 carriers, increasing parity was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer; women with 2 or more children were at approximately 1.5 times the risk of breast cancer as nulliparous women (OR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.01–2.32; p = 0.05). Among women with BRCA2 mutations and who were younger than age 50, the (adjusted) risk of breast cancer increased by 17% with each additional birth (OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.01–1.36; p = 0.03). There was no significant increase in the risk of breast cancer among BRCA2 carriers older than 50 (OR for each additional birth = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.58–1.53; p = 0.92). In the 2‐year period following a birth, the risk of breast cancer in a BRCA2 carrier was increased by 70% compared to nulliparous controls (OR = 1.70; 95% CI = 0.97–3.0). There was a much smaller increase in breast cancer risk among BRCA2 carriers whose last birth was 5 or more years in the past (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 0.79–1.95). A modest reduction in risk of breast cancer was observed among BRCA1 carriers with 4 or more births. Among BRCA2 carriers, increasing parity was associated with a significant increase in the risk of breast cancer before age 50 and this increase was greatest in the 2‐year period following a pregnancy.

Prevalence of BRCA Mutations and Founder Effect in High-Risk Hispanic Families

Approximately 12% of the U.S. population is Hispanic, with the majority residing in urban centers such as Los Angeles. The prevalence of BRCA mutations among high-risk Hispanic families is unknown. Methods: One hundred and ten unrelated probands ofHispanicorigin, with a personal or family history of breast and/orovarian cancer, presented for genetic cancer risk assessment, were enrolled in an Institutional Review Board–approved registry and underwent BRCA testing. Haplotype analyseswere done if BRCA mutations were observed in two or more unrelated probands. Results: Mean age at diagnosis was 37 years (range = 23-59) for the 89 (81%) probands with invasive breast cancer. Overall, 34 (30.9%) had deleterious mutations (25 in BRCA1, 9 in BRCA2), 25 (22.7%) had one or more unclassified variants, and 51 (46.4%) had negative results. The mean pretest mutation probability using the Couch model, Myriad model, and BRCAPro was 19.6% (range = 4-77%). The combined average mutation probability was 32.8% for carriers, 15.5% for noncarriers, and 12.9% for variant carriers (P < 0.0001). The most common deleterious mutation was 185delAG (4 of 34, 11.8%). The Hispanic 185delAG carrier families share the same haplotype from D17s1320 through BRCA1, as do two reference Ashkenazi Jewish families. Haplotype analyses ofadditional recurrent BRCA1 mutations [IVS5+1G>A (n=2),S955X (n = 3), R1443X (n = 3), and 2552delC (n = 2)] also suggest founder effects, with four of six mutations seenalmost exclusively in families with Latin American/Caribbean or Spanish ancestry. Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of high-risk Hispanic families in the United States. Six recurrent mutations accounted for 47% (16 of 34) of the deleterious mutations in this cohort. The BRCA1185delAG mutation wasprevalent (3.6%) in this clinic-based cohort of predominantly Mexican descent, and shared the Ashkenazi Jewishfounder haplotype.

Genetics, Genomics and Cancer Risk Assessment: State of the art and future directions in the era of personalized medicine

Scientific and technologic advances are revolutionizing our approach to genetic cancer risk assessment, cancer screening and prevention, and targeted therapy, fulfilling the promise of personalized medicine. In this monograph, we review the evolution of scientific discovery in cancer genetics and genomics, and describe current approaches, benefits, and barriers to the translation of this information to the practice of preventive medicine. Summaries of known hereditary cancer syndromes and highly penetrant genes are provided and contrasted with recently discovered genomic variants associated with modest increases in cancer risk. We describe the scope of knowledge, tools, and expertise required for the translation of complex genetic and genomic test information into clinical practice. The challenges of genomic counseling include the need for genetics and genomics professional education and multidisciplinary team training, the need for evidence‐based information regarding the clinical utility of testing for genomic variants, the potential dangers posed by premature marketing of first‐generation genomic profiles, and the need for new clinical models to improve access to and responsible communication of complex disease risk information. We conclude that given the experiences and lessons learned in the genetics era, the multidisciplinary model of genetic cancer risk assessment and management will serve as a solid foundation to support the integration of personalized genomic information into the practice of cancer medicine. CA Cancer J Clin 2011.