Slettedahl, Seth

5624 Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic cancer and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is the predominant presenting symptom. While <10% of AUB represents underlying EC, endometrial sampling is currently required to rule out EC. To develop an alternative, non-invasive rule-out strategy, we aimed to refine a previously reported EC-associated methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel in vaginal swabs. Methods: Patients ≥18 years old with AUB who met ACOG recommendations for endometrial sampling and those undergoing a hysterectomy for biopsy-proven EC or atypical hyperplasia (AH) were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter cohort study. A vaginal fluid specimen was collected via swab by a provider during a speculum exam. DNA was extracted from samples and bisulfite treated, followed by a target and signal amplification method to detect 8 previously identified MDMs. The cross-validated EC classification model used the mean of standardized MDMs. Clinical classification of benign endometrium (BE), EC, and AH was based on central pathology review. EC diagnoses were based on hysterectomy specimens. Endometrioid and mucinous constituted type 1 EC; serous, carcinosarcoma, clear cell, and mixed histology ECs were collectively analyzed as type 2. Results: Of 693 participants enrolled, 670 were evaluable with valid results: 524 in the AUB cohort and 146 in the suspected EC cohort. Within the AUB cohort, 16 had EC or AH. The final analysis cohort included 508 BE, 156 EC, and 6 AH. Of the evaluable participants 20% identified as Black, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 75% White, and 3% Other; 7% reported Hispanic ethnicity. Median age was 66 and 50 years for EC and BE AUB, respectively; 80% of those with EC and 43% with benign AUB reported being postmenopausal. Among participants with EC, 102 (65%), 17 (11%), 30 (19%), 6 (4%) were stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively; one EC was unstaged. Type 2 EC accounted for 42 (27%) of all EC cases. A 4-MDM panel yielded an AUC of 0.97 (0.96-0.99, 95% CI) for EC; models with 5-8 MDMs gave identical performance. All-stage EC sensitivity was 97, 97, 96, 95, and 92% at specificities ranging from 75, 80, 85, 90, and 95%, respectively. At the 85% (82-88%) specificity threshold, sensitivities across EC stage, type, and age were consistently high (Table). Sensitivity for AH was 33% (10-70%). Conclusions: An MDM panel demonstrated high sensitivity for EC across stage and EC type, supporting the potential for a non-invasive vaginal swab-based test to rule out EC. Future studies are necessary to finalize the panel and algorithm, prior to validating the test. Clinical trial information: NCT06294886 . EC Sensitivity (%, 95% CI) at 85% Specificity All Stages (n=156)* 96 (92-98) Stage I (n=102) 94 (88 - 97) II (n=17) 100 (82 - 100) III (n=30) 100 (89 - 100) IV (n=6) 100 (61 - 100) Type 1 (n=114) 95 (89 - 98) 2 (n=42) 100 (92 -100) Age ≤ 66 yrs (n=86) 95 (89 - 98) > 66 (n=70) 97 (90 - 99) *n=1 EC was un-staged.

Purpose Recent advances in DNA sequencing have led to the development of breast cancer susceptibility gene panels for germline genetic testing of patients. We assessed the frequency of mutations in 17 predisposition genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer to determine the utility of germline genetic testing for those with TNBC. Patients and Methods Patients with TNBC (N = 1,824) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer were recruited through 12 studies, and germline DNA was sequenced to identify mutations. Results Deleterious mutations were identified in 14.6% of all patients. Of these, 11.2% had mutations in the BRCA1 (8.5%) and BRCA2 (2.7%) genes. Deleterious mutations in 15 other predisposition genes were detected in 3.7% of patients, with the majority observed in genes involved in homologous recombination, including PALB2 (1.2%) and BARD1, RAD51D, RAD51C, and BRIP1 (0.3% to 0.5%). Patients with TNBC with mutations were diagnosed at an earlier age (P < .001) and had higher-grade tumors (P = .01) than those without mutations. Conclusion Deleterious mutations in predisposition genes are present at high frequency in patients with TNBC unselected for family history of cancer. Mutation prevalence estimates suggest that patients with TNBC, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer, should be considered for germline genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Although mutations in other predisposition genes are observed among patients with TNBC, better cancer risk estimates are needed before these mutations are used for clinical risk assessment in relatives.