Back to Authors

Olopade, Olufunmilayo I.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9936-1599

Mayo Clinic

University of Chicago

Citations 44

Remotely Delivered Cancer Genetic Testing in the Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) Trial
Swisher, Elizabeth M. , Rayes, Nadine , Peterson, Christine B. , Norquist, Barbara M. , Coffin, Tara B. , Gavin, Kathleen , Polinsky, Deborah , Crase, Jamie , Blank, Stephanie V. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Law, Sherman , D’Andrea, Alan D. , Lu, Karen H. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Swisher, Elizabeth M , Peterson, Christine , Norquist, Barbara , D'Andrea, Alan , Bowen, Deborah J. , Bakkum‐Gamez, Jamie N. , Munsell, Mark F. , Nebgen, Denise R. , Fleming, Gini F. , Zhou, Alicia Yiran , Levine, Douglas A.

JAMA Oncology | September 14, 2023 | Volume: 9 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 1547

10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.3748 Get It

Importance Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress. Objective To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing. Design, Setting, and Participants Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023. Intervention Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret. Results A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling. Conclusions and Relevance In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068
Polygenic risk score calibration and association with breast cancer in diverse ancestries.
Kucera, Matthew, Hughes, Elisha , Mabey, Brent, Hullinger, Brooke, Gordon, Ora, Klemp, Jennifer R. , Pruthi, Sandhya , Whitworth, Pat W. , Slavin, Thomas P., Gutin, Alexander , Pederson, Holly J. , Pal, Tuya , Domchek, Susan M. , Eng, Charis , Garber, Judy E. , Mukherjee, Semanti , Vijai, Joseph , Kurian, Allison W. , Lanchbury, Jerry S. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | June 4, 2023 | Volume: 41 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: 10505-10505

10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.10505 Get It

10505 Background: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been shown to substantially improve breast cancer (BC) risk prediction when incorporated into traditional risk assessment models. However, PRS developed primarily in women of European ancestry have shown poor performance when applied to non-European populations. We previously described development and validation of a multiple-ancestry PRS (MA-PRS) that is based on individual ancestral genetic composition. MA-PRS has been incorporated into the Tyrer-Cuzick model for use in clinical practice and has been shown to provide independent value to the model. Here, we describe performance of the MA-PRS in a large cohort of women from diverse ancestral backgrounds. Methods: The study cohort included 203,586 patients who were referred for hereditary cancer testing and negative for pathogenic variants in genes associated with BC. MA-PRS was calculated as previously described based on 149 SNPs (93 BC and 56 ancestry-informative). Association of MA-PRS with invasive BC status (affected vs unaffected) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusted for personal and family cancer history, age, and ancestry. Calibration was assessed by examining the MA-PRS distribution within unaffected patients, and through goodness-of-fit tests. All analyses were conducted within the full cohort and within ancestral subpopulations. Odds ratios (ORs) are reported per standard deviation. Results: One-fifth (43,782/203,586, 21.5%) of patients were diagnosed with invasive BC, and 60,657 (29.8%) of patients reported BC in a first degree relative. The MA-PRS distribution was centered around zero among unaffected patients overall and within each subpopulation. MA-PRS significantly improved BC risk prediction over clinical factors in the full cohort (OR = 1.43, 95% CI:1.41-1.44) and within each ancestral subpopulation (Table). The strongest associations were observed in Ashkenazi Jewish (OR = 1.56, 95% CI:1.39-1.76) and South Asian (OR = 1.49,95% CI: 1.23-1.81) populations. The top decile of the MA-PRS consistently identified patients with two-fold increased risk of developing BC. Goodness-of-fit tests showed that the MA-PRS was well calibrated and predicted BC risk accurately in the tails of the distribution for both European and non-European women. Conclusions: The breast cancer MA-PRS based on genetic ancestral composition is well-calibrated and strongly associated with BC in all tested ancestral populations. Incorporation of PRS adds independent information to risk models and supports equitable access to personalized BC risk management. [Table: see text]
Abstract PD14-05: PD14-05 Prospective longitudinal validation of a breast cancer risk prediction model in a cohort of 130,058 women
Mabey, Brent, Hughes, Elisha , Probst, Braden , Simmons, Timothy , Hullinger, Brooke, Gary, Monique, Klemp, Jennifer R. , Offit, Kenneth , Pruthi, Sandhya , Whitworth, Pat, Wagner, Susanne , Slavin, Thomas P. , Gutin, Alexander , Pederson, Holly J. , Morris, Brian, Domchek, Susan M. , Eng, Charis , Mukherjee, Semanti , Vijai, Joseph , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Kurian, Allison W. , Robson, Mark E. , Lanchbury, Jerry S.

