Brachtel, Elena F.

Abstract Purpose: Young age at breast cancer diagnosis correlates with unfavorable clinicopathologic features and worse outcomes compared with older women. Understanding biological differences between breast tumors in young versus older women may lead to better therapeutic approaches for younger patients. Experimental Design: We identified 100 patients ≤35 years old at nonmetastatic breast cancer diagnosis who participated in the prospective Young Women's Breast Cancer Study cohort. Tumors were assigned a surrogate intrinsic subtype based on receptor status and grade. Whole-exome sequencing of tumor and germline samples was performed. Genomic alterations were compared with older women (≥45 years old) in The Cancer Genome Atlas, according to intrinsic subtype. Results: Ninety-three tumors from 92 patients were successfully sequenced. Median age was 32.5 years; 52.7% of tumors were hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative, 28.0% HER2-positive, and 16.1% triple-negative. Comparison of young to older women (median age 61 years) with luminal A tumors (N = 28 young women) revealed three significant differences: PIK3CA alterations were more common in older patients, whereas GATA3 and ARID1A alterations were more common in young patients. No significant genomic differences were found comparing age groups in other intrinsic subtypes. Twenty-two patients (23.9%) in the Young Women's Study cohort carried a pathogenic germline variant, most commonly (13 patients, 14.1%) in BRCA1/2. Conclusions: Somatic alterations in three genes (PIK3CA, GATA3, and ARID1A) occur at different frequencies in young versus older women with luminal A breast cancer. Additional investigation of these genes and associated pathways could delineate biological susceptibilities and improve treatment options for young patients with breast cancer. See related commentary by Yehia and Eng, p. 2209

Abstract Background: Breast cancer arising in young women is more likely to have higher risk features than in older women and more likely to be associated with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We previously reported a higher distribution of luminal B-like tumors among young women. Here we present the clinical and pathologic features of invasive disease in a large prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer, and associations between surrogate molecular subtype and BRCA 1/2 mutation status. Methods: Among 1,297 young women (aged ≤40 years) with breast cancer enrolled from 2006-2016, tumor histopathological features were examined by central review, and biomarker status was extracted from pathology reports. Based on histologic grade and biomarker expression, invasive tumors were categorized as luminal A-like (LA=ER/PR+ and HER2-, histologic grade 1 or 2), luminal B-like (LB=ER/PR+ and HER2+, or ER/PR+, HER2-, and grade 3), HER2 enriched (E) (ER/PR- and HER2+) or triple negative (TN=ER-, PR- and HER2-). Tumor stage, clinical characteristics, and BRCA status were retrieved by medical record review (and patient survey for BRCA status if not in medical record). Results: The majority of women presented with early stage invasive disease (8% stage 0, 32% stage 1, 40% stage 2, 15% stage 3; 5% stage 4). Among invasive tumors with evaluable molecular phenotype (n=1,136), 57% were high grade and the distribution of subtypes was: 33% LA, 42% LB, 8% HER2E, and 16% TN (Table 1). Among different age groups (≤ 30, 31-35, and 36-40 years), there were no significant differences in molecular phenotype, tumor stage, tumor grade or histopathological features including presence of tumor necrosis, lymphocytic infiltration, and central fibrotic focus. 96% of women were tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations, and 127 (11%) tested positive: 65% were BRCA1+, and 35% were BRCA2+ (table 2). Among BRCA1+ patients, 2% of cancers were LA, 30% LB, 5% HER2E, and 62% TN; among BRCA2+, 29% were LA, 56% LB, 2% HER2E, and 13% TN. These proportions were relatively consistent across age groups. BRCA1+ patients’ tumors were proportionately more TN and BRCA2+ patients’ tumors more likely to be LB/HER2 negative (p<0.0001), irrespective of age category. Conclusion: In a large cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤40, there was no association between age group (≤ 30, 31-35, vs. 36-40 years) and tumor stage, grade, or tumor molecular phenotype among women with invasive disease. As in older women, tumor molecular phenotype does vary by BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation status, which has implications for prevention and treatment. Table 1. Subtype by age groupTotal (n=1136)≤30 yrs (n=144)31-35 yrs (n=314)36-40 yrs (n=678)p=0.42Luminal A-like377 (33%)48 (33%)99 (32%)230 (34%)Luminal B-like477 (42%)59 (41%)137 (44%)281 (41%)• ER/PR+, HER2-, grade 3245 (22%)27 (19%)68 (22%)150 (22%)• ER/PR+, HER2+232 (20%)32 (22%)69 (22%)131 (19%)HER2E95 (8%)13 (9%)34 (11%)48 (7%)Triple Negative187 (16%)24 (17%)44 (14%)119 (18%) Table 2. Subtype by BRCA statusTotal(n=1136)BRCA1+(n=82)BRCA2+(n=45)No mutation/not tested(n=1009)p<0.0001Luminal A-like377 (33%)2 (2%)13 (29%)362 (36%)Luminal B-like477 (42%)25 (30%)25 (56%)427 (42%)• ER/PR+, HER2-, grade 3245 (22%)21 (26%)18 (40%)206 (20%)• ER/PR+, HER2+232 (20%)4 (5%)7 (16%)221 (22%)HER2E95 (8%)4 (5%)1 (2%)90 (9%)Triple Negative187 (16%)51 (62%)6 (13%)130 (13%) Citation Format: Yaileen D Guzman-Arocho, Shoshana M. Rosenberg, Philip Poorvu, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Greg Kirkner, Craig Snow, Rulla M. Tamimi, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Lidia Schapira, Virginia F. Borges, Steven E. Come, Elena F. Brachtel, Ellen Warner, Ann H. Partridge, Laura C. Collins. Clinicopathological features and BRCA 1/2 status in a large prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-07-02.