Cancer Research | March 2, 2023 | Volume: 83 | Issue: 5_Supplement | Pages: PD14-05-PD14-05

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs22-pd14-05 Get It

Abstract Background: Personalized breast cancer (BC) risk assessment depends on known traditional risk factors, specific germline mutations, and genome-wide polygenic risk scores (PRS). PRS explains a substantial proportion of genetic BC susceptibility. Accuracy of BC risk prediction may be improved by combining a PRS with traditional risk factors. We recently developed and validated a 149-SNP PRS for women of diverse ancestries using ancestry-informative genetic markers and combined this with version 7 of the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model to generate a Combined Risk Score (CRS). Here, we describe a pre-specified prospective longitudinal clinical validation of CRS as a predictor of BC risk. Methods: Women in the U.S. who were referred for clinical genetic testing between January 2017 and February 2019 were matched to medical and hospital claims in an anonymized dataset. Women with a pathogenic mutation in a BC-related gene were excluded from analysis. Follow-up began 4 months after testing and extended to the earliest date of BC diagnosis, censoring at the time of BC preventive treatment, or November 1, 2019. Incident BC events were determined by an ICD10 code of C50.* and confirmed by relevant treatment codes. CRS calibration was evaluated by the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) incident BCs for the full cohort, and for women split into event-based 5-year CRS risk deciles. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate discriminatory accuracy in terms of hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values from likelihood ratio chi-squared statistics. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to examine risk for women split into high- or low-risk groups according to a 3% 5-year CRS risk threshold. Results: 130,058 women with 148,349 total patient years met study eligibility criteria and were matched to claims data. Over a median (range) follow-up of 12.1 (4.0-29.5) months, 340 incident BC events were observed. The CRS was well calibrated in the overall cohort with an O/E ratio of 1.11 (95% CI=0.99-1.23) and within deciles of predicted risk (Table). Importantly, in the highest risk decile, the O/E was 0.91 (95% CI=0.63-1.27) with CRS, but 0.67 (95% CI=0.46-0.94) with TC alone, illustrating the superior calibration of CRS. In a Cox model adjusted for age at testing, PRS had an HR per standard deviation (SD) of 1.48 (95% CI=1.33-1.64, p=2.55×10-13); the HR/SD was 1.43 (95% CI=1.29-1.59, p=1.61×10-11) after adjusting for family history. In a bivariate analysis using both CRS and TC to predict time to BC, CRS added significantly to the model after accounting for TC (HR/SD=2.89, 95% CI=2.12-3.94, p=1.20×10-11), whereas TC did not add significant information after accounting for CRS. 15,986 (12.3%) women were above the CRS high-risk threshold, including 123 with events. A total of 10,248 (7.9%) women were reclassified by the CRS model compared to the TC model. Among women who were classified as high-risk by TC, 32.6% were reclassified as low-risk by CRS; among those classified as low-risk by TC, 4.3% were reclassified as high-risk by CRS. The CRS high-risk group experienced events at over three times the rate of the low-risk group (HR=3.75, 95% CI=3.00-4.68, p=6.39×10-27). Conclusion: The CRS was well-calibrated in predicting BC and significantly improved upon a traditional risk factor model. Clinical use of the CRS may lead to improved BC prevention and screening strategies. Table: Absolute risk calibration by 5-year risk decile Incidence is reported per 1,000 women-years. 34 breast cancers were observed per decile. Citation Format: Brent Mabey, Elisha Hughes, Braden Probst, Holly J. Pederson, Timothy Simmons, Brian Morris, Brooke Hullinger, Susan Domchek, Charis Eng, Monique Gary, Jennifer Klemp, Semanti Mukherjee, Vijai Joseph, Kenneth Offit, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Sandhya Pruthi, Allison W. Kurian, Mark E. Robson, Pat Whitworth, Susanne Wagner, Jerry Lanchbury, Thomas Slavin, Alexander Gutin. PD14-05 Prospective longitudinal validation of a breast cancer risk prediction model in a cohort of 130,058 women [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD14-05.
Abstract P3-09-01: Characterization of residual disease after neoadjuvant selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) therapy using tumor organoids in the I-SPY Endocrine Optimization Protocol (EOP)
Rosenbluth, Jennifer M. , Schwartz, Christopher J. , Bui, Tam Binh V., Warhadpande, Shruti , Phadatare, Pravin, Eini, Sigal, Brück, Michael , Molina-Vega, Julissa, Pullakhandam, Kami, Schindler, Nicole , Swigart, Lamorna A. Brown, Hirst, Gillian L. , Ewing, Cheryl A. , Wong, Jasmine , Alvarado, Michael , Veer, Laura van’t, Chien, Jo, Hirst, Gillian L , Phadatare, Pravin R. , Molina-Vega, Julissa , Yau, Christina , Mukhtar, Rita A. , Giridhar, Karthik V. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Kalinsky, Kevin M. , Esserman, Laura J.

Cancer Research | March 2, 2023 | Volume: 83 | Issue: 5_Supplement | Pages: P3-09-01-P3-09-01

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs22-p3-09-01 Get It

Abstract Background: Treatment of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer with selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) frequently results in the loss or reduction of ER expression. Whether these changes are due to on-target effects of SERDs degrading ER or arise as a mechanism of tumor resistance with associated changes in cellular phenotypes remains unknown. It is critical to distinguish between these possibilities to accurately assess treatment response and determine the most appropriate subsequent therapy. To this end, we created and conducted molecular analyses on patient-derived organoid cultures from post-treatment tissue in patients receiving neoadjuvant SERD therapy for early-stage ER+ breast cancer in the I-SPY2 Endocrine Optimization Protocol (EOP). Methods: The I-SPY2 EOP study is a prospective, randomized substudy within the I-SPY TRIAL testing the oral SERD amcenestrant alone or in combination with letrozole or abemaciclib in stage 2/3 ER+ Her2-negative breast cancer. Enrollment is ongoing, with patients receiving amcenestrant neoadjuvantly for 6 months until the day before surgery. Tumor tissue is collected at baseline, 3 weeks, and at surgery. Organoids were generated from post-treatment surgical samples. Organoid cultures were optimized based on established methods (Dekkers et al., Nature Protocols, 2021) to assess ER levels and activity. Pre- and post-treatment tissue samples were also assessed for ER, PR, Ki67, and GATA3, a luminal marker and transcription factor that is functionally linked with ER, via immunohistochemistry. Results: In 7 patients with both pre- and post-treatment tissue samples including fresh surgical samples for organoid generation, the ER in baseline tumor tissue was >=90% in all patients, PR ranged from 40-90%, and Ki67 ranged from 5-30%. In post-treatment surgical tissue from these cases, ER ranged from 0-30%, PR from 0-50%, Ki67 from < 1%-10%, and GATA3 was positive in 5 of 5 cases tested to-date. The creation of organoids from residual disease at surgery was attempted for these 7 patients, with organoids successfully propagated in 5 cases thus far. 3 of 5 organoid cultures were ready for analysis and in all cases strong ER and PR expression in organoids was observed after culture for > 1 month in the absence of amcenestrant. Detailed gene expression profiling (including Mammaprint/Blueprint) and gene set enrichment analyses (GSEA) to assess for intrinsic breast cancer subtype and ER activity in each sample and corresponding organoid culture are in progress and will be reported with the full dataset. Conclusion: Patient-derived organoid culturing of residual disease after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy is feasible. Neoadjuvant treatment with a SERD can render ER and PR low or absent at the time of surgical resection, which does not necessarily imply the presence of endocrine therapy resistant disease. The use of organoids and additional IHC markers (GATA3) demonstrate that receptor negativity may be an indicator of the drug hitting its target, suggesting ER signaling is still intact. In general, patient-derived tumor organoid cultures modeling residual disease states can be a useful adjunct to existing methods used to monitor the effects of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy and is being explored in the I-SPY EOP trial. Citation Format: Jennifer Rosenbluth, Christopher J. Schwartz, Tam Binh Bui, Shruti Warhadpande, Pravin Phadatare, Sigal Eini, Michael Bruck, Julissa Molina-Vega, Kami Pullakhandam, Nicole Schindler, Lamorna A. Brown Swigart, Christina Yau, Gillian Hirst, Rita Mukhtar, Karthik V. Giridhar, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Kevin Kalinsky, Cheryl A. Ewing, Jasmine M. Wong, Michael D. Alvarado, Laura Van’t Veer, Laura J. Esserman, Jo Chien. Characterization of residual disease after neoadjuvant selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) therapy using tumor organoids in the I-SPY Endocrine Optimization Protocol (EOP) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-09-01.
The risks of cancer in older women with BRCA pathogenic variants: How far have we come?
Metcalfe, Kelly , McCuaig, Jeanna , Eisen, Andrea , Elser, Christine , Senter, Leigha , Møller, Pål , Bordeleau, Louise , Velsher, Lea, Zakalik, Dana , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Cullinane, Carey A., Sun, Ping , Narod, Steven A. , Metcalfe, Kelly A , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Kotsopoulos, Joanne , Narod, Steven A , Senter, Leigha , Eisen, Andrea , Bordeleau, Louise , Gronwald, Jacek , Tung, Nadine , Foulkes, William D. , Neuhausen, Susan L. , Fruscio, Robert , Eng, Charis , Pal, Tuya , Couch, Fergus J. , Kotsopoulos, Joanne , Lubiński, Jan