10588 Background: Accurate tumor classification is increasingly critical to individualized care as patient outcomes improve with use of targeted cancer therapies and predictive biomarkers. In metastatic cancers of uncertain or unknown origin, identification of a primary site remains equivocal in a significant number of cases. Gene expression signatures may improve accuracy and specificity of tumor classification, however, large-scale, blinded validation studies that demonstrate stable performance in metastatic and poorly differentiated cases are currently lacking. Methods: Seven hundred and ninety cases (51% female, 44% metastatic, 63% grade 2 and 3, 14% limited tissue specimens) representing 28 tumor types and 50 subtypes were processed and adjudicated between Mayo Clinic, UCLA and Massachusetts General Hospital. Blinded FFPE tumor sections were submitted and tested using a 92-gene RT-PCR assay (CancerTYPE ID, bioTheranostics Inc.). Molecular predictions were evaluated for concordance with the reference diagnosis; diagnostic accuracy between clinical subsets was compared. Results: The 92-gene assay demonstrated overall sensitivities of 87% for tumor classification and 82% for subtyping. Forty-seven (5.9%) cases were considered unclassifiable. Comparative analysis of performance between metastatic (n=329) and primary (n=414) tumors showed no statistically significant difference in accuracy (85% vs 88%, p=0.16). Similarly, no significant decreases in performance were observed across histological grades (p=0.58) and when comparing limited tissue to excisional biopsy specimens (p=0.16). Strong precision was demonstrated for accurate identification of a primary tumor in tissues biopsied from common metastatic sites, reported as positive predictive values of 100% for lung, brain and peritoneum, 92% for ovary and 80% for liver. Conclusions: Results from this multisite, blinded study validate the diagnostic accuracy of the 92-gene assay for classifying a diverse set of tumors, and support its clinical utility in the diagnosis of metastatic tumors to determine tissue of origin, and in the differential diagnosis of metastatic vs new primary disease.

Abstract Background. The increase in breast cancer risk during pregnancy and postpartum is well known; however, the molecular phenotype of breast cancers occurring shortly after pregnancy has not been well studied. Given this, we investigated whether nulliparity and the time interval since pregnancy among parous women affects the breast cancer phenotype in young women. Materials and Methods. We examined molecular phenotype in relation to time since pregnancy in a prospective cohort of 707 young women (aged ≤40 years) with breast cancer. Parity was ascertained from study questionnaires. Using tumor histologic grade on central review and biomarker expression, cancers were categorized as luminal A- or B-like, HER2 enriched, and triple negative. Results. Overall, 32% were luminal A-like, 41% were luminal B-like, 9% were HER2 enriched, and 18% were triple negative. Although, numerically, patients diagnosed >5 years after pregnancy had more luminal A-like subtypes than women with shorter intervals since pregnancy, there was no evidence of a relationship between these intervals and molecular subtypes once family history of breast cancer and age at diagnosis were considered. Conclusion. Distribution of breast cancer molecular phenotype did not differ significantly among young women by parity or time interval since parturition when important predictors of tumor phenotype such as age and family history were considered. Implications for Practice: Distribution of breast cancer molecular phenotype did not differ among parous young women by time interval since pregnancy. The implication of these findings for clinical practice suggests that pregnancy-associated breast cancers may be seen up to 5 years beyond parturition.

Abstract Purpose: Accurate tumor classification is essential for cancer management as patient outcomes improve with use of site- and subtype-specific therapies. Current clinicopathologic evaluation is varied in approach, yet standardized diagnoses are critical for determining therapy. While gene expression–based cancer classifiers may potentially meet this need, imperative to determining their application to patient care is validation in rigorously designed studies. Here, we examined the performance of a 92-gene molecular classifier in a large multi-institution cohort. Experimental Design: Case selection incorporated specimens from more than 50 subtypes, including a range of tumor grades, metastatic and primary tumors, and limited tissue samples. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumors passed pathologist-adjudicated review between three institutions. Tumor classification using a 92-gene quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay was conducted on blinded tumor sections from 790 cases and compared with adjudicated diagnoses. Results: The 92-gene assay showed overall sensitivities of 87% for tumor type [95% confidence interval (CI), 84–89] and 82% for subtype (95% CI, 79–85). Analyses of metastatic tumors, high-grade tumors, or cases with limited tissue showed no decrease in comparative performance (P = 0.16, 0.58, and 0.16). High specificity (96%–100%) was showed for ruling in a primary tumor in organs commonly harboring metastases. The assay incorrectly excluded the adjudicated diagnosis in 5% of cases. Conclusions: The 92-gene assay showed strong performance for accurate molecular classification of a diverse set of tumor histologies. Results support potential use of the assay as a standardized molecular adjunct to routine clinicopathologic evaluation for tumor classification and primary site diagnosis. Clin Cancer Res; 18(14); 3952–60. ©2012 AACR.