Cancer | December 26, 2022 | Volume: 129 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 901-907

10.1002/cncr.34615 Get It

AbstractBackgroundThe purpose of this study was to estimate the cumulative risks of all cancers in women from 50 to 75 years of age with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant.MethodsParticipants were women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants from 85 centers in 16 countries. Women were eligible if they had no cancer before the age of 50 years. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and follow‐up questionnaires every 2 years. Women were followed from age 50 until a diagnosis of cancer, death, age 75, or last follow‐up. The risk of all cancers combined from age 50 to 75 was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.ResultsThere were 2211 women included (1470 BRCA1 and 742 BRCA2). There were 379 cancers diagnosed in the cohort between 50 and 75 years. The actuarial risk of any cancer from age 50 to 75 was 49% for BRCA1 and 43% for BRCA2. Breast (n = 186) and ovarian (n = 45) were the most frequent cancers observed. For women who had both risk‐reducing mastectomy and bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy before age 50, the risk of developing any cancer between age 50 and 75 was 9%.ConclusionWomen with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant have a high risk of cancer between the ages of 50 and 75 years and should be counselled appropriately.
Bilateral Oophorectomy and the Risk of Breast Cancer in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers: A Reappraisal
Menkiszak, Janusz , McCuaig, Jeanna , Metcalfe, Kelly , Foulkes, William D. , Sun, Sophie , Karlan, Beth Y. , Eisen, Andrea , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Senter, Leigha , Bordeleau, Louise , Sun, Ping , Narod, Steven A. , Kim, Raymond H. , Menkiszak, Janusz , Foulkes, William D , Karlan, Beth Y , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Couch, Fergus J. , Huzarski, Tomasz , Senter, Leigha , Singer, Christian F , Eng, Charis , Fruscio, Robert , Narod, Steven A , Metcalfe, Kelly A , Eisen, Andrea , Bordeleau, Louise , Kim, Raymond H , Kotsopoulos, Joanne , Lubiński, Jan , Gronwald, Jacek , Neuhausen, Susan L. , Tung, Nadine , Couch, Fergus J. , Huzarski, Tomasz , Singer, Christian F. , Eng, Charis , Fruscio, Robert , Pal, Tuya

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention | April 27, 2022 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 1351-1358

10.1158/1055-9965.epi-21-1196 Get It

Abstract Background: The lack of consensus on whether bilateral oophorectomy impacts risk of developing breast cancer among BRCA1 mutation carriers might be attributed to various biases, specifically, cancer-induced testing bias due to inclusion of prevalent cases. We conducted two complementary matched case–control analyses to evaluate the association of oophorectomy and BRCA1 breast cancer. Methods: A research questionnaire was administered every two years to collect information on exposures and disease. In the first analysis, we limited the study to prevalent breast cancer cases (diagnosed prior to study entry; n = 2,962) who were matched to controls on year of birth and country of residence (n = 4,358). In the second approach, we limited to 330 incident cases (diagnosed in the follow-up period) and 1,548 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of invasive breast cancer. Results: In the first approach, there was a significant inverse association between oophorectomy and the risk of developing breast cancer [OR = 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34–0.55; P < 00001]. In the second approach, there was no association between oophorectomy and risk (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 0.87–1.70; P = 0.26). Conclusions: The inclusion of women with a personal history of breast cancer prior to ascertainment likely impacts upon the association of oophorectomy and BRCA1 breast cancer risk. Impact: Oophorectomy is unlikely a determinant of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers but should be offered at age 35 to reduce the risk of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer.
Abstract GS4-02: Analysis of clinical outcomes and expression-based immune signatures by race in the I-SPY 2 trial
Kyalwazi, Beverly , Olopade, Olufunmilayo, Chien, A. Jo , Forero‐Torres, Andres , Ellis, Erin M. , Albain, Kathy S. , Haley, Barbara , Elias, A. , Clark, Amy S. , Nanda, Rita , Yung, Rachel L. , Edmiston, Kristen K., Viscusi, Rebecca K., Northfelt, Donald W. , Khan, Qamar J. , Sanil, Ashish, Asare, Smita , Wilson, Amy , Hirst, Gillian L. , Melisko, Michelle , Perlmutter, Jane , Rugo, Hope, Symmans, Fraser, Veer, Laura van ‘t , Berry, Donald A. , Hirst, Gillian L , Yau, Christina , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Wallace, Anne M. , Pusztai, Lajos , Ellis, Erin, Blaes, Anne , Boughey, Judy C. , Isaacs, Claudine , Han, Hyo S , Tripathy, Debu , Berry, Scott , Hylton, Nola M. , Symmans, W. Fraser , Veer, Laura J. van’t , Esserman, Laura J.

Cancer Research | March 8, 2022 | Volume: 82 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: GS4-02-GS4-02

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-gs4-02 Get It

Abstract Background Transcriptomic immune-related gene signatures have been associated with achievement of pathologic complete response (pCR) and prognosis in the neoadjuvant setting. I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 platform trial using response-adaptive randomization within subtypes defined by receptor status (HR/HER2) and MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk breast cancer. Given racial disparities in mortality from breast cancer and the paucity of racial demographic data from clinical trials, we aimed to evaluate the association between racial groups and baseline characteristics, including expression-based subtypes and immune signatures, treatment response, and prognosis of patients enrolled in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Methods Our study population included 990 I-SPY 2 patients. 15 patients identified as part of a racial group with <10 patients enrolled in the trial and were excluded from analysis. Pre-treatment expression data was available for 971 patients. Follow-up data was available for 907 patients; median follow-up time of 4.4 yrs. Chi-square test was used to assess associations between racial groups and pre-treatment SBR grade, HR/HER2 defined subtypes, intrinsic subtype (defined by BluePrint 80-gene molecular subtyping) and residual cancer burden (RCB) class. Logistic regression was used to evaluate race association with pCR. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to assess the association between racial groups and event free survival (EFS) in a univariate setting, adjusting for pCR status. Association between racial groups and 28 expression signatures related to immune, proliferation, ER and HER2 pathway was analyzed using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test in the overall population and in each receptor subtype. Results Of 975 patients included in our analysis, 787 (81%) were White, 68 (7%) were Asian, and 120 (12%) were Black or African American. No significant associations between race and pre-treatment SBR grade (p=0.49), HR/HER2 defined subtypes (p=0.09), or expression-based subtypes (p=0.25) were observed. pCR rates do not significantly differ by racial groups (Odds ratio of pCR relative to White: 1.00 for Asian and 0.89 for Black or African American); and no significant differences in RCB class distribution by race was observed (p=0.88). Event free survival was not associated with patient racial group in a univariate Cox model (Hazard ratio relative to White: 1.10, p=0.73 for Asian and 1.37, p=0.13 for Black or African American). Among the 28 expression signatures evaluated, four were differentially expressed among racial groups within the overall population (F-test p<0.05): IFN module, B cell signature, Dendritic cell signature, and Mitotic score. Pairwise comparisons between racial groups with post-hoc Tukey test identified significant differences in IFN module expression between Black or African American vs. White (p=0.019) and Dendritic cell signature expression between Asian vs White (p=0.047). Among patients in the TNBC subtype, three signatures (dendritic cell signature, macrophage signature and ERBB2 module) were differentially expressed between Black or African American and White patients (p=0.002, 0.016 and 0.007). Conclusion Our analysis demonstrates that among women with high risk breast cancer, race does not affect subtype specific response rates nor event free survival. Distribution of subtypes previously shown to be associated with pCR in the I-SPY2 trial did not significantly differ among racial groups indicating race is less likely than tumor biology to predict response. The decreased expression of immune signatures observed in Black or African American women with TNBC suggests possible differential sensitivity to immunotherapy plus combination chemotherapy. Tumor immune multiplex studies are underway to further investigate. Citation Format: Beverly Kyalwazi, Christina Yau, Olufunmilayo Olopade, A. Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Andres Forero-Torres, Lajos Pusztai, Erin Ellis, Kathy Albain, Anne Blaes, Barbara Haley, Judy Boughey, Anthony Elias, Amy Clark, Claudine Isaacs, Rita Nanda, Hyo Han, Rachel Yung, Debu Tripathy, Kristen Edmiston, Rebecca Viscusi, Donald Northfelt, Qamar Khan, Ashish Sanil, Scott Berry, Smita Asare, Amy Wilson, Gillian Hirst, Nola Hylton, Michelle Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope Rugo, Fraser Symmans, Laura van ‘t Veer, Donald Berry, Laura Esserman. Analysis of clinical outcomes and expression-based immune signatures by race in the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-02.
Abstract OT1-10-02: I-SPY2 endocrine optimization protocol (EOP): A pilot neoadjuvant endocrine therapy study with amcenestrant as monotherapy or in combination with abemacicilib or letrozole in molecularly selected HR+/HER2- clinical stage 2/3 breast canc
Chien, A. Jo , Molina-Vega, Julissa, Asare, Smita , Hirst, Gillian L. , Lu, Ruixiao , Jones, Ella F. , Hylton, Nola, Veer, Laura van ‘t , Mayer, Ingrid, Hirst, Gillian L , Kalinsky, Kevin M. , Molina-Vega, Julissa , Mukhtar, Rita A. , Giridhar, Karthik V. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Basu, Amrita B , Henderson, Paul, Swigart, Lamorna Brown , Veer, Laura J. van’t , Yee, Douglas , Esserman, Laura J.

Cancer Research | March 8, 2022 | Volume: 82 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: OT1-10-02-OT1-10-02

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-ot1-10-02 Get It

Abstract Background: There is no clinical equipoise on the best upfront management of patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) that is high-risk by clinicopathologic criteria, and low-risk based on molecular profiling. These patients are unlikely to respond to chemotherapy. However, these patients still have risk, often risk of late recurrence, despite standard adjuvant endocrine therapy. Novel endocrine-based strategies that are more effective and tolerable than current standard therapies are needed for this population. Next-generation orally-bioavailable selective estrogen receptor degraders (oSERDs) with improved pharmacokinetic (PK) properties are promising potential therapies for HR+ BC. The oSERD amcenestrant has demonstrated a favorable safety profile and encouraging efficacy in a phase I/II dose escalation and expansion trial for heavily pre-treated patients with HR+ metastatic BC and is an attractive agent for assessment in the neoadjuvant BC setting. The neoadjuvant setting offers a unique opportunity to study novel agents and to assess early biological endpoints. However, one of the challenges in studying endocrine-based strategies in the neoadjuvant setting is the lack of a robust surrogate endpoint to reliably predict response and benefit. The I-SPY2 Endocrine Optimization Protocol (EOP) is a pilot sub-study within the main I-SPY2 TRIAL that will test amcenestrant alone or in combination with abemaciclib or letrozole. EOP will test the feasibility of using the I-SPY2 platform to test novel endocrine-based strategies in the neoadjuvant setting in patients with clinical high-risk, molecular low-risk, HR+/HER2- tumors, and will generate a rich database of imaging, molecular, and pathologic correlative endpoints that may potentially inform the improved assessment of response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Trial Design/Eligibility/Accrual: The I-SPY2 EOP is a prospective, randomized, open-label trial specifically for patients with HR+/HER2-negative MammaPrint (MP) low-risk tumors that are at least 2.5 cm in size. Eligible patients are identified during the screening process for the parent I-SPY2 trial. The planned total accrual for the EOP is 120 patients. Patients are randomized 1:1:1 to one of 3 oral treatment arms: 1) amcenestrant 200 mg daily; 2) amcenestrant 200 mg daily + abemaciclib 150 mg bid; 3) amcenestrant 200 mg daily + letrozole 2.5 mg daily. Patients are treated for 6 months prior to surgery. Premenopausal women must receive concomitant monthly ovarian suppression. Serial breast MRIs, breast biopsies, blood, and patient reported outcomes (PROs) are being collected, and patients will be followed for 10 years for recurrence and survival. Serial dedicated breast PET (dbPET) scans and PKs will be assessed in a subset of patients. Objectives/Statistics: The primary objective of the EOP is to investigate the feasibility of enrolling and treating molecularly-selected patients with early stage HR+/HER2- MP low-risk BC in a randomized neoadjuvant trial using an oral-SERD backbone. Treatment will be determined to be feasible if ≥75% of enrolled patients complete ≥75% of assigned study therapy. Secondary objectives include the safety, tolerability, PROs, and PKs related to amcenestrant +/- abemacilcib and letrozole, as well as the assessment of imaging, pathologic, and molecular correlative endpoints as potential biomarkers of response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Status: This study opened in May 2021. Accrual is ongoing. Citation Format: A. Jo Chien, Kevin M Kalinsky, Julissa Molina-Vega, Rita Mukhtar, Karthik Giridhar, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Amrita Basu, Smita M Asare, Paul Henderson, Gillian Hirst, Ruixiao Lu, Ella Jones, Nola Hylton, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Laura J van 't Veer, Douglas Yee, Ingrid Mayer, Laura J Esserman. I-SPY2 endocrine optimization protocol (EOP): A pilot neoadjuvant endocrine therapy study with amcenestrant as monotherapy or in combination with abemacicilib or letrozole in molecularly selected HR+/HER2- clinical stage 2/3 breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-10-02.
Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for MaleBRCA1andBRCA2Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores
Barnes, Daniel R. , Silvestri, Valentina , Leslie, Goska , McGuffog, Lesley, Yang, Xin , Adlard, Julian , Agnarsson, Bjarni A. , Ahmed, Munaza, Aittomäki, Kristiina, Andrulis, Irene L. , Arason, Aðalgeir , Azzollini, Jacopo , Barkardóttir, Rósa B. , Barrowdale, Daniel , Belotti, Muriel, Berthet, Pascaline, Boonen, Susanne E. , Borg, Åke , Brady, Angela F., Brewer, Carole, Brunet, Joan , Bucalo, Agostino, Caldés, Trinidad , Cassingham, Hayley , Christensen, Lise Lotte , Cini, Giulia , Claes, Kathleen , Collaborators, GEMO Study, Collaborators, EMBRACE, Cortesi, Laura , Damante, Giuseppe , Darder, Esther , Davidson, Rosemarie, Leeneer, Kim De , Putter, Robin De , Valle, Jesús Del , Ding, Yuan Chun , Donaldson, Alan , Eason, Jacqueline , Eeles, Rosalind A. , Engel, Christoph , Evans, D. Gareth , Feliubadaló, Lídia , Frone, Megan N. , Frost, Debra, Gehrig, Andrea, Giraud, Sophie , Glendon, Gord , Goldgar, David E. , Greene, Mark H. , Gregory, Helen , Groß, Eva, Hahnen, Eric, Hamann, Ute, Hansen, Thomas van Overeem , Hanson, Helen , Horváth, Judit , Investigators, KConFab, Investigators, HEBON, Izatt, Louise , James, Paul A. , Janavičius, Ramūnas , Jensen, Uffe Birk , Johannsson, Oskar T., John, Esther M. , Kramer, Gero , Kroeldrup, Lone , Kruse, Torben A. , Lautrup, Charlotte Kvist , López‐Fernández, Adrià , Mai, Phuong L, Manoukian, Siranoush , Mátrai, Zoltán , Matricardi, Laura , Mebirouk, Noura, Meindl, Alfons , Montagna, Marco , Monteiro, Álvaro N.A. , Morrison, Patrick J. , Muranen, Taru , Nathanson, Katherine L. , Niederacher, Dieter , Oláh, Edith , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Pedersen, Inge Søkilde , Peissel, Bernard , Peterlongo, Paolo , Petersen, Annabeth Høgh , Pinto, Pedro, Porteous, Mary, Pottinger, Caroline , Pujana, Miquel Angel, Ramser, Juliane, Rantala, Johanna, Rogers, Mark T., Rønlund, Karina, Abajo, A.M. SÁnchez De, Shah, Payal D. , Sharif, Saba , Side, Lucy, Stadler, Zsofia, Steele, Linda , Sutter, Christian , Tan, Yen Y. , Teixeira, Manuel R. , Teulé, Àlex , Thull, Darcy L. , Trainer, Alison H., Tripathi, Vishakha , Valentini, Virginia , Viel, Alessandra , Walker, Lisa, Wang‐Gohrke, Shan , Wappenschmidt, Barbara , Whaite, Anna , Offit, Kenneth, Thomassen, Mads , Schmutzler, Rita K., Simard, Jacques , Easton, Douglas F. , Chenevix‐Trench, Georgia , Antoniou, Antonis C. , Pujana, Miguel Ángel , Dennis, Joe , Yang, Xin , Adlard, Julian , Agnarsson, Bjarni A , Andrulis, Irene L , Arason, Adalgeir , Arnold, Norbert , Auber, Bernd , Azzollini, Jacopo , Barkardottir, Rosa B , Barrowdale, Daniel , Benitez, Javier , Boonen, Susanne E , Bozsik, Aniko , Brennan, Paul , Brunet, Joan , Bucalo, Agostino , Caligo, Maria A , Campbell, Ian G , Cassingham, Hayley , Cini, Giulia , Claes, Kathleen B M , Coppa, Anna , Cortesi, Laura , Darder, Esther , de la Hoya, Miguel , de Putter, Robin , Del Valle, Jesús , Domchek, Susan M , Donaldson, Alan , Eason, Jacqueline , Engel, Christoph , Fostira, Florentia , Frone, Megan , Glendon, Gord , Godwin, Andrew K. , Greene, Mark H , Hahnen, Eric , Hanson, Helen , Izatt, Louise , Izquierdo, Angel , James, Paul , John, Esther M , Kroeldrup, Lone , Kruse, Torben A , Lazaro, Conxi , Lesueur, Fabienne , Matrai, Zoltan , Montagna, Marco , Monteiro, Alvaro N , Morrison, Patrick J , Muranen, Taru A , Nathanson, Katherine L , Neuhausen, Susan L. , Nevanlinna, H , Nguyen-Dumont, Tu , Niederacher, Dieter , Palli, Domenico , Parsons, Michael T , Perez-Segura, Pedro , Peterlongo, Paolo , Pinto, Pedro , Pottinger, Caroline , Radice, Paolo , Robson, Mark , Rump, Andreas , Sharif, Saba , Steele, Linda , Stoppa-Lyonnet, Dominique , Teixeira, Manuel R , Thull, Darcy L , Tischkowitz, Marc D. , Toland, Amanda Ewart , Tommasi, Stefania , Toss, Angela , Tripathi, Vishakha , Valentini, Virginia , van Asperen, Christi J , Venturelli, Marta , Viel, Alessandra , Joseph, Vijai , Whaite, Anna , Simard, Jacques , Easton, Doug , Chenevix-Trench, Georgia , Ottini, Laura , Barnes, Daniel R , Leslie, Goska , Pujana, Miquel Angel , Eeles, Rosalind A , Evans, D Gareth , Matricardi, Laura , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Silvestri, Valentina , De Leeneer, Kim , Feliubadaló, Lidia , Hansen, Thomas van Overeem , Manoukian, Siranoush , Arnold, Norbert , Auber, Bernd , Balmañà, Judith , Barwell, Julian , Benı́tez, Javier , Bozsik, Anikó , Brady, Angela F., Buys, Saundra S. , Caligo, Maria A. , Campbell, Ian , Collaborators, GEMO Study, Collaborators, EMBRACE, Cook, Jackie A , Hoya, Miguel de la , Dı́ez, Orland , Domchek, Susan M. , Gallagher, David James , Hentschel, Julia , Investigators, KConFab, Investigators, HEBON, Izquierdo, Á. , Lázaro, Conxi , Lesueur, Fabienne , Mai, Phuong L, Maxwell, Kara N. , Meindl, Alfons , Nevanlinna, Heli , Nguyen‐Dumont, Tú , Palli, Domenico , Parsons, Michael T. , Radice, Paolo , Robson, Mark E. , Rump, Andreas , Singer, Christian F. , Stoppa‐Lyonnet, Dominique , Asperen, Christi J. van , Vijai, Joseph , Zanna, Ines , Couch, Fergus J. , Ottini, Laura

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | July 26, 2021 | Volume: 114 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 109-122

10.1093/jnci/djab147 Get It

AbstractBackgroundRecent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.Methods483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)–negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk.ResultsPRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions.ConclusionsPopulation-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management.
Association of Event-Free and Distant Recurrence–Free Survival With Individual-Level Pathologic Complete Response in Neoadjuvant Treatment of Stages 2 and 3 Breast Cancer
Yee, Douglas , Symmans, W. Fraser , Albain, Kathy S. , Chen, Yunn-Yi, Krings, Gregor , Wei, Shi , Harada, Shuko , Datnow, Brian, Fadare, Oluwole , Klein, Molly, Chen, Beiyun, Adamson, Kathi, Sams, Sharon B. , Mhawech‐Fauceglia, Paulette , Magliocco, Anthony M., Feldman, Mike, Rendi, Mara H. , Sattar, Husain, Zeck, Jay , Ocal, Idris Tolgay, Tawfik, Ossama , LeBeau, Lauren, Sahoo, Sunati , Vinh, Tuyethoa N., Chien, A. Jo , Forero‐Torres, Andres , Stringer-Reasor, Erica , Ellis, Erin D. , Lu, Janice , Lang, Julie E. , Clark, Amy S. , Nanda, Rita , Northfelt, Donald W. , Khan, Qamar J. , Viscusi, Rebecca K., Euhus, David , Edmiston, Kirsten K., Kemmer, Kathleen, Park, John W., Liu, Minetta C. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Leyland‐Jones, Brian , Tripathy, Debasish , Moulder, Stacy L. , Schwab, Richard B. , Lo, Shelly S. , Beckwith, Heather , Haugen, Patricia, Veer, Laura J. van’t , Perlmutter, Jane , Melisko, Michelle , Wilson, Amy , Peterson, Garry , Buxton, Meredith , Paoloni, Melissa, Clennell, Julia L. , Hirst, Gillian L. , Singhrao, Ruby , Steeg, Katherine, Matthews, Jeffrey B. , Asare, Smita , Sanil, Ashish, Esserman, Laura J. , Berry, Donald A. , Tripathy, Debu , Ocal, Idris T, Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Symmans, W Fraser , Esserman, Laura J , Hirst, Gillian L , Yee, Douglas , DeMichele, Angela , Yau, Christina , Isaacs, Claudine , Chen, Yunn‐Yi , Krings, Gregor, Pambuccian, Stefan E. , Wallace, Anne M. , Pusztai, Lajos , Boughey, Judy C. , Elias, Anthony , Han, Hyo S , Chui, Stephen Y., Rugo, Hope S. , Helsten, Teresa L. , Hylton, Nola M. , Asare, Adam L. , Matthews, Jeffrey B., Berry, Scott

JAMA Oncology | July 23, 2020 | Volume: 6 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 1355

10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2535 Get It